Gunmen have taken over a federal building near me.

[JughedJones]

I know I promised I wouldn't be a part of political threads anymore, and this topic can only go that way. However, this is too important to not talk about.

Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters | OregonLive.com


Whether you're on the left or right, I have to assume that any thinking person believes this to be beyond the pale.

What in the holy fuck is going on? We seem to be reaching a tipping point really fast.

It's not like Oregon hasn't had its fair share of idiots with assault weapons mowing people down.




EDIT: Sorry, I made my first idiot mistakes. Armed gunman? Like there's any other kind? I feel stupid. Gun Man? There's more than one. I'm a dope.

I sure wish I could change the title to "Gunmen have taken over a federal building near me" or "Holy Crap, there's madmen with guns that have seized a federal building near me."

 

[NDRock]

Was BVG in charge of defending the building?

 

[Corry]

This is not going to end well.

 

[JughedJones]

Was BVG in charge of defending the building?

Oh snap.

 

[NDinMich]

 

[Guest]

The title over dramatizes the incident. There was no one there when they secured the building, and it's in protest for two people being sent to jail. It's not like they went they went in guns blazing to a populous federal building and took hostages.

 

[kmoose]

The title over dramatizes the incident. There was no one there when they secured the building, and it's in protest for two people being sent to jail. It's not like they went they went in guns blazing to a populous federal building and took hostages.

Considering that they are calling on all "Patriots" across the country to bring their weapons and join them, I think the drama level in the title is appropriate. These idiots are going to get killed, and they are going to take quite a few people with them.

 

[NDRock]

The title over dramatizes the incident. There was no one there when they secured the building, and it's in protest for two people being sent to jail. It's not like they went they went in guns blazing to a populous federal building and took hostages.

Exactly. I believe it's one of the son's of that rancher Clive (forget his last name) who was all over the news last year, who is leading the protest.

 

[wizards8507]

Absolutely bullshit journalism, and the reaction to this is remarkably anti-American. It's a sad day in our country when popular opinion tells is that the first and second amendments are worthless, or at the very least that you're not allowed to exercise them at the same time.

 

[kmoose]

It's a sad day in our country when popular opinion tells is that the first and second amendments are worthless, or at the very least that you're not allowed to exercise them at the same time.

I don't get what you mean by this?

 

[wizards8507]

I don't get what you mean by this?

I mean these guys are apparently peaceably protesting their government. Some of them are apparently carrying firearms. Those are both constitutionally protected rights. Yet when they exercise those rights, the story is that a militia has attacked a federal building. Maybe more details will come out, but that doesn't look to be the case.

 

[NDRock]

Absolutely bullshit journalism, and the reaction to this is remarkably anti-American. It's a sad day in our country when popular opinion tells is that the first and second amendments are worthless, or at the very least that you're not allowed to exercise them at the same time.

Sounds good, until the Black Panthers show up to the State Capital.

 

[wizards8507]

Sounds good, until the Black Panthers show up to the State Capital.

That would be called "brandishing."

Sent from my Galaxy Note4 using Tapatalk.

 

[kmoose]

I mean these guys are apparently peaceably protesting their government. Some of them are apparently carrying firearms. Those are both constitutionally protected rights. Yet when they exercise those rights, the story is that a militia has attacked a federal building. Maybe more details will come out, but that doesn't look to be the case.

Um.......... you do realize that it is illegal to break and enter into Federal property, right? And it is probably aggravating circumstances to do so while in possession of a firearm?

After the march Saturday, the armed protesters broke into the refuge's unoccupied building and refused to leave.

Nothing says "UnAmerican" like asking people to leave property that they are trespassing on, huh?

 

[JughedJones]

That would be called "brandishing."

Sent from my Galaxy Note4 using Tapatalk.

but.. but... black people are scary!

 

[NDRock]

That would be called "brandishing."

Sent from my Galaxy Note4 using Tapatalk.

Perfectly legal at the time, until Reagan and his fellow Republicans put a stop to it.

 

[JughedJones]

Absolutely bullshit journalism, and the reaction to this is remarkably anti-American. It's a sad day in our country when popular opinion tells is that the first and second amendments are worthless, or at the very least that you're not allowed to exercise them at the same time.

You frighten me.

These are the people you support. Seriously. Take a breath.

 

[Grahambo]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">These dudes are feuding with park rangers. Their political philosophy is the same as a cartoon bear's.</p>— Baby New Year Agee (@MarkAgee) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkAgee/status/683592691603603456">January 3, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

Um.......... you do realize that it is illegal to break and enter into Federal property, right? And it is probably aggravating circumstances to do so while in possession of a firearm?



Nothing says "UnAmerican" like asking people to leave property that they are trespassing on, huh?

 

[JughedJones]

look at all them guns.

those people are armed to the teeth.

P.S. The door was open to that State House. They walked in and spoke their mind.

They didn't threaten, overtly or otherwise, to harm anyone if they didn't get their way.

It's a sad day now that people don't understand the difference between civil disobedience and sedition.

 

[wizards8507]

Jug, do you understand what they're protesting? Two guys were sent to prison for arson (which was a controlled burn, not arson, but that's beside the point). They served their time, then a judge decided AFTER THE FACT that their sentences were too short so he ordered them back to prison. That's fucking terrifying. That's despotism. Tyranny.

Sent from my Galaxy Note4 using Tapatalk.

 

[wizards8507]

look at all them guns.

those people are armed to the teeth.

That's crap. The first and second amendments aren't mutually exclusive. You can practice both at the same time.

 

[Domina Nostra]

What they are doing is illegal and the are going to get justly burned for it, but guys with guns breaking into a rwlativy unimportant, unoccupied building and staying there in protest is worlds apart from armed gunman taking an occupied building from federal officials by threat of violence.

Illegal is illegal, but even the law makes a thousand distinctions based on the nature, motivation, and culpability of an action.

 

[JughedJones]

Jug, do you understand what they're protesting? Two guys were sent to prison for arson (which was a controlled burn, not arson, but that's beside the point). They served their time, then a judge decided AFTER THE FACT that their sentences were too short so he ordered them back to prison. That's fucking terrifying. That's despotism. Tyranny.

Sent from my Galaxy Note4 using Tapatalk.

Wizard, I do understand what they're 'protesting.'

They burned up government land to cover up a petty crime. They called to ask if they could set the fire after they started it. They had been told that it was illegal, they knew there was a burn ban in effect, and there was a firefighting crew in the area that had to evacuate because of their idiocy.

They were charged with arson and a local judge decided to give them less than the mandatory minimum for the crime. The feds said 'no.' Now they have to serve the rest because their intent was selfish, malicious, and dangerous.

But you're right, all that IS beside the point. This is not how you go about things. Injustices, perceived or otherwise, happen everyday. If you think every time we're wronged by the justice system we should take up arms and occupy a federal building, I don't even know...

Sometimes, the courts and prosecutors are complete kooks. Worse, sometimes prosecutors have bad intent and go after people they shouldn't. Do you think, in every case, the aggrieved party should take up arms?

That's the end of society as we know it.

 

[JughedJones]

That's crap. The first and second amendments aren't mutually exclusive. You can practice both at the same time.

Bullshit!

Civil disobedience is one thing. Being civilly disobedient while committing armed breaking and entering is entirely another.

You expect to go to jail when you cause a stir, it's part of the deal. Refusing to leave, having a sit in, blocking traffic.. etc. You expect to go to jail to make your point.

These guys have trained to start a little war that nobody wants but them.

Don't be dense.

 

[JughedJones]

What they are doing is illegal and the are going to get justly burned for it, but guys with guns breaking into a rwlativy unimportant, unoccupied building and staying there in protest is worlds apart from armed gunman taking an occupied building from federal officials by threat of violence.

Illegal is illegal, but even the law makes a thousand distinctions based on the nature, motivation, and culpability of an action.

Nope. You wait and see what happens when the feds tell them to leave... Now.


They're going to make a last stand on this piece. That's what they've said in interviews about this very thing. It's not like we don't know their plan. They intend to stay for YEARS on that federal property. They're begging for someone to try to make them leave.

They're not going anywhere until shots are fired. They hope that other militias and folks like Wizard will side with them and we start the Free Men revolution. This is not civil disobedience. It's terrorism.



EDIT: Sorry for the triple post. I'm pretty worked up and I thought they'd auto-merge.

 

[kmoose]

Jug, do you understand what they're protesting? Two guys were sent to prison for arson (which was a controlled burn, not arson, but that's beside the point). They served their time, then a judge decided AFTER THE FACT that their sentences were too short so he ordered them back to prison. That's fucking terrifying. That's despotism. Tyranny.

Sent from my Galaxy Note4 using Tapatalk.

I think maybe you don't understand exactly what happened. It is not a "controlled burn" when it takes place on land that does not belong to you. You can't go into your neighbor's yard and cut down trees that you feel threaten your home; why should you be able to start a fire on your neighbor's property because *you* feel it makes your property safer?

Each one of these guys was previously indicted for arson on public lands, and there was STRONG evidence that this fire was set to destroy the evidence of an illegal slaughter of at least 7 deer on the land that was burnt.

Beyond that, let's not make this about the Hammonds. The Hammonds don't want these assholes there. They have asked them NOT to take up their cause, and to just leave.

 

[kmoose]

I don't see the correlation between people gathering in an open public building, sans firearms, and a group of malcontent dickheads with firearms taking over a government building by trespass, and then inviting every other anti-government dickhead with a gun to come join them?

 

[JughedJones]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbGdMKpHDDE


I see a parallel in these two videos.

http://youtu.be/G-gQ3aAdhIo

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I think maybe you don't understand exactly what happened. It is not a "controlled burn" when it takes place on land that does not belong to you. You can't go into your neighbor's yard and cut down trees that you feel threaten your home; why should you be able to start a fire on your neighbor's property because *you* feel it makes your property safer?

Each one of these guys was previously indicted for arson on public lands, and there was STRONG evidence that this fire was set to destroy the evidence of an illegal slaughter of at least 7 deer on the land that was burnt.

Beyond that, let's not make this about the Hammonds. The Hammonds don't want these assholes there. They have asked them NOT to take up their cause, and to just leave.

Technically you can cut down any branches threatening your property. Depending on local laws of course.