Jump to content

Armed Militia Group Takes Over Federal Building In Oregon...plans To Stay For Years.


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If this armed "militia" was any shade of brown and took over a government building while proclaiming that they are "prepared to die", they would have been quickly classified as violent terrorists, the building would have been stormed by Special Forces and everyone would have been eliminated with extreme prejudice (oh the irony).

Yessir!!

Pretty much. It's great to be white.

laugh.pnglaugh.pnglaugh.png

At least you're honest about it Shot! 'Preciate that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this armed "militia" was any shade of brown and took over a government building while proclaiming that they are "prepared to die", they would have been quickly classified as violent terrorists, the building would have been stormed by Special Forces and everyone would have been eliminated with extreme prejudice (oh the irony).

No question about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The authorities need to grow a set.

Cut the power, close the roads in or out. Let them know that they have 24 hours to get their sh*t and get out. Call in every Sniper you can get your paws on. If they don't come out within 24 hours, go get them. If anyone *touches* a firearm in the general vicinity of a LEO, put a .308 round through them.

Better yet, get some Apache helicopters to back you up. Nothing more intimidating...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They definitely need to cut the power and utilities. It's cold as **** there. Not sure if it's legal/constitutional (probably not), but if so, block their cell and data signals also.

I know we're all half-joking about this, but this situation is freaking insane. I don't even know what kinds of laws they're breaking, but I've got to imagine this is life in federal prison type stuff.

It depresses me to think of how many people that don't necessarily support these folks, but secretly hope there is a shootout so these guys will be martyrs and/or start some revolution against the federal government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They definitely need to cut the power and utilities. It's cold as **** there. Not sure if it's legal/constitutional (probably not), but if so, block their cell and data signals also.

I know we're all half-joking about this, but this situation is freaking insane. I don't even know what kinds of laws they're breaking, but I've got to imagine this is life in federal prison type stuff.

It depresses me to think of how many people that don't necessarily support these folks, but secretly hope there is a shootout so these guys will be martyrs and/or start some revolution against the federal government.

It really isn't funny. My post was really only half joking. The authorities cannot allow these guys to walk free.

Taking and illegally occupying federal property is a federal crime, worth about 20yrs. On top of that, they did break and enter. Crimes have been committed. And, because they've done it as an organized group, they only have to prove that one of them was guilty.

In addition, if prosecuted, they can say bye bye to their guns. They'll be felons. Plus, since they possessed firearms during the process of their crimes, charges will reflect that.

Personally, I want them to walk out peacefully and face the charges. Most likely, because of their pasty white complexions, they'll leave once they get hungry and go home...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really isn't funny. My post was really only half joking. The authorities cannot allow these guys to walk free.

Taking and illegally occupying federal property is a federal crime, worth about 20yrs. On top of that, they did break and enter. Crimes have been committed. And, because they've done it as an organized group, they only have to prove that one of them was guilty.

In addition, if prosecuted, they can say bye bye to their guns. They'll be felons. Plus, since they possessed firearms during the process of their crimes, charges will reflect that.

Personally, I want them to walk out peacefully and face the charges. Most likely, because of their pasty white complexions, they'll leave once they get hungry and go home...

Oh they're going tot RICO the **** out of these guys. I hope everyone of them walks, or at least limps out (I mean, if one or fourteen of them gets out of line and has to take the butt of an AR15 to the back of the knee, or maybe forcefully tackled, then so be it) of there are are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The federal government is overreaching for sure, but this absolutely cannot be tolerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this armed "militia" was any shade of brown and took over a government building while proclaiming that they are "prepared to die", they would have been quickly classified as violent terrorists, the building would have been stormed by Special Forces and everyone would have been eliminated with extreme prejudice (oh the irony).

Oh, please.

If they had hostages or were shooting at people from the building then there would, at the very least, be plans in place to storm the building. They would have also been dead by now if they were on a shooting spree. Instead they're holed up in an empty building in an isolated area and talking a big game while also begging for food on twitter. They're a threat but not an immediate one to anyone so why would law enforcement risk their lives by storming the building when they can just starve them out?

And law enforcement wouldn't kill armed white people? Are you serious? Have you never heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge?

I'm sick of these **** arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's the part about these ranchers and their fight with the federal government that I truly do not understand:

libresco-oregon.png?w=575&h=469

They are getting a 90% discount on the grazing fees from the federal government. But paying 10% of market value isn't enough of a discount, they want to (literally) own the land themselves and use it for free. These people are certifiable.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's the part about these ranchers and their fight with the federal government that I truly do not understand:

libresco-oregon.png?w=575&h=469

They are getting a 90% discount on the grazing fees from the federal government. But paying 10% of market value isn't enough of a discount, they want to (literally) own the land themselves and use it for free. These people are certifiable.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/

The funniest thing about this entire scenario is this quote:

Mr. Bundy described the federal building as “the people’s facility, owned by the people” and said his group was occupying it to take “a hard stand against this overreach, this taking of the people’s land and resources."

Far right loons fighting for the proletariat. laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat, called the Bundy family patriarch a "domestic terrorist," the state's Republican senator Dean Heller called him and his supporters "patriots" — then denied that. Cliven Bundy became a right-wing darling thanks, in part, to frequent coverage of the land drama by FOX News.

Meanwhile, Cliven Bundy's sons rallied behind their dad.

"We ran them out of here," Ammon Bundy boasted, referring to the feds. "We were serious. We weren't playing around."

But the Republicans who embraced Cliven Bundy — like GOP presidential candidates Rand Paul and Ted Cruz — backed away after he was quoted in a New York Times article making racist remarks about African-Americans.

Neither Bundy son lives on the ranch in Bunkerville, some 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, which has been in the family since the 1870s.

Ammon Bundy lives in a Phoenix, Arizona, suburb and runs a valet car fleet service, according to public records. Like his dad, he is a registered Republican and has a hunting license. He has also contributed to Infowars web site run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

In a November 2014 piece for the website, Ammon Bundy described being stopped by a TSA agent at a Phoenix airport and speculated that he was being hassled because Reid branded him "a terrorist against the people of this country, the people I love and would so willingly to give my life for."

Ryan Bundy is a former Republican who is currently not affiliated with any political party, according to records. He lives in Cedar City, Utah, and owns a construction company. He has reportedly took part in protests against the BLM's decision to bar all-terrain vehicles from Utah's environmentally sensitive Recapture Canyon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meet-ammon-ryan-bundy-activists-leading-oregon-standoff-n489766

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat, called the Bundy family patriarch a "domestic terrorist," the state's Republican senator Dean Heller called him and his supporters "patriots" — then denied that. Cliven Bundy became a right-wing darling thanks, in part, to frequent coverage of the land drama by FOX News.

Meanwhile, Cliven Bundy's sons rallied behind their dad.

"We ran them out of here," Ammon Bundy boasted, referring to the feds. "We were serious. We weren't playing around."

But the Republicans who embraced Cliven Bundy — like GOP presidential candidates Rand Paul and Ted Cruz — backed away after he was quoted in a New York Times article making racist remarks about African-Americans.

Neither Bundy son lives on the ranch in Bunkerville, some 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, which has been in the family since the 1870s.

Ammon Bundy lives in a Phoenix, Arizona, suburb and runs a valet car fleet service, according to public records. Like his dad, he is a registered Republican and has a hunting license. He has also contributed to Infowars web site run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

In a November 2014 piece for the website, Ammon Bundy described being stopped by a TSA agent at a Phoenix airport and speculated that he was being hassled because Reid branded him "a terrorist against the people of this country, the people I love and would so willingly to give my life for."

Ryan Bundy is a former Republican who is currently not affiliated with any political party, according to records. He lives in Cedar City, Utah, and owns a construction company. He has reportedly took part in protests against the BLM's decision to bar all-terrain vehicles from Utah's environmentally sensitive Recapture Canyon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meet-ammon-ryan-bundy-activists-leading-oregon-standoff-n489766

These guys occupying the abandoned building are idiots. They are not helping their cause, what ever that may be. That being said, Eric Holder himself was involved with a take over of a building in 1970 at Colombia and he was our nations highest law officer. What does this all say about our state of affairs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember back when the Department of Justice issued a report cautioning about the rise of right-wing domestic groups and the danger they posed?

Remember when right-wingers went ape-s*** and cried about bias and unfairness?

Wonder what they say now.

Has this group shot anyone? How many shooting deaths occur in Chicago each weekend? Perspective Trout is not your strong suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same militia that shot some cops in Arizona and threatened to shoot federal agents before.

I don't follow PG. If any of these guys had of shot anyone, they'd be in jail. My point is, these guys are not violent as of yet and may never. Civil disobedience is common in our country. It's when you go to violence is when you need to go down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perspective does not mean comparing completely different scenarios.

Trout is desperately trying to tie this group, the right into terrorist orgs. He has been doing it for awhile. He is he.l bent on taking the eye of real terrorists and redefining it to white, conservatives. He also ignores, blatantly ignores the 100's, 1000's killed in our major cities to real criminal elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about terrorists? We have plenty home grown like these animals. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/man-who-raped-vets-wife-front-him-then-killed-both-learns-his-fate?fb=ptba

Man Who Raped Vet's Wife In Front Of Him, Then Killed Both, Learns His Fate
0
TWEET THIS ARTICLE
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
killedwife.JPG?itok=QS2t0nrd
By Sean Kelly, Mon, November 9, 2015

Kesaun Kedron Sykes, a 27-year-old ex-marine, has been sentenced to death for the killing of Iraq veteran Jan Pietrzak and his wife Qiana in 2008.

Sykes and three accomplices broke into Pietrzak’s Riverside, Calif., home with the intention of robbing it. The men first forced Pietrzak to watch as they raped his wife before shooting them both in the head and killing them. According to the Daily Mail, Sykes reportedly had attempted to set fire to the couple’s home while they were still alive.

Trout is desperately trying to tie this group, the right into terrorist orgs. He has been doing it for awhile. He is he.l bent on taking the eye of real terrorists and redefining it to white, conservatives. He also ignores, blatantly ignores the 100's, 1000's killed in our major cities to real criminal elements.

You called these three terrorists when they clearly do not fit the definition. They're horrible criminals that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but they're not "terrorists."

You should examine your own actions before accusing others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

  • 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; and
  • Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

  • Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
  • Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801©.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Please explain how this group does not fit the FBI's definition of domestic terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this group shot anyone? How many shooting deaths occur in Chicago each weekend? Perspective Trout is not your strong suit.

They threatened to shoot any government agents that come close to the building. Do you think they're bluffing? Just big mouths who don't have any intention of using the guns they brought with them?

Maybe that's the case, but again the DOJ report wasn't about lethal attacks only. It was about the increasing danger of right-wing groups, including militias like this one, and I think we're seeing that increase now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You called these three terrorists when they clearly do not fit the definition. They're horrible criminals that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but they're not "terrorists."

You should examine your own actions before accusing others.

I don't think that I've even called the militia group "terrorists". I called them "armed militia group" in the title of the thread and talked about the DOJ's report about the dangers of "right-wing domestic groups" in the post that Snake responded to.

As usual, Snake is off the deep end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...