# "Militia" takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters



## Soca (Jan 3, 2016)

> The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
> 
> The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers ? militia and local citizens both ? paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
> 
> ...





Surprised this ain't being live casted on every station yet


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 3, 2016)

this is gonna be a good test case for how all the law & order blowhards  - who were 100% behind the militarised police action on black unrest - react when it's white people doing it, and doing it in a way more severe fashion than smashing up a CVS

also for how the government reacts


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jan 3, 2016)

They gotta be taken out. Lives will be lost, but that's just how it is.


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2016)

Fucking losers.

I can't stand people who refuse to recognize the government in the land they live in.


----------



## very bored (Jan 3, 2016)

> Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.



That area sometimes gets wildfires.  I hope this shit ends before these people get someone killed.


----------



## Soca (Jan 3, 2016)

So Oregon got terrorist up in their shit and these cats report on this


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jan 3, 2016)

So were they taken down and/or arrested?


----------



## Soca (Jan 3, 2016)

They're still in there. They said they're willing to kill and be killed if anyone tries to forcefully remove them.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jan 3, 2016)

Then get the real National Guard and be done with it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 3, 2016)

Lucaniel said:


> this is gonna be a good test case for how all the law & order blowhards  - who were 100% behind the militarised police action on black unrest - react when it's white people doing it, and doing it in a way more severe fashion than smashing up a CVS
> 
> also for how the government reacts



SJWs make so much shit up I'm skeptical this even happened 

With these stories my first reaction is always "cool, what actually happened".

Also it's a good way to test the people who cry about a black lady being pushed over are calling for the liquidation of the kulaks cis whites


----------



## Soca (Jan 3, 2016)

Ay I dunno much about Oregon but do they pack as much heat as Ferguson for these current terrorist situations?


----------



## stream (Jan 3, 2016)

> *Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Refuge in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a fucking joke.

In a way, it wouldn't be very different from an occupy Wall Street protest… it's just that they are armed, and hinting that they will use them against the police.


----------



## stream (Jan 3, 2016)

That said, the original dispute is somewhat interesting. It seems that the Hammonds lit fires on their ranch in illegal ways, for controlling bush growth and other semi disputable reasons. The fires spread to federal lands, and so they got sent in jail for arson.

Now, there is a federally-mandated minimum sentence of five years for starting such forest fires. This was originally set to fight terrorism and malicious arson. The judge who set the sentences ignored that minimum sentence, stating it shouldn't apply to people acting without malice. Problem is, the judge wasn't allowed to do that, and now they should be tried again and sent to jail again to complete their minimum sentence.

So sometimes the law feels too strict and people receive sentences that feel disproportionate. Not the first time it happens. Sexting and child porn laws come to mind.

But now those Bundy guys are literally up in arms over ranchers being oppressed by the Feds. Nobody asked them anything, even the guys going to jail. It would be funny, if there wasn't a real possibility of people getting killed over this.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 3, 2016)

Megaharrison said:


> SJWs make so much shit up I'm skeptical this even happened
> 
> With these stories my first reaction is always "cool, what actually happened".
> 
> Also it's a good way to test the people who cry about a black lady being pushed over are calling for the liquidation of the kulaks cis whites



and we have our first

- "this isn't real"
- "if you're anti-police brutality you're a communist and you want to kill all white people"


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jan 3, 2016)

Annnnndddddd the lowest common denominator are coming out to support these bastards on Facebook with their stupidity.


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2016)

Marcelle.B said:


> Ay I dunno much about Oregon but do they pack as much heat as Ferguson for these current terrorist situations?



How are they terrorists though by standard definition?

I despise these people but terrorists they aren't.


----------



## Soca (Jan 3, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]Ckv-JSw-UBg[/YOUTUBE]


what the fuck



Mael said:


> How are they terrorists though by standard definition?
> 
> I despise these people but terrorists they aren't.



They've taken over a federal building and made demands to change federal laws in protest to one of their own being "unfairly prosecuted" and if anyone tries to forcefully remove them from said building they're willing to kill. How is any of that not terrorist activity?


----------



## OutlawJohn (Jan 3, 2016)

These same people did something similar in Nevada and essentially won.


----------



## stream (Jan 3, 2016)

Marcelle.B said:


> They've taken over a federal building and made demands to change federal laws in protest to one of their own being "unfairly prosecuted" and if anyone tries to forcefully remove them from said building they're willing to kill. How is any of that not terrorist activity?


The way I see it, terrorism consists in random attacks of innocents in order to spread fear in a target group.

Killing a random Fed and warning of more to come unless demands are met is terrorism. Occupying a federal building and saying "come get us" is stupid, but it's not terrorism. I'd call that violent activism, I guess.

That said, the people who are "unfairly prosecuted" are not really "of their own", and probably don't really enjoy being associated in the news with this bunch of idiots. If anything, they must be desperate to make clear they are not the type to pull this kind of stunt.


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 3, 2016)

Mael said:


> Fucking losers.
> 
> I can't stand people who refuse to recognize the government in the land they live in.



Yes you do. You're just selective about it.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

So I'm watching all the neo-liberal frustrated, pent up jizz from the Bernardino shootings sperging all over the internet for this, and it's real funny.

Here's the thing though, they're occupying a rundown shack in the middle of the forest, not looting their local FBI headquarters

Just so people have perspective


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jan 3, 2016)

Can I get a "Whoa Bundy!"?


----------



## Island (Jan 3, 2016)

Mael said:


> How are they terrorists though by standard definition?
> 
> I despise these people but terrorists they aren't.


People who use violence or the threat of violence for political means, in this case, taking over some government facility and threatening violent action unless some stupid thing is overturned.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

Island said:


> People who use violence or the threat of violence for political means, in this case, taking over some government facility and threatening violent action unless some stupid thing is overturned.



that's not terrorism


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> So I'm watching all the neo-liberal frustrated, pent up jizz from the Bernardino shootings sperging all over the internet for this, and it's real funny.
> 
> Here's the thing though, they're occupying a rundown shack in the middle of the forest, not looting their local FBI headquarters
> 
> Just so people have perspective



Do you see anyone here pretending like they are? The fact of the matter is what they are on is federal land and they've threatened violence in response to the completely justified action of their attempted removal.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Do you see anyone here pretending like they are?



Not here, no, nor did I imply I had.

But I have seen it all over the web, and social dynamics being traversal on different webcosmos, I felt like it was a relevant contribution for future discussion



> The fact of the matter is what they are on is federal land and they've threatened violence in response to the completely justified action of their attempted removal.



"Justified"

As in

"Depending on your judgment"


I personally actually think so, that it is justified to remove them, but I see where the line is blurry, should one be on the other side of it.

There are disputable grievances of federal power and over reach, and this is exactly the sort of thing some people would see the second amendment being there for


----------



## B Rabbit (Jan 3, 2016)

Stupidest thing I've ever heard honestly.


----------



## Island (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> that's not terrorism


Yes it is.





> Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; *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



You take over a government building with the goal of making the government concede something to you. By definition, that's terrorism.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

> (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population



Not the case



> (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion



Not the case



> (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping



Certainly not the case



> You take over a government building with the goal of making the government concede something to you. By definition, that's terrorism.



Arguable.


Also:

"Government Building"


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> Not here, no, nor did I imply I had.
> 
> But I have seen it all over the web, and social dynamics being traversal on different webcosmos, I felt like it was a relevant contribution for future discussion
> 
> ...



No, as in, the federal government is within its legal rights to forcibly remove them as they are unlawfully occupying federal land under threat of violence. 

What a joke that is. The 2nd Amendment is completely pointless for such a purpose. A civilian revolt would be massacred against the modern military.


----------



## Island (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> Not the case


They took over a government building because they didn't like some federal ruling. That is an attempt to coerce or intimidate government policy.



Banhammer said:


> Arguable.


What's arguable about the definition? If you use force or the threat of force to influence public opinion or government policy, you are committing terrorism. Do you have a better definition than the FBI?



Banhammer said:


> "Government Building"


Is the building owned by the government? Then it's a government building. It could be an empty field; that doesn't change the definition.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, as in, the federal government is within its legal rights to forcibly remove them as they are unlawfully occupying federal land



That is somewhat true.



> under threat of violence.



That is highly debatable


> What a joke that is. The 2nd Amendment is completely pointless for such a purpose. A civilian revolt would be massacred against the modern military.



Which is a splendid argument some proponents would use as to why gun rights should be expanded


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> That is somewhat true.
> 
> That is highly debatable



They've explicitly stated that any attempt to remove them they will use violence to respond in kind.



> Which is a splendid argument some proponents would use as to why gun rights should be expanded



An argument which would have no basis. The truth of the matter is, a civilian militia is a delusional pipe dream. Many weapons they have no civilian could possibly own, and would end any militia in a heartbeat.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

Island said:


> They took over a government building because they didn't like some federal ruling. That is an attempt to coerce or intimidate government policy.



A public space.

Occupy did this. BLM did this. Terrorists, they are not.



> What's arguable about the definition? If you use force or the threat of force to influence public opinion or government policy, you are committing terrorism. Do you have a better definition than the FBI?



The use of force to defend their occupation of a public space against the goverment force that would oppose  them... is arguable

Especially considering the vaccuum of any other parties involved in this affair




> Is the building owned by the government ? Then it's a government building. It could be an empty field; that doesn't change the definition.



Not the letter of the definition, no, but "Government executes protest occupying empty federal dirt lot" is a much different issue than "Army eliminates terrorist cell in the pentagon"

One is something an idiot would call for, the other one is someone doing their job.


Not that the ingredients for terrorism aren't there, I'll grant you that. Just not the recipe.


----------



## Island (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> A public space.
> 
> Occupy did this. BLM did this. Terrorists, they are not.


These guys have guns and threatened to use them. If Occupy or BLM said they were going to use weapons, they would be terrorists.



Banhammer said:


> The use of force to defend their occupation of a public space against the goverment force that would oppose  them... is arguable


Public space is only "public" because it's government-owned. If you are on government space without the government's permission, then you are trespassing. If you are on that space and trying to threaten the government, you are committing terrorism.

The place doesn't matter; violence or the threat of violence for political purposes is the only thing that's necessary for something to be terrorism.



Banhammer said:


> Especially considering the vaccuum of any other parties involved in this affair


How is this relevant?



Banhammer said:


> Not the letter of the definition, no, but "Government executes protest occupying empty federal dirt lot" is a much different issue than "Army eliminates terrorist cell in the pentagon"


>Protest
>Threatens to shoot people who try to stop them

Pick one.

You are no longer protesting if you're using violence. That's the difference between protesting and terrorism.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> A public space.
> 
> Occupy did this. BLM did this. Terrorists, they are not.



Cannot be compared.

1) They are illegally occupying a Federal Government building, which as far as I know, neither BLM or Occupy has officially done.

2) Neither Occupy nor BLM carried rifles and threatened to kill anyone trying to remove them from their illegally held building.


----------



## stream (Jan 3, 2016)

To be pedantic, the definition for "domestic terrorism" in your link is actually slightly different from what you wrote, in that the acts must be dangerous to human life, and not just violent. You quoted the text for "international terrorism" which must also occur primarily outside of the US, and is therefore not of concern here 

There's been no real violence yet... Though they did not exclude it, it's true. If they do kill or attempt to kill during an attack on a Federal building, in an attempt to influence the conduct of the government, that fits the definition of terrorism used by the US government. If they had taken hostages, it would almost certainly be considered terrorism.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> They've explicitly stated that any attempt to remove them they will use violence to respond in kind.



Yes.

This might came as a shock to you, but

You live in America

This is not a bug. It's a feature




> An argument which would have no basis.



You just provided the basis



> The truth of the matter is, a civilian militia is a delusional pipe dream. Many weapons they have no civilian could possibly own, and would end any militia in a heartbeat.



Ah. I see where the discrepancy between your perspective, and the goings on of american day to day lives.

But your wrong. There are examples where it is the presence of civilian force that could stand itself over goverment over reach, it's just that it happened at level at which that ammounce of force relative to the stakes was relevant

Which once again, only attacks the logic of your reasoning. Your very own words betray a need for expand gun rights, in which that discrepancy is lesser


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

stream said:


> There's been no real violence yet... Though they did not exclude it, it's true. If they do kill or attempt to kill during an attack on a Federal building, in an attempt to influence the conduct of the government, that fits the definition of terrorism used by the US government. If they had taken hostages, it would almost certainly be considered terrorism.



Neither of these things happened

Like I said, the ingredients are certainly there, and I may certainly change my mind, but if we had to wait weeks for the San Bernardino sperg to be called terrorists, we can afford 24 hours


----------



## stream (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> Yes.
> This might came as a shock to you, but
> 
> You live in America
> ...


The fact that the second amendment exists in order to protect the population from a dictatorship does not mean that violent resistance to the government is legal.

The only thing that makes their action not terrorist yet, is the fact they didn't actually endanger the life of anybody. Yet.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

OutlawJohn said:


> Cannot be compared.
> 
> 1) They are illegally occupying a Federal Government building, which as far as I know, neither BLM or Occupy has officially done.
> 
> 2) Neither Occupy nor BLM carried rifles and threatened to kill anyone trying to remove them from their illegally held building.



Ok mate, here's how logic works


If you're going to argue that two examples can't be compared, you need to point out inherent differences between them that make them exclusive, not simply things that are actually not relevant, or just in scale on an issue of principle

It's like saying

"Cannot be compared

1) BLM had nice shoes and sun glasses

2) Neither BLM nor Occupy protested during January"


At the very least you need to cite relevance, or else you'll just get a shrug

It might be obvious to you, but the way you wrote it, it really isn't.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

stream said:


> The fact that the second amendment exists in order to protect the population from a dictatorship does not mean that violent resistance to the government is legal.



I'm sorry, but while correct in a wide array of cases, most cases in fact, what you said is not an absolute. 

As from what I understand that it stands in Oregon right now, it still exists in that blurr


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> Yes.
> 
> This might came as a shock to you, but
> 
> ...



That's a dumb thing to say...The 2nd Amendment does not justify this kind of action.



> You just provided the basis



Not really. A refusal to follow the law in and of itself because you don't like what it rends is not valid reason to form a civilian militia against the government. You've effectively come within a hair of committing treason in which case. 



> Ah. I see where the discrepancy between your perspective, and the goings on of american day to day lives.
> 
> But your wrong. There are examples where it is the presence of civilian force that could stand itself over goverment over reach, it's just that it happened at level at which that ammounce of force relative to the stakes was relevant



Not here. Any kind of civilian resistance is again, a delusion. Such groups that consider themselves are delusional and only exist because they are not considered nearly the force they think themselves to be. There are many ways to kill a militia with weapons that no civilian would ever have access to. This is not the 18th-19th century.



> Which once again, only attacks the logic of your reasoning. Your very own words betray a need for expand gun rights, in which that discrepancy is lesser



The purpose of the national military is to defend its people, so no, not really. For the purpose of national defense we have something called the national guard. A civilian militia is absolutely pointless, and would more often than not be counterproductive. A related reason why we don't actually use the draft anymore.



Banhammer said:


> Ok mate, here's how logic works
> 
> 
> If you're going to argue that two examples can't be compared, you need to point out inherent differences between them that make them exclusive, not simply things that are actually not relevant, or just in scale on an issue of principle
> ...



He just made it obvious, it was the threats of violence against any federal authority that would attempt to remove them, it is the armed resistance. You being obtuse isn't his problem.


----------



## stream (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> I'm sorry, but while correct in a wide array of cases, most cases in fact, what you said is not an absolute.


Hm. I'd be interested to learn of any situation whatsoever where a judge declared that using violence to resist the government was legal as per the second amendment.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> Ok mate, here's how logic works
> 
> 
> If you're going to argue that two examples can't be compared, you need to point out inherent differences between them that make them exclusive, not simply things that are actually not relevant, or just in scale on an issue of principle
> ...



Everything you said here is asinine.

You tried to compare the tactics of this militia groups to the tactics of Occupy or BLM. That's a stupid comparison, why? Because neither BLM or Occupy have forcefully, and illegally, occupied federal government property. Because neither BLM or Occupy have threatened to kill people stopping them from doing illegal activity.


----------



## Island (Jan 3, 2016)

stream said:


> To be pedantic, the definition for "domestic terrorism" in your link is actually slightly different from what you wrote, in that the acts must be dangerous to human life, and not just violent. You quoted the text for "international terrorism" which must also occur primarily outside of the US, and is therefore not of concern here


Look at it again.

The definitions provided are (almost) identical except the third bullet in which international terrorism occurs outside of the United States while domestic terrorism occurs inside.

Also, I would consider threatening to kill somebody "dangerous to human life".


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 3, 2016)

By threatening violence against any removal which would be justified has put them squarely into criminal territory where federal authorities would be justified in responding to with deadly force if the group dared to open fire in response to any attempts of removal. It does not provide a basis for a civilian militia because they entire idea of such is defense of civilians and their rights, be that against an external threat or an oppressive government. This is not a case of government oppression or infringing on citizens' rights. This is not a case of external threats. This is a case of a group simply not liking a ruling that was made through the legal process. Basically upset that they are not getting their way, despite all their rights being intact. 

That stated, the legal system is an imperfect system, yet it's because of that we have the proper venues to protest rulings we may consider unjustified or unfavorable. They have chosen only a route that would end in their deaths or arrest in contrast. You have the right to protest. Peacefully. This is not peaceful, they are armed and have again, threatened violence to any attempt to remove them.

Furthermore, this could not at all be used to justify expansion of 2nd Amendment rights. It's completely irrelevant. This playing devil's advocate is stupid because there is no defensible position to take in regard to these individuals. All it boils down to are excuses, and stretching, even breaking, concepts of 2nd Amendment rights in a poor attempt to justify their misdeeds.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 3, 2016)

damn rofl

am i seeing this equated to unarmed public protests in here 

you've outdone yourselves, retards


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's a dumb thing to say...The 2nd Amendment does not justify this kind of action.



This kids, is what we call in debate "a statement" 

People think it's an argument.

It's not




> Not really. A refusal to follow the law in and of itself because you don't like what it rends is not valid reason to form a civilian militia against the government. You've effectively come within a hair of committing treason in which case.



This kids, is a straw man 

A institutionalized militia is a response to institutionalized tyranny. 

The second amendment does allow for shades in between. It's one of the checks and balances that ought to be kept in mind for *every* decision. Not just the "Oh, every tyrannous decision I've made up to now was okay, but *now* that I've chosen to become the king of americans, now it's okay to resist me"

But you can't acknowledge the clear nuances in the original argument, because then you couldn't "Activate Buzzword: Treason"


> Not here. Any kind of civilian resistance is again, a delusion. Such groups that consider themselves are delusional and only exist because they are not considered nearly the force they think themselves to be. There are many ways to kill a militia with weapons that no civilian would ever have access to. This is not the 18th-19th century.



This kids, is a twofer. An Ad Nauseum and a Futility Falacy 

We already established that the average firepower available to the american citizen by the second amendment isn't on peer with their government's military.

Seto has to repeat it over and over because if it sounds like an agreed truism is on his side, then his own implied analysis has relevance.

His analysis is the futility fallacy.

Because the fight is uneven, that justifies for one side's imperialism to be completely unfettered, rather than justify for the other to be fortified, which is actually much closer to the founding father design. 




> The purpose of the national military is to defend its people, so no, not really. For the purpose of national defense we have something called the national guard. A civilian militia is absolutely pointless, and would more often than not be counterproductive. A related reason why we don't actually use the draft anymore.



This kids, sounds like a red herring.

Bringing this nonsense about there being the arm of strength to the government in a discussion about the checks and balances of the government's strength!

How silly, and apparently distracting!

But it's not. It's a whole argument. Seto's first!!

However, it's a bad one. 

Seto implies these forces are there with civilian liberty being their intended purpose.

Thus, while it takes it a while to get there, and he hopes you'll get too distracted by all the shiny nonsense in the front, this bit here where it actually connects to the argument is really the only bit you have to address to understand why his long windiness doesn't apply

Because

The purpose of the national military is to defend national interests.

The reason why we don't use the draft, is because the return on the labor inserted onto the american military once industrial progress hit its stride, and the conflict demand hit a certain ratio, drafting became counter productive to national interests.

These forces might consider civil liberty the foremost of their national interest, but motivation is not a constant

Thus, the Second Amendment is born! And why Seto is wrong, and you're safe to discard and disregard his whole other shtick with why / how / when other military principles are applied.

Good on him for trying though.



> He just made it obvious, it was the threats of violence against any federal authority that would attempt to remove them, it is the armed resistance. You being obtuse isn't his problem.



This kids, is flamebating. 

It's there because when Seto really doesn't have the arguments he wishes he had, instead tricky and fancy fallacies and half statements, he relies on having others run out of patience with him and rise to this bait, so then he can use "Activate: Appeal to Authority" on a mod.

Learn your kung fu kids. You never know when you may need it to protect yourselves from online imperialism.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

OutlawJohn said:


> Everything you said here is asinine.
> 
> You tried to compare the tactics of this militia groups to the tactics of Occupy or BLM. That's a stupid comparison, why? Because neither BLM or Occupy have forcefully, and illegally, occupied federal government property. Because neither BLM or Occupy have threatened to kill people stopping them from doing illegal activity.



Yes they have

It's why they were constantly getting cleared by the police 


Mind you, I never said authority wasn't justified in removing them by force as well, should it come it to. Just that I see both sides of it


Typical internet cartoons just seem to have implied otherwise


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> A institutionalized militia is a response to institutionalized tyranny.



No such case here.



> The second amendment does allow for shades in between. It's one of the checks and balances that ought to be kept in mind for *every* decision. Not just the "Oh, every tyrannous decision I've made up to now was okay, but *now* that I've chosen to become the king of americans, now it's okay to resist me"



Pointless in that regard as again, no amount of firepower that civilians can possess could stand up to the modern military. It's simply a delusion of grandeur in thinking such a feat is possible. Once again, most weapons that would wipe any militia out no civilian could possibly own. Not even with the 2nd Amendment in mind in the loosest sense. 



> But you can't acknowledge the clear nuances in the original argument, because then you couldn't "Activate Buzzword: Treason"



I don't consider this treason. Not yet at least. 



> We already established that the average firepower available to the american citizen by the second amendment isn't on peer with their government's military.



And it never will be. 



> Because the fight is uneven, that justifies for one side's imperialism to be completely unfettered, rather than justify for the other to be fortified, which is actually much closer to the founding father design.



There is no obligation by the state government to provide equal access to cache of weapons available exclusively to the military. Because of the point of a state's military is to defend its citizens from threats, mainly external. The national guard specifically to handle domestic matters if it comes to that, and going down that line, federal law enforcement, state law enforcement, and local law enforcement. A citizen does not have the right to resist with violence in attempts to subdue them in the event they commit unlawful acts. Especially those built upon threats of violence when no rights are being infringed upon.



> Because
> 
> The purpose of the national military is to defend national interests.
> 
> The reason why we don't use the draft, is because the return on the labor inserted onto the american military once industrial progress hit its stride, and the conflict demand hit a certain ratio, drafting became counter productive to national interests.



And the task of disciplining the deluge of unvetted civilians...



> These forces might consider civil liberty the foremost of their national interest, but motivation is not a constant
> 
> Thus, the Second Amendment is born! And why Seto is wrong, and you're safe to discard and disregard his whole other shtick with why / how / when other military principles are applied.



A civilian militia would never be properly equipped or train to combat against a military whose motivations changed to restriction of individual civil liberties. That concept is antiquated with modern warfare. The 2nd Amendment is only relevant now in regard to personal defense against specific, personal threats.

I think you've run out of any real argument to make here. It is ironic that for all your complaints half of your response had nothing to do with the matter, and your complaints of my abuse of fallacies and ad hominem your post was more of that than the topic at hand.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 3, 2016)

Hypothetical:

If John Doe walked into a bank during it's normal operating hours, with an AK-47 strapped to his back.  Told the teller "I would like you to give me all the money in the vault.  I don't want to use violence but if you attempt to remove me before I have the money I will defend myself.  If someone starts shooting it will be the government, and they will be killing over mere money."

Who thinks John Doe committed a crime?  Who thinks that banks can legally give money to whomever they wish and he was just exercising his 2nd amendment rights in a building that was open to the public while making a peaceful if unusual request of them?


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

That is a very interesting question

The example is a bit cartoony and so I imagine the answer would be something apeer with it


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> That is a very interesting question
> 
> The example is a bit cartoony and so I imagine the answer would be something apeer with it



It's coercion...


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> TL;DR
> 
> Seto says the government is too powerful so the powerless shouldn't empower themselves
> 
> ...




Good luck with that philosophy Seto. May it serve you well in all paths of life.



You can't see it, but I'm patting you in the head now.

Metaphorically speaking.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> That is a very interesting question
> 
> The example is a bit cartoony and so I imagine the answer would be something apeer with it



To be fair it's a bit cartoony to drive to another state and occupy a random federally owned building in order to protest the arrest of an arsonist too.

So you'll excuse me if the hypothetical seems to be reaching a bit.

Personally I think that the average person would take the suggestion "I'm not going to leave until I get my demands met" as a threat, doubly so if the person making the statement is armed and has a reputation of having tense standoffs with police forces.  

If you have an expensive enough lawyer maybe you'd get off though.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> Good luck with that philosophy Seto. May it serve you well in all paths of life.
> 
> You can't see it, but I'm patting you in the head now.
> 
> Metaphorically speaking.



More like, any idea of empowerment among a civilian militia would be an easily shattered illusion.  These types can lie to themselves thinking they would last and even more ridiculously, triumph, against a modern day military. Without any other state military intervening, and in the case of the U.S., multiple ones, They have no chance. This is simply the truth.

The poor trolling act is poor compensation for, and does little to hide, your lack of argument here.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> To be fair it's a bit cartoony to drive to another state and occupy a random federally owned building in order to protest the arrest of an arsonist too.



It's not the way I see the story told

Way I I'm told, a guy got convicted for terrorism after serving the one year sentence for the crime he's getting convicted of terrorism for, and the "terrorism" act, is a run away bushfire he set on his own property of which he not only announced the authorities he was going to do, but also put out himself once shit happened.

That's fucked up


*Spoiler*: __ 



Not only that, there's some added intrigue with the fact that apparently the government has been after his family lands for a few years now, of which he had refused to sell. But that I won't comment on that, other than to say the way goverment corruption and american incarceration works, it wouldn't surprise me






> So you'll excuse me if the hypothetical seems to be reaching a bit.



You know I love you, bae


> Personally I think that the average person would take the suggestion "I'm not going to leave until I get my demands met" as a threat, doubly so if the person making the statement is armed and has a reputation of having tense standoffs with police forces.
> 
> If you have an expensive enough lawyer maybe you'd get off though.



You might even get off shooting that person. 

It's a complicated scenarion 



Seto Kaiba said:


> More like, any idea of empowerment among a civilian militia would be an easily shattered illusion.  These types can lie to themselves thinking they would last and even more ridiculously, triumph, against a modern day military. Without any other state military intervening, and in the case of the U.S., multiple ones, They have no chance. This is simply the truth.



Ad nauseum, refusal to engage.

Solution: disregard and enjoy the argumentative victory 


> The poor trolling act is poor compensation for, and does little to hide your lack of argument here.



Projection, baiting, trolling,

Solution:  disregard and enjoy the moral high ground


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 3, 2016)

i remember when banhammer was sane and could be considered a person


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 3, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> It's not the way I see the story told
> 
> Way I I'm told, a guy got convicted for terrorism after serving the one year sentence for the crime he's getting convicted of terrorism for, and the "terrorism" act, is a run away bushfire he set on his own property of which he not only announced the authorities he was going to do, but also put out himself once shit happened.
> 
> ...



They have a habit of setting fires that get out of control.


> In 1999, Dwight Hammond got a stern letter from the local manager for  the federal land bureau saying that Steve Hammond had set a fire that  spread to bureau ground. The letter said Steve told officials in a  subsequent meeting that he "did not believe there was any way to control  fire behavior or where it would burn, and that he did not take any  action to prevent the fire from burning."
> 
> 
> ...
> ...


(All from )


If you set fires that cause $1 million in damages.


The "terrorism" part comes up because an anti-terrorism bill prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence (5 years) (I would guess because the arson caused damage on federal land but I can't be arsed to read the law to see the specifics).  They were not charged with terrorism.


From  link:


> The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal  property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in  the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area.   Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the  arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party  illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...




If you have a habit of starting fires that get out of control and burn down other people's property you're an arsonist.


If you seize a government building and use threats of violence in order to coerce the government to let arsonists out of jail you're a terrorist.



Also good overview link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...he-oregon-militia-standoff-explained-20160103


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 3, 2016)

Hmm 

As new facts come in, I do concede the possibility of changing my mind in the future




EvilMoogle said:


> Also good overview link:
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...he-oregon-militia-standoff-explained-20160103



But they sure as fuck won't come from Rolling Stone, not for the next few years at least


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 3, 2016)

I think Eobard thawne traveled back in time to kill the flash, but got stuck here, and realized the only way to get back to his own time was with the flash's help, so he killed Banhammer and took his place.

But on topic.Every single one of those men are going to jail at the very least. This isnt a lock in at school. This is unlawful entry into a government building and illegal carry of a weapon on goverment property at the very least.


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2016)

It's closer to guerrilla than terrorist.  They're not deliberately attacking non-governmental civilians.



Son of Goku said:


> Yes you do. You're just selective about it.



Elaborate, ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 3, 2016)

Mael said:


> Elaborate, ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).



If you hate ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) so much, maybe you should move to moscow or tehran. 

No need to elaborate, it's obvious that your statement

_"I can't stand people who refuse to recognize the government in the land they live in."_

doesn't apply to all people and all governments.


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2016)

Son of Goku said:


> If you hate ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) so much, maybe you should move to moscow or tehran.
> 
> No need to elaborate, it's obvious that your statement
> 
> ...



Can you cite me a good example here?  People can be critical but recognize the government.  Shit even the Dalai Lama acknowledges the CCP.

Considering you are Tehran's bootlick, I'm shocked you haven't moved there yet.  You're pretty silent about their treatment of homosexuals.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 3, 2016)

Mael said:


> It's closer to guerrilla than terrorist.  They're not deliberately attacking non-governmental civilians.







> "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
> 
> 
> Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
> ...




At the moment it's pretty fuzzy on the "dangerous to human life" bit, but if they escalate to where an armed response happens they'll get there pretty quick (which would also meet the benchmark for the federal charge of terrorism).


----------



## Rukia (Jan 3, 2016)

I'm not a big fan of the government.  They are incredibly hypocritical in my opinion.  Why do they steal money out of social security to pay for government programs?  That is our money.  That is not tax revenue.  It is not available for any reason.  That is a crime that goes unpunished.  So I find it remarkable that they can do something with far reaching effects like that, but at the same time throw a couple of guys into prison for setting a couple of fires on their property.


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2016)

Once it escalates to violence will I consider it terrorism.  Until then, not now.



Rukia said:


> I'm not a big fan of the government.  They are incredibly hypocritical in my opinion.  Why do they steal money out of social security to pay for government programs?  That is our money.  That is not tax revenue.  It is not available for any reason.  That is a crime that goes unpunished.  So I find it remarkable that they can do something with far reaching effects like that, but at the same time throw a couple of guys into prison for setting a couple of fires on their property.



Please eat a dick.  It caused a wildfire.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 3, 2016)

Branch Dravidian reloaded?


----------



## RAGING BONER (Jan 3, 2016)

unless someone died in that wildfire they don't deserve prison they should be made to pay restitution and a fine on top.

Prison is for fucking murderers...or at least it should be.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jan 3, 2016)

prison is for people that commit crimes


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jan 3, 2016)

Is this even anything yet


----------



## stream (Jan 4, 2016)

To be fair, most articles I've found about the guys who caused a wildfire did state that the five years minimum sentence seemed a bit harsh. So much in fact that the first judge attempted to ignore it, until a higher court decided they must be sentenced again. Sometimes the law feels too strict.

And of course, they didn't ask for anybody to occupy federal buildings in their name.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 4, 2016)

Let us put down this band of rebels


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

makeoutparadise said:


> Let us put down this band of rebels



Nah, that would make them martyrs.

Inform them that they are criminally trespassing and that anyone that leaves now will get the slap-on-the-wrist from that.

Then cut power, water, and gas to the building and wait.  Throw the book at them once they get starved out.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jan 4, 2016)

The progressive mobs calling for blood like a bunch of Orks is pretty funny. There hasn't been any violence yet, fortunately.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 4, 2016)

if only they were black

mega would be jerking off to footage of them getting perforated by the miniguns on blackhawks


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2016)

Megaharrison said:


> The progressive mobs calling for blood like a bunch of Orks is pretty funny. There hasn't been any violence yet, fortunately.



Where are they calling for blood?

Mega, you gotta show some good evidence here and not from anyone on NF.  Twitter doesn't count as social media is just an outlet for retards.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 4, 2016)

You know it would be nice for the staff to get rid of Mega just so people could ignore him...


----------



## Hitt (Jan 4, 2016)

Yeah Mega needs to step down.  He no longer has shown any real interest (or capability) to do his job at any capacity.


----------



## Punk Zebra (Jan 4, 2016)

This so happens right when Obama is about to announce gun control measures. Is this a coincident or conspiracy? Quite frankly.....I don't know.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 4, 2016)

he's gonna take all our guns and then the blacks will take over.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 4, 2016)

The only thing I have a problem with is that they, the Emmons?, done went to jail and was released. And now they are going to send them back...bullshit.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 4, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> he's gonna take all our guns and then the blacks will take over.



Yea keep dreaming. They can't quit killing each other much less rise up to take the country...shut they couldn't even take their own freedom.


Not to mention that Mexicans are knocking blacks further down the tree.


@Moogle.  Y a because People don't understand how a siege work. We've only been doing them for the entirety of human history. 

The only way this is resolved is to say ruck the preserve and just leave them be. They will eventually tire and go home...or we use violence which won't set well with other militias and may spur them to increase provocative antics toward the government..  Then also with the siege u have the chance of other militias coming to their air.. There. Are militias made for the se purpose of fighting the government.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

IchLiebe said:


> @Moogle.  Y a because People don't understand how a siege work. We've only been doing them for the entirety of human history.
> 
> The only way this is resolved is to say ruck the preserve and just leave them be. They will eventually tire and go home...or we use violence which won't set well with other militias and may spur them to increase provocative antics toward the government..  Then also with the siege u have the chance of other militias coming to their air.. There. Are militias made for the se purpose of fighting the government.



Or they eventually tire and get arrested when they leave.  Which will discourage future acts like this.

As to other militias coming to their aid, it's really a non-issue.  It goes two ways, neither of which change anything.

1) The other militias show up at the blockade and provide moral support for the militia currently inside.  This will probably help with morale but you can't eat morale so it doesn't do much.  Eventually the militia inside gets hungry, thirsty, or tired of toilets that don't flush and gives up.

2) The other militias show up and use violence to break through the blockade to "rescue" their trapped compatriots.  The government then defends itself from the hostile terrorists that have started shooting at federal agents.  Really this is no different than the militia that's there deciding to shoot their way out (well, other than number of bodies).

Obviously 1 is preferable to 2 for most people.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 4, 2016)

The more news comes in, the more these protests feel like well meaning idiots.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jan 4, 2016)

IchLiebe said:


> The only thing I have a problem with is that they, the Emmons?, done went to jail and was released. And now they are going to send them back...bullshit.


Their sentence wasn't long enough under Federal Law, which is why they have to go back. Three months and one year for both of them was too short considering the law, hence why they are going back for a full prison term.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 4, 2016)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Their sentence wasn't long enough under Federal Law, which is why they have to go back. Three months and one year for both of them was too short considering the law, hence why they are going back for a full prison term.



I understand the law.  But that is bullshit to do to someone. If I was in jail for a year than they let me go and want me to go back...I would die before I went back and would kill do whatever necessary including using deadly force against the authorities.


It's like double jeopardy in my opinion.

@ mooogle

U don't think they didn't bring supplies?

Do they use force to stop the resupply convoy?

And plumbing will still work without running water. Quarter gallon of water to flush a toilet. The situation of siege might not be preferable but not a deal breaker, least not for a while..Hell I've been a month with no water and 3 weeks without power due to a tornado. Hell it wouldn't take but a couple of bulls and deer to feed all of them well for atleast 2 months and then get most of their water from the meat(consumed water).


If these guys are half as nutty as they appear to be then they will be able to hold out for a decent amount of time.  That's why I say that they should leave them alone entirely and let them fizzle out. Hell they are contained to the premise and lets all be honest, that property isn't as critical as a street in the middle of Chicago or NYC. Hell they can burn it down and none but maybe a handful would miss it.


----------



## Soca (Jan 4, 2016)

Still no updates. I expected shit to pop off by now 




IchLiebe said:


> Yea keep dreaming. They can't quit killing each other much less rise up to take the country...shut they couldn't even take their own freedom.



Every time I read some shit like this I'm thinking this site just has a bunch of hidden stormfront members just laying low and spreading hate, especially in this section. Haven't been shown wrong yet


----------



## Saishin (Jan 4, 2016)

Will the cops shoot them?


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

IchLiebe said:


> U don't think they didn't bring supplies?


I'm guessing they didn't bring enough supplies.  Not for any extended period of time.  There's something like 15 adults there?  That's 45 liters of water a day they need to have (about 100 lbs, whether it's in food form or bottles).  Plus food.  Plus fuel to heat them up (it's a high of about 35 at the moment, colder at night).

A siege would make their lives miserable real quick.  Especially if the septic system fails.



IchLiebe said:


> Do they use force to stop the resupply convoy?



Well, define "use force?"  I'm sure they'll use force to defend themselves against attacks.  Otherwise they just block the road and arrest anyone that tries to trespass.

Will the resupply convoy use force to get in?



IchLiebe said:


> And plumbing will still work without running water. Quarter gallon of water to flush a toilet. The situation of siege might not be preferable but not a deal breaker, least not for a while..Hell I've been a month with no water and 3 weeks without power due to a tornado.


Wait, you went a month without water, power, or leaving your house?

'Cause if they leave the building just _arrest them_.



IchLiebe said:


> Hell it wouldn't take but a couple of bulls and deer to feed all of them well for atleast 2 months and then get most of their water from the meat(consumed water).


If they leave the building just _arrest them_.

If they're leaving a few at a time you isolate them and arrest them, peacefully if at all possible.

If they're leaving in force arrest those that remain in the building, then arrest the others when they attempt to return.

That's how a siege works, no one in or out.  Anyone that comes out is surrendering to the police (or taking violent action against the police).


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jan 4, 2016)

IchLiebe said:


> I understand the law.  But that is bullshit to do to someone. If I was in jail for a year than they let me go and want me to go back...I would die before I went back and would kill do whatever necessary including using deadly force against the authorities.
> 
> 
> It's like double jeopardy in my opinion.


Except its not. They were originally given a too short of a sentence in violation of the minimum they should have gotten.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 4, 2016)

I get his point. A mistake is a mistake and if he served the time originally given, should just be that.


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 4, 2016)

Marcelle.B said:


> Every time I read some shit like this I'm thinking this site just has a bunch of hidden stormfront members just laying low and spreading hate, especially in this section. Haven't been shown wrong yet



To be fair very few are of IchHasse's caliber. Then again one of those few just so happens to be the Mod, so...


----------



## Soca (Jan 4, 2016)

> _The militia members who occupied the wildlife refuge buildings set up a roadblock, and two armed members had manned a guard tower that is usually used to spot wildfires. But there was no sign of law enforcement in the area, and local police said they had no intention of going to the scene, not even to keep watch on the militia.
> _



What kind of fuckery...

They let em post up...


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jan 4, 2016)

^ Its because they're 'good ol'white folks'.


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2016)

Marcelle.B said:


> What kind of fuckery...
> 
> They let em post up...



No hostages and no signs of large-scale civilization at risk.

They're going to wait it out until they get bored and hungry.

That's the difference.  I don't like these twats either but that's the difference.

They're not radical Muslims.  Those guys tend to be explosive in their action.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 4, 2016)

from what I gather, the whole place was empty.

Like, Hillary Clinton's moral bank, empty.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> from what I gather, the whole place was empty.



It was, closed for the holidays.

Now it's closed because terrorists are occupying a building in the refuge.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 4, 2016)

So they have no one on the scene, so people can just keep resupplying them? bring them fuel for generators?


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 4, 2016)

Yes Moogle, but I said it for perspective when one discusses a "terrorist threat"

It's an important thing to do, when one insists in using language usually reserved for people who fly planes into buildings full of innocent people.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> Yes Moogle, but I said it for perspective when one discusses a "terrorist threat"
> 
> It's an important thing to do, when one insists in using language usually reserved for people who fly planes into buildings full of innocent people.



Actually only what 11-12 terrorists have done that, at least in the US (sure there were another 3-4 that _tried_)?

Most terrorists, and most people we call terrorists do far less.  Some people are called terrorists for doing nothing at all, certainly far less than what these fine upstanding patriots have done.

I call them terrorists because that's what they are, they are using fear to try to intimidate good people into changing their political views to suit this group's narrow, extremist agenda.

There are degrees, and I do freely admit "seizes a federal land in an attempt to provoke a shoot out with federal agents" is a "better" kind of terrorist than "straps on a suicide vest to go target a crowded shopping mall."

But let's not pretend that either are desirable or acceptable contributions to society.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 4, 2016)

Marcelle.B said:


> What kind of fuckery...
> 
> They let em post up...



hahahahahaha the police aren't even going in there
they're not even pretending to have a problem with laws being broken and armed insurrection against the federal govt

white people OP

these people have fucking superpowers


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

Lucaniel said:


> hahahahahaha the police aren't even going in there
> they're not even pretending to have a problem with laws being broken and armed insurrection against the federal govt
> 
> white people OP
> ...



Yeah, I've seen other sites commenting on what the probable reaction would be if 150 Muslims held a "peaceful protest" that ended with a dozen or so of them seizing a building and claiming it as theirs.


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> Yeah, I've seen other sites commenting on what the probable reaction would be if 150 Muslims held a "peaceful protest" that ended with a dozen or so of them seizing a building and claiming it as theirs.



Probably because Muslims would aim for hostages as we saw in Paris...only to subsequently kill them.

Jesus Christ none of you understand a modus operandi.

Muslim radicals wouldn't do this sort of thing as decades have proven so this hypothetical is stupid.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 4, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> Yeah, I've seen other sites commenting on what the probable reaction would be if 150 Muslims held a "peaceful protest" that ended with a dozen or so of them seizing a building and claiming it as theirs.



not to mention saying that any attempt to dislodge them would be met with violence and openly parading their weapons


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2016)

Lucaniel said:


> not to mention saying that any attempt to dislodge them would be met with violence and openly parading their weapons



But like noted Muslim groups have they committed acts of violence on civilian or governmental targets?  These guys are all talk.  

If you wanted white terrorists just look up the IRA.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 4, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually only what 11-12 terrorists have done that, at least in the US (sure there were another 3-4 that _tried_)?



Well, yes. Some do that, others hit concerts in the Bataclan, others strap suicide vests and blow themselves up in marketplaces, others just straight up try to knife bystanders in the middle of a street in Israel.

You know what I meant, the same way I know what you meant.

Not every one has the benefit of knowing one another for seven years the way we do, and thus perspective is a valuable contribution when  discussing the language used in a conversation



> Most terrorists, and most people we call terrorists do far less.  Some people are called terrorists for doing nothing at all, certainly far less than what these fine upstanding patriots have done.



That is certainly a problem, that shouldn't have happened.




> But let's not pretend that either are desirable or acceptable contributions to society.



*shrug*


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

Mael said:


> Probably because Muslims would aim for hostages as we saw in Paris...only to subsequently kill them.
> 
> Jesus Christ none of you understand a modus operandi.
> 
> Muslim radicals wouldn't do this sort of thing as decades have proven so this hypothetical is stupid.



I didn't say "Muslim radicals" I said Muslims holding a peaceful protest.

But then, you're already proving my point so I guess please continue.


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> I didn't say "Muslim radicals" I said Muslims holding a peaceful protest.
> 
> But then, you're already proving my point so I guess please continue.



Then don't put peaceful protests in quotes.  We've seen their variety.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> That is certainly a problem, that shouldn't have happened.



Lets look at it another way.

Everyone (well, sadly not but most Westerners at least) agrees that ISIS is pretty much as scum as scum can be.

At the same time I would venture a guess that many members of ISIS have never killed anyone.  They might not hesitate to kill Westerners if given the chance and they may be actively involved in conspiracies to kill Westerners but many of them haven't as of yet.

Yet no one hesitates to label them as terrorists.  Why is this?  Because they support a terrorist agenda either directly through their words and actions or indirectly by their membership in ISIS.

There are clearly differences here.  _This_ militia group hasn't had an armed confrontation with the government yet, yet they clearly support an agenda of using force and the threat of force to circumvent the law.

So, terrorists.  Lesser terrorists if you want to mince words but terrorists non-the-less.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 4, 2016)

Mael said:


> Then don't put peaceful protests in quotes.  We've seen their variety.



Well, lets go back on topic, would you consider the Militia's action in this thread peaceful?


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 4, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> Lets look at it another way.
> 
> Everyone (well, sadly not but most Westerners at least) agrees that ISIS is pretty much as scum as scum can be.
> 
> ...



I.. well... _Maybe._

It's just.... The line between "Give us what we want or we will fire" is a different one than "Don't remove us from our protest or we will fire"

The former one is a clear terrorist. The latter is just, "an ingredient" for one. Not enough to qualify as one for sure.

Now, as new information comes in, it seems that one of their demands is that federal land be granted to them, which displaces this from an occupation, to, well, sort of an invasion, something that comes in direct conflict with the nature of their protest, i.e. the occupation.

That cannot stand. The ownership of land by the federal government is not an act of tyranny, and they don't have a leg to stand on, on that platform.

(this is getting really cartoony by the way. I'm reminded of a family guy episode called "Petoria") 

But

In the field of public discourse, one does well to weigh out the meaning of these terms.

For example, this becomes interesting in your comparison. Like you said, many ISIS have never killed westerners themselves. 

But, they're not scummy because of their ideology. Millions and millions of people in the world share their ideology, but we don't think of entire nations filling to the brim with Bin Ladens.

They're scummy because they're actively connected by their direct murdering counterparts. They're not the shooter, but they are the driver behind the wheel. It's not their rhetoric on a vacuum that earns them their archetype


----------



## Soca (Jan 5, 2016)

Lucaniel said:


> hahahahahaha the police aren't even going in there
> they're not even pretending to have a problem with laws being broken and armed insurrection against the federal govt
> 
> white people OP
> ...



Man after seeing how quick cops act when a minority fuck around like with the Tamir Rice situation this shit just piss me off.

The thing disturbing me about this story is that the FBI said that it's a local enforcement problem so they'll offer support if asked but the local police aren't even doing anything, they straight up backed off and let the terrorist post up and guard the place like it's their damn castle.  It makes no sense what's happening there at all, and I know someone gonna say they're probably starving them out but from a minorities perspective this is the  fucking highest order of bullshit.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 5, 2016)

> I know someone gonna say they're probably starving them out



they haven't even set up the roadblocks they'd need to keep supplies from getting in, they're literally doing nothing rofl

it's sad, yeah, especially in perspective

anyone who looks at this and tries to bullshit that law enforcement doesn't respond differently depending on the race of the aggressor is beyond rational thought


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 5, 2016)

These nutters seized a building that was _abandoned_ in the middle of _nowhere_, with _no_ civilians in harms way and people are wondering why no one is doing anything?  All thats required is to merely wait till they quit.

You can bet your ass if they had taken hostages or this "protest" was occurring closer to major population centers and the reaction would be very different.

I know people are trying to race-bait this but they fail to take the situation and location into account.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 5, 2016)

Chelydra said:


> These nutters seized a building that was _abandoned_ in the middle of _nowhere_, with _no_ civilians in harms way and people are wondering why no one is doing anything?  All thats required is to merely wait till they quit.
> 
> You can bet your ass if they had taken hostages or this "protest" was occurring closer to major population centers and the reaction would be very different.
> 
> I know people are trying to race-bait this but they fail to take the situation and location into account.



It wasn't abandoned. It was closed for fucking Christmas. People are suposed to be in it working right now.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 5, 2016)

I disagree, mainly because as I stated earlier they are out in bumfuck nowhere not posing a serious threat to anyone at the moment, their current views not withstanding.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> Probably because Muslims would aim for hostages as we saw in Paris...only to subsequently kill them.
> 
> Jesus Christ none of you understand a modus operandi.
> 
> Muslim radicals wouldn't do this sort of thing as decades have proven so this hypothetical is stupid.



Mael, you sound legit stupid right now. It's like you aren't even paying attention to the question.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 5, 2016)

So if I got 99 other black men together with guns and took over Six Flags located 15 miles outside DC in the middle of nowhere right now and demanded that Tamir Rice's killer b e retried, and that if anyone came to do anything about getting us out it would be met with force, what do you think would happen to us?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 5, 2016)

They'd find an excuse to kill you. SWAT would be all over you, if not worse.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 5, 2016)

Exacta. here are no police there, so essentially every single one of the people there could simply walk away no harm no foul These people broke a law, mind you, Even peacful lock-in/shut ins result in those people going to jail almost always. So how is it a bunch of armed thugs are given so much leeway?


----------



## Soca (Jan 5, 2016)

Blitzomaru said:


> So if I got 99 other black men together with guns and took over Six Flags located 15 miles outside DC in the middle of nowhere right now and demanded that Tamir Rice's killer b e retried, and that if anyone came to do anything about getting us out it would be met with force, what do you think would happen to us?





Seto Kaiba said:


> They'd find an excuse to kill you. SWAT would be all over you, if not worse.



First step: Get the media to run the issue faster than they got the news to cover Oregon, which is within the first 15 minutes and not a day.

Second step: Over exaggerate the situation, get profiles on each member of the group and link them to gang related activities all across the community. 
Explain that they can't risk taking a peaceful approach as things can escalate to unimaginable proportions.

Third step: Bring in FBI forces and go from there to exterminate the threat, shots will be fired, lives will be lost but only the men on the laws side will be made as heroes while the black militia will be dubbed as the usual thugs or be possibly upgraded to high ranked terrorist.

Final step: Slander blacks some more in the media, get some more hate on the streets, on the internet etc.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 5, 2016)

Blitzomaru said:


> So if I got 99 other black men together with guns and took over Six Flags located 15 miles outside DC in the middle of nowhere right now and demanded that Tamir Rice's killer b e retried, and that if anyone came to do anything about getting us out it would be met with force, what do you think would happen to us?



They would rightfully use force to end the threat since you were causing a major disruption and threatening innocent lives. Since I am assuming that the six flags park you mention is a highly popular destination with hundreds or thousands of bystanders attending it.

They used force in Waco Texas if people are still silly to believe that they won't use force against white people if lives are at stake.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 5, 2016)

The cognitive dissonance in here is almost satire worthy.

Almost.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 5, 2016)

Chelydra said:


> They would rightfully use force to end the threat since you were causing a major disruption and threatening innocent lives. Since I am assuming that the six flags park you mention is a highly popular destination with hundreds or thousands of bystanders attending it.
> 
> They used force in Waco Texas if people are still silly to believe that they won't use force against white people if lives are at stake.



How would I be causing a major disruption and threatening innocent lives? It's January. The park doesn't open till end of April at the earliest. At most there's a few security guards there we'd kick out. We are miles from anyone.


----------



## Chelydra (Jan 5, 2016)

Blitzomaru said:


> How would I be causing a major disruption and threatening innocent lives? It's January. The park doesn't open till end of April at the earliest. At most there's a few security guards there we'd kick out. We are miles from anyone.



You should have specified that, in that case I bet they would not seriously do anything at all either. Though kicking out the security guards will cause you problems.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Jan 5, 2016)

true story; Black people scare the hell out of white cops.

it's the body language and manner of speech.

most whites don't realize that's just empty bravado so they end up shooting them full of holes just to be safe.

also, rap music.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 5, 2016)

RAGING BONER said:


> true story; Black people scare the hell out of white cops.
> 
> it's the body language and manner of speech.
> 
> ...



Zyrax too, though I think a black guy stole his girlfriend or something.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Mael, you sound legit stupid right now. It's like you aren't even paying attention to the question.



What's the question?

All I'm seeing is this "oh if they were Muslim" attempt but recent history shows Muslim extremists not engaging in this behavior so we don't know nor will we.

Im not defending these guys for their stupidity.  I'm just not finding this racial dissonance given how the situation is very different.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> What's the question?
> 
> All I'm seeing is this "oh if they were Muslim" attempt but recent history shows Muslim extremists not engaging in this behavior so we don't know nor will we.
> 
> Im not defending these guys for their stupidity.  I'm just not finding this racial dissonance given how the situation is very different.



That's what I mean about you not even paying attention to his question. Quit throwing in all that stuff is and just focus on that hypothetical he raised.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's what I mean about you not even paying attention to his question. Quit throwing in all that stuff is and just focus on that hypothetical he raised.



But it's difficult to do so without historical analysis.  Obviously there'd be greater response given past examples of just what said folk do.  My input is that it doesn't work because we don't see them do this and if they did the notions of taking their violent intent is more serious given examples like Beslan where forcing them out is incredibly ugly.

Don't use Muslims as the hypo example.  If they said blacks I'd be more inclined to go along with it.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jan 5, 2016)

Did you get hit in the head Mael?


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jan 5, 2016)

Well... I think authorities can just wait this out and then arrest them one by one as they give up.  That's probably the best way to avoid casualties.

Also, I saw a clip of them listing out "grievances."  Good god, these people could barely even string words together.  It was embarrassing.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

Sherlōck said:


> Did you get hit in the head Mael?



Okay what the fuck am I missing?

Seriously, what am I missing?  I'm starting to get pissed off because you people seem to see something I don't.

I'm asked to look at a hypothetical and I find that hypothetical to be off given analysis of what said groups have done before.  I know the response is going to be greater because there is a greater apprehension even if they take over an unoccupied wildlife refuge.  It's because we know the modus operandi of Muslim radicals if they do anything like this it.  I just cannot use a proper hypothetical when asked to compare with some Muslim "militia" holding a "peaceful protest" because we've seen what has happened there.

What we're seeing is a bunch of losers holing up with demands that make them look like college liberal arts students.  

Nowhere do I dismiss the overreaction of police on blacks.  If anything I find this "militia" to be too pathetic to call terrorist and instead some wannabe guerrilla since their aim is purely anti-governmental.

Also I want people to understand this is a federal matter so the response is going to be different than your Cleveland or South Carolina cop.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 5, 2016)

Blitzomaru said:


> So if I got 99 other black men together with guns and took over Six Flags located 15 miles outside DC in the middle of nowhere right now and demanded that Tamir Rice's killer b e retried, and that if anyone came to do anything about getting us out it would be met with force, what do you think would happen to us?



I dunno

Might end badly

But I wouldn't rush to conclusions

I mean


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> Okay what the fuck am I missing?
> 
> Seriously, what am I missing?  I'm starting to get pissed off because you people seem to see something I don't.



Lets start small then.

Do you consider the actions of the militia, in this thread, to be "peaceful?"  Feel free to elaborate as much or as little as you need to.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

If by peaceful you mean armed to the teeth and mentioned you will use lethal force if necessary, sure. That's peaceful.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Lets start small then.
> 
> Do you consider the actions of the militia, in this thread, to be "peaceful?"  Feel free to elaborate as much or as little as you need to.



No and I never did in case someone thought so.  I would implore people to explore where I said that because it will take a while for them to do so.  The second guns or whatever weapons got involved it stopped being peaceful.  

What I see here is a bunch of dipshits who occupy an unoccupied reserve and then hole up with a list of idiotic demands.  Obviously their guns make them a threat but there's no outward projection of force or intimidation.  These militia folk are often just purely against the federal government like wannabe guerrillas.  I just find it very difficult to fathom, in that hypothetical, Muslim "militia" or those of the same mindset doing the same exact thing because I have not seen them ever do that same thing.  Their motivations and cultures have them to act otherwise and decades of it forms a cognitive bias that just doesn't allow me to consider extremists of their variety doing exactly what we see here.

People are complaining the authorities are just sitting there.  Maybe they know something we don't.  Maybe they know this will fizzle out and the lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge could apply otherwise.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> No and I never did in case someone thought so.  I would implore people to explore where I said that because it will take a while for them to do so.  The second guns or whatever weapons got involved it stopped being peaceful.
> 
> What I see here is a bunch of dipshits who occupy an unoccupied reserve and then hole up with a list of idiotic demands.  Obviously their guns make them a threat but there's no outward projection of force or intimidation.  These militia folk are often just purely against the federal government like wannabe guerrillas.



Okay, with you so far.

Then shouldn't you compare them to the actions of similar groups in the past?  Christian extremists?  Like ?  Or ?

Christian extremists in the U.S. have killed far more than Muslim extremists in the U.S. have.  If a group is identified as a violent extremist group shouldn't the government act with force against them with as much zeal as you seem to have for killing Muslims?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

*Update*



> Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon (CNN)
> 
> Now, they have a name. And now, we know how long they're vowing to stay.
> 
> ...


----------



## KidTony (Jan 5, 2016)

I prefer to call them YallQaeda


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

KidTony said:


> I prefer to call them YallQaeda



That's actually kinda fitting, at least the first part is.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

#whitelivesaresupreme


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> #whitelivesaresupreme



I don't mean to brag, but.............


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jan 5, 2016)

The FBI is probably laughing their ass off. They have better things to do than to go after a bunch of fat men standing in a snowy farm shouting threats at nearby cattle.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> I don't mean to brag, but.............



You should feel supreme. Sometimes I wish I was full white. But nooooo. Moms had to breed with ^ (use bro). Now I am apart of the master race. One day I will step down to just being supreme and normal instead of having a meaningful life.


----------



## Randomaxe (Jan 5, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> So I'm watching all the neo-liberal frustrated, pent up jizz from the Bernardino shootings sperging all over the internet for this, and it's real funny.
> 
> Here's the thing though, they're occupying a rundown shack in the middle of the forest, not looting their local FBI headquarters
> 
> Just so people have perspective



I'm all for perspective, but don't you think commandeering a federal facility and threatening violence if government officials want their building back is an ultimatum? That threat alone should make make any government agent a little jumpy. 

I read a couple of articles on this situation and it seems this is about the Federal government controlling large portions of state lands. These rancher's want free grazing and water access on these federal lands and have used the Hammond's extended sentencing as a pretext to what they're calling government overreach. It should also be noted the Hammond's claim they started the fires to stop invasive planted species and make a fire break, The government charged that that not only did they start fires , but they did it to cover up their unlawful poaching of wild life on protected lands. This last charge I don't think was part of their conviction, just thought I mention it  for the big picture.  

I have the feeling we've only gotten bits of the reasons for this  anti gov. action. Yet, I still feel it's the wrong way to go about it. People in the local towns near by don't want this, and are afraid it may escalate. They don't want their neighborhoods to be dragged into military action, and I can't blame them.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> You should feel supreme. Sometimes I wish I was full white. But nooooo. Moms had to breed with ^ (use bro). Now I am apart of the master race. One day I will step down to just being supreme and normal instead of having a meaningful life.



I was of the belief that despite your status as only half, "those hands" of yours compensated for full supreme status.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> I was of the belief that despite your status as only half, "those hands" of yours compensated for full supreme status.



My penis does that.


----------



## Alita (Jan 5, 2016)

Sad thing is, if these armed protestors were black, muslim, latino, etc. they would already be dead. It just goes to show the racist double standard we still have in this country.



Lucaniel said:


> and we have our first
> 
> - "this isn't real"
> - "if you're anti-police brutality you're a communist and you want to kill all white people"



Mega once said that he only trusted info/stories from fox news so it's not suprising.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

Alita54 said:


> Sad thing is, if these armed protestors were black, muslim, latino, etc. they would already be dead. It just goes to show the racist double standard we still have in this country.



You're stating opinion, not fact.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> You're stating opinion, not fact.



Blacklivesmatter mentioned they were going to stage a "peaceful" protest at a mall and were met with armed  and fully body armored cops.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> Blacklivesmatter mentioned they were going to stage a "peaceful" protest at a mall and were met with armed  and fully body armored cops.



Were they shot to death?  Alita said they'd be dead by now.

Also let's compare the two.  These Oregon idiots claimed it without notice.  BLM protested with notice.


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 5, 2016)

Lucaniel said:


> and we have our first
> 
> - "this isn't real"
> - "if you're *anti-police brutality *you're a *communist* and you want to kill all white people"


Yeahs its not like Every communist State in the last century had a VERY Brutal Police


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 5, 2016)

Randomaxe said:


> I'm all for perspective, but don't you think commandeering a federal facility and threatening violence if government officials want their building back is an ultimatum? That threat alone should make make any government agent a little jumpy.



Eeeh. My feelings on the matter are little more complicated than that.

In some ways, yes, in some ways, no.

It's definitely way past bed time on this mess tho.



> I read a couple of articles on this situation and it seems this is about the Federal government controlling large portions of state lands. These rancher's want free grazing and water access on these federal lands and have used the Hammond's extended sentencing as a pretext to what they're calling government overreach. It should also be noted the Hammond's claim they started the fires to stop invasive planted species and make a fire break, The government charged that that not only did they start fires , but they did it to cover up their unlawful poaching of wild life on protected lands. This last charge I don't think was part of their conviction, just thought I mention it  for the big picture.



Yes, this is the image coming through now to me as well, more or less.



> I have the feeling we've only gotten bits of the reasons for this  anti gov. action. Yet, I still feel it's the wrong way to go about it.



I don't disagree with you here, as far as personal choices go.



> People in the local towns near by don't want this, and are afraid it may escalate. They don't want their neighborhoods to be dragged into military action, and I can't blame them.



That's just... a thing. A thing that arguably warrants some form of action, for sure, as such is the nature of a democracy, but it's an added on thing. A third party issue.

But it's an interesting mental exercise

You could argue that these people *don't* want these idjts in the refuge on the same playing field that those idjts wants themselves in the refuge, and that's more important to what should be done about the issue, on account of "reasons", which is a reasonable assessment.

But I feel like that's a bit of a tanget to the "ultimatum" issue. It requires establishing that the fate of the refuge was something up to a democratic determination to begin with, which is not something I think anyone's done yet.

Idjts don't have a right to that land by gun, and neither idjts nor the locals have a right to that land by vote.

They might have a right to vote for a right to that land, but now things start to get way too many degrees of separation


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 5, 2016)

Blitzomaru said:


> Exacta. here are no police there, so essentially every single one of the people there could simply walk away no harm no foul These people broke a law, mind you, Even peacful lock-in/shut ins result in those people going to jail almost always. So how is it a bunch of armed thugs are given so much leeway?



Let me start by saying blacks and whites are treated differently, there is no questioning that. But I do want to explore a couple of things you bring up here.

There were a lot of people in the Baltimore riots who were allowed to freely riot and just walk away. In fact, the mayor basically told the police to let them do what they wanted (not the exact quote I know).

I don't know for certain, but I think you (in your scenario) may get a similar reaction as these people are getting now and here is why.

In a truly peaceful protest there is really no worry about extreme violence. You might get some beatings and what not but in general the police don't have to worry about death because they are taking down unarmed people. 

In this case there is no threat to human life UNLESS the police come in. So by moving on these guys they are risking death and what have you, as opposed to something like Occupy where they just have to take down some hippies. Same situation would apply in your scenario. 

Granted, you would have 24 hour media coverage, people calling you thugs and animals and whatever other non N word N word they could call you. But you might not get taken down in force because of the unnecessary risk to police lives. Not sure I can argue they would care about your lives though.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> Were they shot to death?  Alita said they'd be dead by now.
> 
> Also let's compare the two.  These Oregon idiots claimed it without notice.  BLM protested with notice.



The irony is a peaceful protest shouldn't be met with those type of situations.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> The irony is a peaceful protest shouldn't be met with those type of situations.



Yes it shouldn't be, you're right.  But do take in mind it's the Mall of America we're talking about.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> Yes it shouldn't be, you're right.  But do take in mind it's the Mall of America we're talking about.



As opposed a federally owned building and not private property? I mean...really mael? A privately owned building has priority over a federal owned building?


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> As opposed a federally owned building and not private property? I mean...really mael? A privately owned building has priority over a federal owned building?





Let me specify since I have to.

1. Mall of America = HUGE shopping center filled with lots and lots of *people* with lots and lots of *businesses*.
2. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge = Wildlife refuge with lots of open land and *zero people* due to holidays/other reasons and negligible commercial impact.

See the disparity?


----------



## Saishin (Jan 5, 2016)

> *The message from Oregon is clear: black men with guns are thugs, while whites are patriots*
> 
> The message from Oregon is clear: black men with guns are thugs, while whites are patriots
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

Who is considering them patriots aside from righty idiots?

Believe it or not, the perception of "militia" is often negative here in the States if it's not the National Guard.  It's usually just a bunch of paranoid right-wing white guys with too many guns.


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 5, 2016)

Both Were thugs


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> Let me specify since I have to.
> 
> 1. Mall of America = HUGE shopping center filled with lots and lots of *people* with lots and lots of *businesses*.
> 2. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge = Wildlife refuge with lots of open land and *zero people* due to holidays/other reasons and negligible commercial impact.
> ...



So what you're saying is, as long as I take over a federal building with no one in there, possibly halting work for the federal government that's ok. But if I announce going to a public place knowingly there will be a large outing, to peacefully protest, I should be met with armed guards? So let's keep in mind that these people have recommended they will use lethal force if necessary against law officer as opposed to the peaceful protesters who mentioned no such thing.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> So what you're saying is, as long as I take over a federal building with no one in there, possibly halting work for the federal government that's ok. But if I announce going to a public place knowingly there will be a large outing, to peacefully protest, I should be met with armed guards? So let's keep in mind that these people have recommended they will use lethal force if necessary against law officer as opposed to the peaceful protesters who mentioned no such thing.



Did I say it was okay?  Quote where I said it was okay within legal bounds.

The fact the targets are different though does help to explain the level of response.  Police are always armed, so I don't see how that's anything special.

And the people dealing with this militia are also armed, but given the examples of Ruby Ridge and Waco haven't made moves to remove them.  What's your point?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 5, 2016)

KidTony said:


> I prefer to call them YallQaeda



that's pretty good


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> Did I say it was okay?  Quote where I said it was okay within legal bounds.



By your manner of justification. You know.. that part where you explicitly mentioned the mall being populated as opposed to an unoccupied building. See you said that, not me. So you're throwing in legality when there is nothing legal in the first place of occupying a federal building as opposed to protesting in a mall throws your argument out the window.



> The fact the targets are different though does help to explain the level of response.  Police are always armed, so I don't see how that's anything special.




You're... you're actually serious? You're actually fucking serious when you say this? 



> And the people dealing with this militia are also armed, but given the examples of Ruby Ridge and Waco haven't made moves to remove them.  What's your point?



So...  that correlates how to unarmed protesters?


----------



## Randomaxe (Jan 5, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> You could argue that these people *don't* want these idjts in the refuge on the same playing field that those idjts wants themselves in the refuge, and that's more important to what should be done about the issue, on account of "reasons", which is a reasonable assessment.
> 
> But I feel like that's a bit of a tanget to the "ultimatum" issue. It requires establishing that the fate of the refuge was something up to a democratic determination to begin with, which is not something I think anyone's done yet.
> 
> ...



Agreed, It's a no win situation. Do nothing, and the appearance, that armed non-minorities can do anything, will be set against the current back drop of fleeing black suspects being killed by a hail of police bullets. Yes, I know they're not the same, but think about this, The Blacks were all killed on the basis of what officer's feared they might do, while, these rancher have removed any doubt how they will respond to police action. Most pundits say wait them out to diffuse it, and its probably the best move. 

I remember back in Philly, an organization called "Move" had holed up in a row home. Move, was a black organization looking to combat racism and police brutality back in the late 70's. I wish i could remember what triggered the police action, but a conflict occurred.  After a long siege, the police shot tear gas to try an force them out, but that didn't work. So, some genius decided to drop an explosive device, thus killing eleven residents, 5 kids, and burning down 65 houses making 250 people homeless. There is rarely a good result when groups draw a line in the sand.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> By your manner of justification. You know.. that part where you explicitly mentioned the mall being populated as opposed to an unoccupied building. See you said that, not me. So you're throwing in legality when there is nothing legal in the first place of occupying a federal building as opposed to protesting in a mall throws your argument out the window.



Nope, not at all.  You said okay like I'm consenting to one action over the other.  I consent to neither.

I said the reason why armed police were meeting the protest in clearer fashion was because the protest that had even the slightest possibility of going violent was occurring at a densely populated shopping center of national recognition.

Situation awareness is not a black and white issue.



> You're... you're actually serious? You're actually fucking serious when you say this?



You're saying armed guards like it's something novel.  It has never been fucking novel.



> So...  that correlates how to unarmed protesters?



You're trying to make some case of why police haven't moved in yet.  I just gave you two glaring examples as to why not.


----------



## eHav (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> So what you're saying is, as long as I take over a federal building with no one in there, possibly halting work for the federal government that's ok. But if I announce going to a public place knowingly there will be a large outing, to peacefully protest, I should be met with armed guards? So let's keep in mind that these people have recommended they will use lethal force if necessary against law officer as opposed to the peaceful protesters who mentioned no such thing.



come on, as much as some of you might be biased against mael, he is right when it comes to the most likely reason why the retards who took the place over not being met with a much stronger reaction from the government. as of now, they arent a "threat" too serious, mostly because no one is reacting to them like they hoped police would. by not doing much yet, things havent escalated much and everything is cointained. while if this was a more public space or had other motives behind it, it might have been met with a stronger reaction. 

they are wrong, and i still think swat should be smoking them out already, but nevertheless, they arent some imminent threat. i just think that like a lot of people just thinking off them as idiots with guns, the police sees them as such aswell and is trying to no escalate the situation. would the reaction have been serious had their race or motives been different? most likely, but its pointless to argue that.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> Nope, not at all.  You said okay like I'm consenting to one action over the other.  I consent to neither.



You presented a comparison as to which justifies one over the other.



> I said the reason why armed police were meeting the protest in clearer fashion was because the protest that had even the slightest possibility of going violent was occurring at a densely populated shopping center of national recognition.



So you counter a possible violence inside a mall with a high casualty count with armed fucking guards? Ok. I see your logic on this no need to explain.



> Situation awareness is not a black and white issue.



Naw... it's pretty much is.





> You're saying armed guards like it's something novel.  It has never been fucking novel.



So armed guards with body armor and assult rifles is a regular occurrence to the malls you visit?  Ok I can understand why you casually down play that.




> You're trying to make some case of why police haven't moved in yet.  I just gave you two glaring examples as to why not.



So there is no need to send enforcement for 6 or seven people. But at a protest just in case... you know. Send armed guys. Ok. Ok.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> You presented a comparison as to which justifies one over the other.



No I presented a comparison as to why there needed to be a greater security presence over the other.  



> So you counter a possible violence inside a mall with a high casualty count with armed fucking guards? Ok. I see your logic on this no need to explain.



You have better ideas?  Unarmed guards?



> Naw... it's pretty much is.



Good troll attempt.  You'd make a shitty intelligence officer or federal agent.



> So armed guards with body armor and assult rifles is a regular occurrence to the malls you visit?  Ok I can understand why you casually down play that.





I see zero assault rifles.  I sifted through several other photos and found no assault rifles.  Your move.



> So there is no need to send enforcement for 6 or seven people. But at a protest just in case... you know. Send armed guys. Ok. Ok.



The police are ALWAYS armed, no matter the situation.  How do you not comprehend this?

And there is enforcement.  It's called SURVEILLANCE.  The sheriffs and FBI aren't there for the lulz.


----------



## stream (Jan 5, 2016)

I agree that the situations are different, but not only for the reasons Mael gave, and racism does play a role in it.

Yes, a mall is place with many people and businesses, as opposed to a shack in the middle of the forest, which few people care about even though it's technically a federal building.

However, the police at the mall was ready for a violent confrontation: helmets, sticks, etc. I'll go ahead and say that if the Bundy group had announced they were going to stage a protest at the mall to defend the Hammonds, the police would have prepared to receive them with a significantly lower tone.

This is because demonstrations of BLM and those of gun nuts are very different. A group of white people with guns can show up somewhere, like they did to celebrate the new open carry law in Texas, and nobody expects any trouble. The police might show up, but they're not going to show up ready for a violent confrontation; partly because they don't think there's going to be a confrontation; and partly because if there was a violent confrontation they would need a SWAT team.

On the other hand, for a BLM demonstration, the police expects that there could be some trouble, that somebody could start to break stuff. And also, they expect that they can actually win a confrontation with "reasonable" means without anybody getting killed.

Now, if BLM staged a demonstration and they all came with guns, God knows what would happen.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> No I presented a comparison as to why there needed to be a greater security presence over the other.



That justification.




> You have better ideas?  Unarmed guards?



These guys say hi. They're not armed.







> Good troll attempt.  You'd make a shitty intelligence officer or federal agent.



Not a troll attempt, your logic was just stupid.





> I see zero assault rifles.  I sifted through several other photos and found no assault rifles.  Your move.
> 
> The police are ALWAYS armed, no matter the situation.  How do you not comprehend this?



Then the source I read was wrong. But again it still justifies my point how the police responded to this, but refused to respond to an actual armed threat occupying a building. And I find this ironic when you compared the same guys to Muslim terrorist. What the fuck.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> That justification.



But it doesn't mean consent to me.  I'd rather have the militia twerps smoked out too but I at least understand the justifications as to the differences why. 



> These guys say hi. They're not armed.



Behold your standard security when protests aren't around.  When they are, especially one's as passionate as BLM, any chance of increased violence should be met with greater security.  It's being better safe than sorry.





> Not a troll attempt, your logic was just stupid.



No your logic is stupid.  Situations of security are never black and white.  There are multitudes of factors as to why certain escalations or draw-downs are necessary.  No size fits all. 



> Then the source I read was wrong. But again it still justifies my point how the police responded to this, but refused to respond to an actual armed threat occupying a building. And I find this ironic when you compared the same guys to Muslim terrorist. What the fuck.



Yeah it was wrong.  The police have responded to the occupation.  They're surveying it and now going to cut the power to it.  It's siege mentality.  The BLM protest is a whole other animal.

And yes I will compare them to Muslim terrorists because their actions are very different when comparing modus operandi.  These idiots occupied a vacant lot, and while illegal certainly wasn't some densely populated area like let's say a concert or a cafe.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> But it doesn't mean consent to me.  I'd rather have the militia twerps smoked out too but I at least understand the justifications as to the differences why.



So again, that justification. In fact, that's the very meaning of justification. To consent means you would give permission for that idea. Consent and justification are not exclusive from each other.





> Behold your standard security when protests aren't around.  When they are, especially one's as passionate as BLM, any chance of increased violence should be met with greater security.  It's being better safe than sorry.



That would imply every BLM protest goes violent. 




> No your logic is stupid.  Situations of security are never black and white.  There are multitudes of factors as to why certain escalations or draw-downs are necessary.  No size fits all.



This was pretty black and white. Two parties. One with the intent to protest peacefully. One with the intent to use fatal action if approached. 





> Yeah it was wrong.  The police have responded to the occupation.  They're surveying it and now going to cut the power to it.  It's siege mentality.  The BLM protest is a whole other animal.



That's stupid. Cut power. Unless they are going to send in swat to take out these people occupying the building. Cutting power is not enough. next they are going to block off radio transmission so these people can't check their facebook page?



> And yes I will compare them to Muslim terrorists because their actions are very different when comparing modus operandi.  These idiots occupied a vacant lot, and while illegal certainly wasn't some densely populated area like let's say a concert or a cafe.



So... how does that not garner direct response? Protesters in the BLM were unarmed.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> So again, that justification. In fact, that's the very meaning of justification. To consent means you would give permission for that idea. Consent and justification are not exclusive from each other.



Consent is "I'll allow it."

Justification is trying to understand how it could be considered legit.



> That would imply every BLM protest goes violent.



No, that's the implication of common sense of security.



> This was pretty black and white. Two parties. One with the intent to protest peacefully. One with the intent to use fatal action if approached.



Once again, different locations garner different reactions and possibilities.  If the BLM was in the same area as the Oregon idiots, then we could talk black and white.



> That's stupid. Cut power. Unless they are going to send in swat to take out these people occupying the building. Cutting power is not enough. next they are going to block off radio transmission so these people can't check their facebook page?



Then once again you fail to understand siege mentality.



> So... how does that not garner direct response? Protesters in the BLM were unarmed.



Did I not explain this already in terms of sheer location and possibility of public harm?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> Consent is "I'll allow it."
> 
> Justification is trying to understand how it could be considered legit.



And after which you justified it was the right answer. 





> No, that's the implication of common sense of security.



That's not common security. That's due to fear.



> Once again, different locations garner different reactions and possibilities.  If the BLM was in the same area as the Oregon idiots, then we could talk black and white.



Location has nothing to do with this. It's a matter of fear. They feared a protest of BLM. 





> Then once again you fail to understand siege mentality.



I understand siege mentality. By no means am I am an expert in the subject. But we know they aren't taking immediate response. 



> Did I not explain this already in terms of sheer location and possibility of public harm?



So if someone  approach those guys, they've made it clear they will shoot them. So again, that is more threatening than a peaceful protest.


----------



## Alita (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> You're stating opinion, not fact.



It's a fact that people in this country(Particularly the police) treat African americans differently from whites. Police tend to treat whites who commit more serious crime better than they do blacks who commit less serious crime. 

Look at how they treated a mass murder like Dylan Roof who the cops even got a fast food meal for, or the guy that shot up a planned parenthood and killed 3 people including a *fucking* cop. In yet blacks who commit far less serious crimes/no crime at all like eric garner, laquin McDonald, Sandra bland, tamir rice, Freddie gray, etc. are killed by police.


----------



## eHav (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS, how many "peacefull" protests have descended into violence? would you rather the police not be able to deal with it, or have them prepared regardless?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

eHav said:


> NaS, how many "peacefull" protests have descended into violence? would you rather the police not be able to deal with it, or have them prepared regardless?



That's the dumbest fucking logic. How many peaceful protests resulted in peaceful protesting? Unless you have statistics that show peaceful protesting have a higher chance in resulting in physical altercations than not, that is not a valid reason to provide armed forces.

And if anything, police are out there to protect the protesters like when that one cop were protecting the KKK protesters.


----------



## eHav (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> That's the dumbest fucking logic. How many peaceful protests resulted in peaceful protesting? Unless you have statistics that show peaceful protesting have a higher chance in resulting in physical altercations than not, that is not a valid reason to provide armed forces.
> 
> And if anything, police are out there to protect the protesters like when that one cop were protecting the KKK protesters.



you would rather let something bad happen because "most of the time it doesnt" ? heck most of the time people dont try and take planes down, lets cut on xrays and the likes when boarding planes? come on now.

if protecting people is the priority, they should always be prepared for something bad to happen


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

eHav said:


> you would rather let something bad happen because "most of the time it doesnt" ? heck most of the time people dont try and take planes down, lets cut on xrays and the likes when boarding planes? come on now.
> 
> if protecting people is the priority, they should always be prepared for something bad to happen



Flying on a plane is protected under Federal law you dumb ass. And your precognition of every time a protest is going on police should be there in case the protesters go violence is false reasoning. We're done arguing have a great day.


----------



## Nello (Jan 5, 2016)

What's the discussion here? There shouldn't be armed police ready to move out when there's a protest? What's the harm in being prepared as long as they don't disturb the protest? Ninjaedit: Although I don't think they should be armed with lethal weapons unless there's a good reason for it.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Chibinello said:


> What's the discussion here? There shouldn't be armed police ready to move out when there's a protest? What's the harm in being prepared as long as they don't disturb the protest? Ninjaedit: Although I don't think they should be armed with lethal weapons unless there's a good reason for it.



Because the point of the armed force was to stop the protest. They stopped them from protesting. That's the argument. As soon as BLM arrived, the were hauled out with police force. They actually arrested some members too but a judge later dismissed the charges for some of them.


----------



## Nello (Jan 5, 2016)

I don't know what protest we're talking abot now but was it peaceful, or was there reason to stop it?


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 5, 2016)

In totally different news I heard an awesome solution to this incident.

Spike the well with LSD....   and Viagra.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Chibinello said:


> I don't know what protest we're talking abot now but was it peaceful, or was there reason to stop it?



It was announced on social media they will be doing a "peaceful" protest.


----------



## Chrollo Lucilfer (Jan 5, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually only what 11-12 terrorists have done that, at least in the US (sure there were another 3-4 that _tried_)?
> 
> Most terrorists, and most people we call terrorists do far less.  Some people are called terrorists for doing nothing at all, certainly far less than what these fine upstanding patriots have done.
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more. I have noticed a shift in the public opinion of what constitutes an act of terrorism since the late 2011 incidents and while it can easily be chalked up to diverging sensationalism, it doesn't make it any less of a concern.


----------



## Zyrax (Jan 5, 2016)

Chrollo Lucilfer said:


> Couldn't agree more. I have noticed a shift in the public opinion of what constitutes an act of terrorism since the late 2011 incidents and while it can easily be chalked up to diverging sensationalism, it doesn't make it any less of a concern.


It was Politicalised by Politicians, What did people expect
In a few years the word Terrorism will literally become the new Godswin Law which is sad mainly due to the fact that Terrorism is a real problem


----------



## Punished Pathos (Jan 5, 2016)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> It was Politicalised by Politicians, What did people expect
> In a few years the word Terrorism will literally become the new Godswin Law which is sad mainly due to the fact that Terrorism is a real problem



lol brainwashed fucktards be like "This is white terrorism"


----------



## stream (Jan 5, 2016)

Terrorism is definitely the new Godwin; it's been used by every politician who wants to increase state surveillance. That and paedophiles.

Very often accompanied by the words "if you're against this new surveillance law, you're siding with terrorists and paedophiles".


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jan 5, 2016)

I don't see anyone referring to these idiots as "patriots" instead of "thugs" that aren't themselves also idiots.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

Gaawa-chan said:


> I don't see anyone referring to these idiots as "patriots" instead of "thugs" that aren't themselves also idiots.



You can't refer to white people as, "Thugs." I dread using that word in the same sentence with white.


----------



## stream (Jan 5, 2016)

I understand that "white trash" works quite well


----------



## Punished Pathos (Jan 5, 2016)

Mael said:


> What's the question?
> 
> All I'm seeing is this "oh if they were Muslim" attempt but recent history shows Muslim extremists not engaging in this behavior so we don't know nor will we.
> 
> Im not defending these guys for their stupidity.  I'm just not finding this racial dissonance given how the situation is very different.



Leftists and little puppets of the Left-Right Paradigm want to throw in the race card and the "if they were black or Musilm" line 

Meanwhile, its okay. The Government can do whatever it wants. Standing up to them is bad and makes you a terrorist, a white terrorist in this scenario


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 5, 2016)

stream said:


> I understand that "*white trash*" works quite well






Did you just use a term that excludes minorities from being things that are no longer useful or wanted and that have been thrown away?!


----------



## eHav (Jan 5, 2016)

NaS said:


> Flying on a plane is protected under Federal law you dumb ass. And your precognition of every time a protest is going on police should be there in case the protesters go violence is false reasoning. We're done arguing have a great day.



what does it being protected under federal law have to do with anything? 
false reasoning? even here in portugal any "protest" has to be aproved and gets police presence. most of the time police is actually necessary. any "protest" not aproved will either be removed or have quite a lot of police there. you cant go around "protesting" whevever you please. police is always there in case something bad happens. you would rather not have police, let ppl protest and occupy public places, and just say tough luck in case something bad happens? then ur fucking retarded and society isnt meant for you


----------



## very bored (Jan 6, 2016)

*Authorities plan to cut off power to militia at occupied Oregon refuge*



> Federal authorities are planning to cut off the power of the wildlife refuge in Oregon that has been taken over by militia, exposing the armed occupiers to sub-zero temperatures in an effort to flush them out.
> 
> Armed militants will begin their third day at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a remote federal outpost in eastern Oregon, on Tuesday, and have vowed to remain for months in protest over the treatment of two local cattle ranchers.
> *
> ...


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/oregon-wildlife-militia-standoff-power-cut-off

I think these steps should have been taken sooner.  I just hope they don't start a fire inside.


----------



## Randomaxe (Jan 6, 2016)

very bored said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/oregon-wildlife-militia-standoff-power-cut-off
> 
> I think these steps should have been taken sooner.  I just hope they don't start a fire inside.



I don't think this would be an escalation, even these morons would have to have expected the power to be cut. Your right, this should have been done the first day.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 6, 2016)

> “After they shut off the power, they’ll kill the phone service,” the government official added. “*Then they’ll block all the roads so that all those guys have a long, lonely winter to think about what they’ve done.*”



This really sounds like some white people shit.


----------



## Foxve (Jan 7, 2016)

Since they are at a wildlife refuge, what's stopping them from just cutting wood for fire and hunting for food when they run out?  They already made it clear that they don't give shit what the law says


----------



## Nello (Jan 7, 2016)

Would cutting wood be considered destruction of property? Because if so that should be game over. Also I doubt they'll find nearly enough food.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jan 7, 2016)

> “After they shut off the power, they’ll kill the phone service,” the government official added. “Then they’ll block all the roads so that all those guys have a long, lonely winter to think about what they’ve done.”



Looks cruel to me.


----------



## Wolfarus (Jan 7, 2016)

This is the only sane way the govnt. can handle this right now.

They go in guns blazing, especially when the people in question havnt actually harmed anybody (yet), and they've just played into their hands. Trying to "smoke them out" like this is a good idea at this point.

So long as no shots are fired, they can just sit back and wait for them to get tired of being cold, hungry and in the dark (assuming that the people cant find enough food/water/wood on their own, and going out foraging for such dosnt put them in a position to be easily arrested) and surrender peacefully.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 7, 2016)

Foxve said:


> Since they are at a wildlife refuge, what's stopping them from just cutting wood for fire and hunting for food when they run out?  They already made it clear that they don't give shit what the law says



Well, it piles on more inevitable charges for one.

Plus unless the building was designed for it (wood burning stoves/fireplaces/etc) fires indoors aren't generally a good idea.

And fresh-cut-wood doesn't really burn well until it dries out.  There are of course ways to manage this but it adds to the work.  Not to mention the work of hauling a days worth of firewood back to their compound.

Hunting in theory works (again with more charges that will be filed against them when they're finally arrested) but has the same basic problem that the 15 or so guys have more "chores" to divide up between them.

Hunting especially is a situational problem, if you're sending a couple guys out alone what if they're intercepted by a group of police and arrested when out of range of support by the "base?"


----------



## stream (Jan 7, 2016)

I doubt any of this is sufficient to make them leave. If they're determined enough, they could hole up there for years. It's not like roads are the only way to get there.

On the other hand, they could get bored of staying there when everybody is ignoring them. I'm not sure people will even remember about them in two months.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 7, 2016)

stream said:


> I doubt any of this is sufficient to make them leave. If they're determined enough, they could hole up there for years. It's not like roads are the only way to get there.
> 
> On the other hand, they could get bored of staying there when everybody is ignoring them. I'm not sure people will even remember about them in two months.



The feds are playing this right.  Make life as uncomfortable as possible for them, they'll give up in short order.

On the other hand, if they really want to spend the next several years living without power, pumping their own water, cutting firewood to cook food they hunted and gathered themselves, all while under the threat of immediate arrest if they're not careful enough it's possible.

In fact it sounds like compelling television to me.  I say set up cameras, record them, and make a reality TV show out of it.  Carefully editing the footage to make them look like (even more) babbling incompetent rednecks.  Use the profits from the show to help manage federal lands


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 7, 2016)

But they've already sent messages out for people to bring food/water/blankets. And what with the police is doing by making it public as to what they're doing, it would just make people want to help them out more. This is why I don't like the strategy.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 7, 2016)

NaS said:


> But they've already sent messages out for people to bring food/water/blankets. And what with the police is doing by making it public as to what they're doing, it would just make people want to help them out more. This is why I don't like the strategy.



Sure, but with the road blocked off there's no easy way for people to bring things to them.

How many people do you think are going to hike 5-10 miles cross-country (under threat of arrest) in order to deliver food/water/blankets to them?


----------



## Mael (Jan 7, 2016)

NaS said:


> But they've already sent messages out for people to bring food/water/blankets. And what with the police is doing by making it public as to what they're doing, it would just make people want to help them out more. This is why I don't like the strategy.



Actually public opinion in the town is against the protesters despite their sympathy for the ranchers.

Are you mad or something they're not going in guns blazing?


----------



## stream (Jan 7, 2016)

WorkingMoogle said:


> In fact it sounds like compelling television to me.  I say set up cameras, record them, and make a reality TV show out of it.  Carefully editing the footage to make them look like (even more) babbling incompetent rednecks.  Use the profits from the show to help manage federal lands



It might sounds fun, but it's a terrible idea. If you disagree with what they do, they should get as little publicity as possible.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 7, 2016)

Mael said:


> Actually public opinion in the town is against the protesters despite their sympathy for the ranchers.
> 
> Are you mad or something they're not going in guns blazing?



Bro I'm fucking livid right now about this shit. I thought that was clear?



WorkingMoogle said:


> Sure, but with the road blocked off there's no easy way for people to bring things to them.
> 
> How many people do you think are going to hike 5-10 miles cross-country (under threat of arrest) in order to deliver food/water/blankets to them?




You know white people gonna do that shit. There's white people who want to marry Charles Manson.


----------



## Foxve (Jan 7, 2016)

Chibinello said:


> Would cutting wood be considered destruction of property? Because if so that should be game over. Also I doubt they'll find nearly enough food.





EvilMoogle said:


> Well, it piles on more inevitable charges for one.
> 
> Plus unless the building was designed for it (wood burning stoves/fireplaces/etc) fires indoors aren't generally a good idea.
> 
> ...



They made it clear that they don't give a shit about the law and have already stated that they will shoot anyone who tries to remove them. Why would they give a damn about any extra charges?


----------



## Mael (Jan 7, 2016)

NaS said:


> Bro I'm fucking livid right now about this shit. I thought that was clear?



Yeah, for all the wrong reasons.  If you're expecting going in guns blazing as the better option then you've got a twisted sense of logic.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 7, 2016)

Foxve said:


> They made it clear that they don't give a shit about the law and have already stated that they will shoot anyone who tries to remove them. Why would they give a damn about any extra charges?



Because the end-game for this is they give up and try to go home.  The more things to charge them with at that point the better.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 8, 2016)

These band of welps and rebels dare threaten the US government, and the peace and security of this nation?! starve them out and put them down if  necessary. The athority of the federal government will not be toyed with! We'll be the laughing  stock of the world if we let a bunch of hill billies force the justice system to do what they want.

With that many people you could pool funds together and hire better lawyers to try and appeal the ruling not intice civil war


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Mael said:


> Yeah, for all the wrong reasons.  If you're expecting going in guns blazing as the better option then you've got a twisted sense of logic.



You're the last person on this earth who can tell me I have a twisted sense of logic. I know for a fact any other besides whites and they would have shot that place up no hesitation. And if you ask me for proof... American History.


----------



## Mael (Jan 8, 2016)

NaS said:


> You're the last person on this earth who can tell me I have a twisted sense of logic. I know for a fact any other besides whites and they would have shot that place up no hesitation. And if you ask me for proof... American History.



Can you cite a specific example, particularly post-Jim Crow under these circumstances?  Banhammer posted the Black Panthers with assault rifles outside a building and no one seemed poised to shoot at them on the spot.

You know George Washington once had armed tax protesters shot in Whiskey's Rebellion?  They were all _*white*_.

Ain't that something?

And actually yes I can still do so.  You're making race-baited assumptions that have no solid citations, especially in the late 20th to 21st centuries.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Mael said:


> Can you cite a specific example, particularly post-Jim Crow under these circumstances?  Banhammer posted the Black Panthers with assault rifles outside a building and no one seemed poised to shoot at them on the spot.



And then the government disbanded them leaving the KKK around.



> You know George Washington once had armed tax protesters shot in Whiskey's Rebellion?  They were all _*white*_. Ain't that something?



George Washington owned slaves. Did he own white slaves? No, he didn't. Ain't that something.




> And actually yes I can still do so.  You're making race-baited assumptions that have no solid citations, especially in the late 20th to 21st centuries.



You can't. You get baiting into anime pairings. As a grown ass man, that pathetic.


----------



## Mael (Jan 8, 2016)

NaS said:


> And then the government disbanded them leaving the KKK around.



That's not what we're discussing though.



> George Washington owned slaves. Did he own white slaves? No, he didn't. Ain't that something.



That's not what we're discussing though.



> You can't. You get baiting into anime pairings. As a grown ass man, that pathetic.



That's not what we're discussing though.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Mael said:


> That's not what we're discussing though.







> That's not what we're discussing though.


..







> That's not what we're discussing though.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 9, 2016)

Mael said:


> Yeah, for all the wrong reasons.  If you're expecting going in guns blazing as the better option then you've got a twisted sense of logic.



Mael I love ya man and I mean no offense by this but may I ask if these people were muslim and came from the same Area as the Boston bombers (Chechnya) would you be saying the same stuff?
--------------------------
*IN other News Bundy Supporters Drove ATVs Through Native American Ruins*


> If there's one thing that will get your point across and persuade the general public to support your cause, it's driving a bunch of ATVs through Native American ruins and burials.
> 
> That seems to be the logic used by anti-Bureau of Land Management, pro-Cliven Bundy protestors who drove ATVs through a Utah canyon trail where motorized vehicles are banned. The rally was organized by Phil Lyman who, believe it or not, is actually a commissioner of San Juan county, home of Recapture Canyon. Hundreds of years ago, it was also home to the Puebloans, as evidenced by the ruins of their homes dug into the canyon rock. It is currently on federal land.
> 
> ...




Go ahead desecrate it, it will make taking you down all the more sweeter


----------



## Mael (Jan 9, 2016)

makeoutparadise said:


> Mael I love ya man and I mean no offense by this but may I ask if these people were muslim and came from the same Area as the Boston bombers (Chechnya) would you be saying the same stuff?
> --------------------------
> *IN other News Bundy Supporters Drove ATVs Through Native American Ruins*
> 
> ...



Considering Muslim extremists don't do this in their history of attacks it's hard to say.  If they were citizens and doing this then I'd at least contain them first as they're not actively shooting/hurting people.  No matter who it is, the second they start shooting it's game on.

Don't know why people get that.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 9, 2016)

Mael said:


> Considering Muslim extremists don't do this in their history of attacks it's hard to say.  If they were citizens and doing this then I'd at least contain them first as they're not actively shooting/hurting people.  No matter who it is, the second they start shooting it's game on.
> 
> Don't know why people get that.



*nods in agreement*


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 9, 2016)

More armed men have joined these band of brigands 


This is starting to be some outlaws of the water marsh shit


----------



## Soca (Jan 9, 2016)

*The network, a consortium of groups from Oregon, Washington andIdaho, arrived at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge midmorning in a convoy of about 18 vehicles, carrying rifles and handguns and dressed in military attire and bulletproof vests.*

How's that peaceful approach working out there? 

I mean if there wasn't evidence enough that they were testing how far they could past their limits, this should do it.


----------



## Tarot (Jan 9, 2016)

lel, I found an AJ+ video where they called them freedom fighters protesting government oppression. What a bunch of shits.


----------



## santanico (Jan 9, 2016)

This people are so fucking self entitled


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 9, 2016)

NaS said:


> But they've already sent messages out for people to bring food/water/blankets. And what with the police is doing by making it public as to what they're doing, it would just make people want to help them out more. This is why I don't like the strategy.





> On Saturday, militants drove government-owned vehicles and heavy equipment around the compound, saying the trucks and backhoes now belong to the local community. They also covered the national refuge sign with a new sign saying: "Harney County Resource Center" in white block letters over a blue background.


I fucking called it. I swear to God I predicted this. More white people are going to aid these guys. Had they just taken these lil fucks out first, we wouldn't be in this situation. But noooo, cutting people is much more effective.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jan 9, 2016)

> On Saturday, militants drove government-owned vehicles and heavy equipment around the compound, saying the trucks and backhoes now belong to the local community. They also covered the national refuge sign with a new sign saying: "Harney County Resource Center" in white block letters over a blue background.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



...Well, this whole situation is going to take even longer to defuse. What the hell is wrong with these chucklefucks...?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 9, 2016)

Kill them.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 9, 2016)

Utopia Realm said:


> ...Well, this whole situation is going to take even longer to defuse. What the hell is wrong with these chucklefucks...?



I really have to give it to white Americans. Whenever they want to defy the law, they form some of the most cooperative coalitions. Seriously, how did people not see this shit happening?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 9, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Kill them.



If the government shoots first then they become a rallying cry to every last one of these terroristmilitia groups scattered across the country.

I'm not sure why they didn't block the roads off and at least attempt to turn away this "convoy."  But killing them is the wrong move.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 9, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> If the government shoots first then they become a rallying cry to every last one of these terroristmilitia groups scattered across the country.
> 
> I'm not sure why they didn't block the roads off and at least attempt to turn away this "convoy."  But killing them is the wrong move.



No, killing them is the right move. They become a what, temporary martyr for some dumb cause. But with more and more people showing up armed and brigading the fucking building soon making it a fortress, whose to say now what other danger they present. Maybe one of the guys won't listen and let off a round sparking a now more dangerous gun fight than it would if it was just six people. At this point it's time to send in the National Guard, and let them do their job. At this point it's only going to take one person firing to set off a chain of event.


----------



## Soca (Jan 10, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> If the government shoots first then they become a rallying cry to every last one of these terroristmilitia groups scattered across the country.



Couldn't one argue that if they don't do anything other terrorist groups like this one will go out of their way to do the same thing anyways? Cuz if local enforcement isn't so much as making a plan to smoke these people out or something then it's just promoting that these groups are allowed to take over federal buildings whenever with no harm done to them.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jan 10, 2016)

Marcelle.B said:


> Couldn't one argue that if they don't do anything other terrorist groups like this one will go out of their way to do the same thing anyways? Cuz if local enforcement isn't so much as making a plan to smoke these people out or something then it's just promoting that these groups are allowed to take over federal buildings whenever with no harm done to them.



Yes.  Which is why my personal suggestion is not "don't do anything" but rather "barricade the roads in and out of the park, wait for them to get cold/hungry/tired/bored" and then *arrest them*.

Granted that would work better if you're stopping "reinforcements" and "supply convoys" from coming to them.

(Though I'm still liking the idea of "spike the water supply with LSD and Viagra" as an alternate solution)


----------



## D4nc3Style (Jan 10, 2016)

EvilMoogle said:


> Yes.  Which is why my personal suggestion is not "don't do anything" but rather "barricade the roads in and out of the park, wait for them to get cold/hungry/tired/bored" and then *arrest them*.
> 
> Granted that would work better if you're stopping "reinforcements" and "supply convoys" from coming to them.
> 
> (Though I'm still liking the idea of *"spike the water supply with LSD and Viagra" as an alternate solution)*



That alone would make it worth seeing.


----------



## stream (Jan 10, 2016)

I thought the police had blocked the roads? What's with those trucks then? 

Looks like we can look forward to these guys staying there for exactly as long as they want. It's not a big deal, but it's really embarrassing…


----------



## Mael (Jan 13, 2016)

*Armed Oregon occupiers to reveal departure plans*



> One of the leaders of the armed group that took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon 11 days ago says it will host a community meeting Friday to explain their position and announce when they will be leaving, local media report.
> 
> The announcement Tuesday by LaVoy Finicum, a rancher from Arizona, comes against a backdrop of growing resentment among residents of Burns, Ore., to the presence of the group, which arrived Jan. 2.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hitt (Jan 13, 2016)

That's right kids, go home.  And prepare to be serving some jail time.  You earned it!


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 13, 2016)

You know they ain't getting jail time.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jan 14, 2016)

Hope these fucktards are happy: ISIS supported them! And encouraged more anti-Government groups to do the same.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jan 14, 2016)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Hope these fucktards are happy: ISIS supported them! And encouraged more anti-Government groups to do the same.



kay not their problem.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 14, 2016)

> *The militia group that occupy Malhuer Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Ore., is tired of recieving dildos in the mail.*
> 
> The group of roughly 20 armed militia at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns, Ore., have been occupying the federal building since Jan. 2, in protest of the federal government's land use policies, and have been running short on supplies.
> 
> ...






THIS IS THE BEST!!!!!


----------



## Hitt (Jan 14, 2016)

The most effective action against them has actually been felt locally.

The people of the town that live near these jokers just want them to leave.  I think that has to sting quite a bit.  I'm sure this militia's original hope was to get the locals behind them at the very least.


----------



## Pliskin (Jan 14, 2016)

Soo, have the repub nominees commented on them? Seems like the kind of topic to ride, like the landwhale not giving out marriage licenses.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 14, 2016)

Pliskin said:


> Soo, have the repub nominees commented on them? Seems like the kind of topic to ride, like the landwhale not giving out marriage licenses.



Every nominee I have heard (Rubio, Cruz, Trump) has come out against them to varying degrees (Cruz sounded sympathetic to them "your protest is over, please leave peacefully" type tone).


----------



## Pliskin (Jan 14, 2016)

Then they should just let it rest, if neither wing throws public support (as well as the media) they have failed from the get go. Pretty boring.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 14, 2016)

why don't they melt the bag of dicks into molds for shit they actually need?


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 27, 2016)

*Ammon Bundy, other protesters arrested in Oregon; LaVoy Finicum killed*


> CNN)The weeks-long siege of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon suffered two major blows when protest leader Ammon Bundy was arrested and another key figure was killed.
> 
> Bundy and several fellow occupiers were pulled over Tuesday on Highway 395, a law enforcement official said. According to The Oregonian, they were headed to the city of John Day, where they were set to participate in a community meeting set up by local residents.
> 
> ...






And it finally starts. SWAT planned felony stop. Ryan Bundy and Lavoy Finicum  refused to surrender. The guy Finicum has been quoted on air that he'd die before surrendering, and he did.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jan 27, 2016)

stamp the rebels out!!!


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 27, 2016)

Might sound morbid. I Think we should update the Thread title with a kill/arrest count.


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 27, 2016)

My fear and prediction is that the guy who got shot will be turned into some kind of American Taliban martyr, and there will be copycat armed occupations in other states. I also doubt they'll all go as peacefully as this one did overall.


----------



## Pliskin (Jan 27, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]N8TTWujUGsU[/YOUTUBE]

Is that guy alive? Also, god I love America.


----------



## Mael (Jan 27, 2016)

Pilaf said:


> My fear and prediction is that the guy who got shot will be turned into some kind of American Taliban martyr, and there will be copycat armed occupations in other states. I also doubt they'll all go as peacefully as this one did overall.



You'll get some butthurt like over Ruby Ridge and then it'll fade.


----------



## Randomaxe (Jan 27, 2016)

Mael said:


> You'll get some butthurt like over Ruby Ridge and then it'll fade.



I had forgotten it already. What were we talking again.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 27, 2016)

Not impressed. They got them on a traffic stop. Whatever.


----------



## Mael (Jan 27, 2016)

NaS said:


> Not impressed. They got them on a traffic stop. Whatever.



The hell were you looking for?

Be happy with what you get.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 27, 2016)

Mael said:


> The hell were you looking for?
> 
> Be happy with what you get.



Man shut the fuck up. Don't tell me be happy like I'm some child. Fuck them dude  Them dudes were wrong from the beginning.


----------



## Mael (Jan 27, 2016)

NaS said:


> Man shut the fuck up. Don't tell me be happy like I'm some child. Fuck them dude  Them dudes were wrong from the beginning.



Well no shit they were but you can't have your cake and eat it too.  This idiotic group just had its arms lopped off.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 27, 2016)

You done talking me to death?


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jan 27, 2016)

NaS said:


> Man shut the fuck up. Don't tell me be happy like I'm some child. Fuck them dude  Them dudes were wrong from the beginning.



They were, and now a group of them are arrested and one of them is dead.

Should be hearing news about the rest of them any minute now.


----------



## Mael (Jan 27, 2016)

NaS said:


> You done talking me to death?



Haven't turned skeletal yet so no.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 27, 2016)

Irony. These so-called 'militiamen' and 'patriots' say the government is trying to illegally  take their land and guns. The ones that were arrested are most likely going to be charges with a felony, which means they can't legally own guns. So if they ever brandish weapons the government can legally take their guns.

Self-fulfilling prophets!


----------



## Mael (Jan 27, 2016)

Blitzomaru said:


> Irony. These so-called 'militiamen' and 'patriots' say the government is trying to illegally  take their land and guns. The ones that were arrested are most likely going to be charges with a felony, which means they can't legally own guns. So if they ever brandish weapons the government can legally take their guns.
> 
> Self-fulfilling prophets!



They're all just idiots who are afraid of responsibility and the concept of an authority that is real as compared to existential.


----------

