Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Is it true those ranchers were tried under the patriot act? Do you think the judge who initially heard the case thought maybe it was a bit harsh. Also the ranchers claimed they set the fires to kill invasive plants and a back fire against wild fires. I've no problem with the sentence they were given. Now that the judge that heard the case has retired I think they wont to rearrest and sentence those ranchers. Sorry I think that is a crock. Not saying that I agree with what the Bundies are doing but there is more to this story and I do not think those ranchers deserve this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/04/the-mysterious-fires-that-led-to-the-bundy-clans-oregon-standoff/

No, it's not true, they were not tried under the Patriot Act. I covered this several pages back. The prosecution was allowed to appeal their original sentences under Federal Criminal Procedure and the 9th Circuit held that the district court got it wrong under the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. They weren't rearrested, they turned themselves in to serve the remainder of their sentences.

We've also discussed that mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines are unfair and need to be revised. These shitheads should have gone to their congressmen to see about reform of that area instead of, you know, leading an armed occupation of a federal building.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I lost focus after the Rosa Parks tweet! Rosa Parks, really?? Such arrogance and tomfoolery to even make the comparison.

SB, not to diminish the racial insensitivity they displayed by making that comment, but any idiot could make such a stupid statement. I'd say the real test of their arrogance was gathering 150 of their closest friends and leading an armed occupation of a federal building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not true, they were not tried under the Patriot Act. I covered this several pages back. The prosecution was allowed to appeal their original sentences under Federal Criminal Procedure and the 9th Circuit held that the district court got it wrong under the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. They weren't rearrested, they turned themselves in to serve the remainder of their sentences.

We've also discussed that mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines are unfair and need to be revised. These shitheads should have gone to their congressmen to see about reform of that area instead of, you know, leading an armed occupation of a federal building.

In that Washington Post article it mentions something about the 1996 anti-terrorism laws. Like I said I think the Bundies need to but out of this, and mind their own business I also think the 9th Circuit Court does as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop it.

The ones who shot the cops are in jail, but it doesn't mean they weren't part of the militia as you seem to be implying. Let us also not forget that these are the same people who put these wives in children in front of them so they would be the first ones shot in case a shootout started with federal agents and bragged about how they had snipers itching for a chance to shoot federal agents. They have also repeatedly called for a violent uprising against the federal government. They are not non-violent protesters by any stretch of the imagination. They are terrorists seeking to spark a widespread, violent revolt.

Obama was friends and visited the house of a member of the weather underground. Does it really get any more radical than that? A bunch of trust fund brats planning the infrastructure to murder 50,000,000 Americans while they set off bombs? I'm sure they would have passed laws and called it constitutional as well while they sentenced people to long prison sentences for burning 200 acres and hunting out of season with improper papers.

Edited by Sobeit
Link to post
Share on other sites

In that Washington Post article it mentions something about the 1996 anti-terrorism laws. Like I said I think the Bundies need to but out of this, and mind their own business I also think the 9th Circuit Court does as well.

Read back through this thread, I have addressed that fully. The 9th circuit applied the law as it was written, this was one instance when the 9th circuit did not engage in judicial activism, and instead the trial court judge did so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read back through this thread, I have addressed that fully. The 9th circuit applied the law as it was written, this was one instance when the 9th circuit did not engage in judicial activism, and instead the trial court judge did so.

I did read back through it and what I said stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SB, not to diminish the racial insensitivity they displayed by making that comment, but any idiot could make such a stupid statement. I'd say the real test of their arrogance was gathering 150 of their closest friends and leading an armed occupation of a federal building.

The obama administration and many Faux black leaders use, compare the civil rights struggles to current events. Gay rights, illegal immigration, executive orders, etc. It's watering down the real struggles that was this supreme fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The obama administration and many Faux black leaders use, compare the civil rights struggles to current events. Gay rights, illegal immigration, executive orders, etc. It's watering down the real struggles that was this supreme fight.

Because Gay rights are equal to civil rights.

The civil rights movement was not just about black people, although they were the predominant drivers of it... it was about EVERY person being able to be treated equally under the eyes of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Gay rights are equal to civil rights.

The civil rights movement was not just about black people, although they were the predominant drivers of it... it was about EVERY person being able to be treated equally under the eyes of law.

Gay rights not even close to civil rights period

Link to post
Share on other sites

The obama administration and many Faux black leaders use, compare the civil rights struggles to current events. Gay rights, illegal immigration, executive orders, etc. It's watering down the real struggles that was this supreme fight.

They compare civil rights struggles to executive orders? Do you even know what the **** you're talking about anymore? Also, who is a "faux black leader"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government doesn't know the first thing about business. All the ranchers want is autonomy to run their business while conserving the land, making a living, playing within the rules to do so, and providing the most nutritious and safest/healthy protein our country has to offer. The government, environmentalist, and ranchers should be able to find a solution to work together so all sides are pleased with the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until 2003, gays could go to jail for 20 years for engaging in consensual sex. Yeah, it's very close to the civil rights period.

Going to jail for sleeping with someone is not the same as going to jail for simply being born with dark pigment. one is action one is who you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being gay is also part of who you are. Unless you're telling us you chose to be straight one day (assuming you're straight).

Acting on that desire is a choice. Having dark pigment is not. You don't have to tell me you are black or white or what have you. You have to tell me you are gay. There is a difference

Link to post
Share on other sites

Acting on that desire is a choice. Having dark pigment is not. You don't have to tell me you are black or white or what have you. You have to tell me you are gay. There is a difference

So...if I understand your posts correctly, you're okay with putting people in jail for having consensual sex with the person they love.

That is awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the ranchers want is autonomy to run their business while conserving the land, making a living, playing within the rules to do so, and providing the most nutritious and safest/healthy protein our country has to offer.

Real World Translation: All the ranchers want is to graze for free on land they don't own and on which they already pay substantially less than they would if it was privately owned. And to be able to break federal poaching and arson laws without repercussion. Also, all they want is to be able to mount an armed insurrection against the federal government when they don't get what they want, and return home consequence free when it all blows over.

No biggie.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...