alfadriver wrote:
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
They also want freedom from government, but want to have their cattle fed for free on land they don't own. Which is also taking from the general public.
It's not only that they want to graze for free, they basically deny that the Federal government should/can own the lands (because a bunch of them basically state that they don't accept the Federal government's authority) and that they should just get the land for free like you could back in the 1800s when you homesteaded out here. I think The Onion said it best when they wrote "What do they want? - $5m bucks and free passage to 1870".
Given that they basically staged an armed revolt against the government (albeit a revolt that could've been better organized by the Muppets), I applaud the government for not turning the whole place into a big smoking crater.
Peacefully protesting is one thing and I right I fully support even when I don't agree with the cause, trying to resurrect the range wars of the 1800s, destroying federal property and bulldozing a trail through an archaeological site in order to bully said government and the people it represents is completely unacceptable.
84FSP wrote:
I had been waiting for something to happen on this one. It did seem to be at least intelligent hunting on the government side to do this in the least confrontational manner possible. I still can't help but think of how different this would have played out had the group not been white guys.
Pretty sure David Koresh and crew were mainly white guys, played out differently for them.
In reply to Jim Pettengill:
And the original complaint that questioned some mandatory sentences is valid, too.
I'm fine with asking and talking about it.
But when one forces change via force or threat of force, well... that's not ok.
Being from Idaho, I remember some of the land discussions. With the rather large irony that most of these guys who want free access to feed their cattle also complain bitterly when the government supports people who don't have means.
As for who owns the land- much of the land is stuff nobody wants to own. And if nobody owns it, it's all public land, we all own it. And if we ALL own it, by definition, it's government owned. Since the government is the organization that is the representation of all of us. If you want to use it, fine- but all of us who can't use it would like to get some compensation that you are making a profit on land that we all own.
alfadriver wrote:
But when one forces change via force or threat of force, well... that's not ok.
Which side are you talking about here?
I didn't agree with most of the stuff these guys were wanting. I grew up on a farm. We raised and sold cattle. We had to buy ground if we wanted to use it as pasture. I thought it was insulting that these guys thought they should get free ground to compete with people like us when we have to pay for ours. It would be like a factory insisting on free electricity at their plant. I also think that the bulk of these guys just never outgrew that phase were you dress up like a cowboy and play guns and therefore had a very distorted view of reality. But I think calling them terrorists is stretching the truth. I think squatters is a more applicable. They showed up to unoccupied federal area and refused to leave. Yes, they were armed. Were they carrying legally? I honestly don't know, but if they were, it doesn't count as terrorism in my book, it would take more than an opinion article to convince me. They said they would defend themselves. I imagine most of them pictured a more Ruby Ridge, Waco-esque ending to this, I know I did.
gearheadmb wrote:
I think squatters is a more applicable. They showed up to unoccupied federal area and refused to leave. Yes, they were armed. Were they carrying legally? I honestly don't know, but if they were, it doesn't count as terrorism in my book, it would take more than an opinion article to convince me. They said they would defend themselves. I imagine most of them pictured a more Ruby Ridge, Waco-esque ending to this, I know I did.
Squatters leave and/or go to court when they're asked to leave, not state that they're not leaving and will defend themselves with lethal weapons if law enforcement tried to remove them, and would only leave if the land is given to them (in this case a geographically significant piece of land surrounding the little building they were in).
Try squatting in a house like that and the SWAT team would be there shortly, and after they arrest you they'd charge you with much more than squatting.
In reply to gearheadmb:
I'm talking about the greedy farmers. Who decided to take over a property and defend it with arms when people did not want agree with them.
One should not be able to use the threat of deadly force as a way to get me to agree with them. As I see it.
How many times did the locals ask them to leave after they claimed they would go away if the locals didn't want them there?
It's too bad that we won't find out what happened during the traffic stop, but my guess is that the 8 fired first. So they crossed the lines to being terrorists.
BTW, had this been a group of Muslims that took over an empty federal building, armed to the teeth like these guys are, and said they intend to defend themselves- most would call them terrorists.
They TOOK OVER A BUILDING. How can one justify "defending yourself" as an excuse when you went on the offensive first? This isn't a peaceful occupation of an administration building. This is an armed take over, with the intent of having a mortal fight.
Scumbags. No less so than the so-called "Minutemen" who fought the just government of King George III during the American Revolutionary War.
WOW Really Paul? wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
Ranchers aren't farmers. 
Agreed. Farmers raise crops and livestock.
Ranchers play dress up and raise elaborate facial hair.
alfadriver wrote:
....It's too bad that we won't find out what happened during the traffic stop, but my guess is that the 8 fired first. So they crossed the lines to being terrorists....
Witnesses say he tried to escape the stop, got his truck stuck, then jumped out of the truck and charged the officers. I am sure he was armed, don't know if he shot, but I am sure that doesn't really matter at that point.
They might not be terrorists, but it's something close. They were clearly squatting with an implied threat of force to resist (legal) removal.
There is a difference between legally carrying and threatening to shoot someone while legally carrying. Not to mention they were threatening to shoot federal agents which is just bad form.
1988RedT2 wrote:
Scumbags. No less so than the so-called "Minutemen" who fought the just government of King George III during the American Revolutionary War.
Wrong. Civil discourse preceeded the revolutionary war. There was none of that here. Armed conflict was also the last resort, not the knee jerk reaction. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure there is a channel for ammending legislature to resolve disputes regarding land laws and taxation here in America, as well as a separation of Federal regulation and states rights, neither of which was present in the 1700s.
So, yeah, they were scumbags. But I suppose bowlers gonna bowl, scrollers gonna scroll, trollers gonna troll, molars gonna mole...
92dxman
SuperDork
1/27/16 1:27 p.m.
I'm glad the FBI took action on this. I think it dragged on too long.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:
In reply to GameboyRMH: he is Mormon. Mormons do not do cremation.
if he hasn't left specific instructions as to how his remains are to be handled, doesn't the state make the decision ... and as we've seen in the past, the feds can bring quite a lot of pressure to bear when they want to ...
that would be a slap in the face ... pretty neat way to finish this off 
What are the penalties for simply being armed in a federal building?
Mitchell wrote:
What are the penalties for simply being armed in a federal building?
Not a simple blanket answer. I've had a hunting rifle inside a building on the White Sands Missle Range and it was perfecty legal. Where they were it may have been perfectly legal to carry.
Nick (LUCAS) Comstock wrote:
84FSP wrote:
I had been waiting for something to happen on this one. It did seem to be at least intelligent hunting on the government side to do this in the least confrontational manner possible. I still can't help but think of how different this would have played out had the group not been white guys.
Pretty sure David Koresh and crew were mainly white guys, played out differently for them.
And it surely didn't turn out differently for Randy Weaver's poor family.
That being said, I can empathize more with the Weaver's situation at Ruby Ridge. For those that don't know much about it I would suggest reading "Every Knee Shall Bow" by Jess Walter. Waco was a little different for me personally because I always thought Koresh was so incredibly creepy that possibly all those kids were in danger. Still even then, the govt. handled that all wrong.
These guys in Oregon are just the dudes that open carry AR's into a Starbucks except on a bigger stage.
crankwalk wrote:
Nick (LUCAS) Comstock wrote:
84FSP wrote:
I had been waiting for something to happen on this one. It did seem to be at least intelligent hunting on the government side to do this in the least confrontational manner possible. I still can't help but think of how different this would have played out had the group not been white guys.
Pretty sure David Koresh and crew were mainly white guys, played out differently for them.
And it surely didn't turn out differently for Randy Weaver's poor family.
That being said, I can empathize more with the Weaver's situation at Ruby Ridge. For those that don't know much about it I would suggest reading "Every Knee Shall Bow" by Jess Walter. Waco was a little different for me personally because I always thought Koresh was so incredibly creepy that possibly all those kids were in danger. Still even then, the govt. handled that all wrong.
These guys in Oregon are just the dudes that open carry AR's into a Starbucks except on a bigger stage.
The only official reason I have seen for the Waco mess was a BATFE operation targeting a member of it who was a FFL holder suspected of possessing m16 sears(which could allow your generic AR-15 to become select fire with matched other parts)
I have never heard a definitive answer if they actually found said items.
I still think they should have just starved them out.. nobody gets in (except to deliver sex toys and lube) and nobody gets out. Yes, they had guns, but eventually they would run out of bullets to go hunting with. If they cut off electricity, water, and anything else, they would have eventually come crawling out
These guys are essentially a combination of the Occupy Wallstreet people and the people that go join ISIS.
If they shoot like they video they will be aiming high
I remember reading Super Hunkys rants about the BLM back in the Eighties when they killed the Barstow to Vegas. He was so incensed that he moved to Mexico.
Hahaha looks like their leader had a "E36 M3 just got real" moment and is telling everyone that the camping trip is over:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/27/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html
I wonder if the others will need to experience their own or not. Usually pampered first-worlders who join terrorist groups have this moment when they're about to trigger the detonator on a suicide vest, and then realize they've been idiots...just before their new boss dials a number on his cell phone to make sure there will be no backsies.
First time I've ever read yahoo news comments where everyone says the same thing AND I agree with them. What a screwed up situation.
