Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

Black people rarely went to jail just for being black. They went to jail for being black and engaging in actions the white man deemed inappropriate for black people, like sitting where they wanted to on buses, drinking from any water fountain they wanted, or looking too long at a white woman. They were, however, often physically assaulted just for being black. Which, interestingly enough, also happened to gay people who hadn't actually done any gay sexing. Edited by BrockSamson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Worzone is such terrible people.

I'm pretty sure white people wouldn't have had a problem with blacks if they just stayed in their houses and never saw the light of day.

So hey. I guess their misfortunes were just because they chose to act as well.

Ya know. While I'm at it. **** everyone who isn't a white male because I'm worzone and I approve this message. Good god!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worzone is such terrible people.

I'm pretty sure white people wouldn't have had a problem with blacks if they just stayed in their houses and never saw the light of day.

So hey. I guess their misfortunes were just because they chose to act as well.

Ya know. While I'm at it. **** everyone who isn't a white male because I'm worzone and I approve this message. Good god!!!!!

Rofl if you actually believe that
Link to post
Share on other sites

Black people rarely went to jail just for being black. They went to jail for being black and engaging in actions the white man deemed inappropriate for black people, like sitting where they wanted to on buses, drinking from any water fountain they wanted, or looking too long at a white woman. They were, however, often physically assaulted just for being black. Which, interestingly enough, also happened to gay people who hadn't actually done any gay sexing.

Was it a crime for gay people to

Drink from a water fountain?

Use public restrooms?

Sit on a bus where they chose?

Hold public office?

Refused the right to vote?

Did walking into a restaurant without saying anything get then thrown out?

Forced into their own school systems?

Counted as 3/5 of a person?

Treated as property?

No. So no its not the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it a crime for gay people to

Drink from a water fountain?

Use public restrooms?

Sit on a bus where they chose?

Hold public office?

Refused the right to vote?

Did walking into a restaurant without saying anything get then thrown out?

Forced into their own school systems?

Counted as 3/5 of a person?

Treated as property?

No. So no its not the same.

Most of those things require an action. I thought you said being gay wasnt the same because it was an "action"

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You missed the part where they should work out a resolution to this that benefits all parties involved, just take over a federal building. Your post is not agenda driven at all...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the part where they should work out a resolution to this that benefits all parties involved, just take over a federal building. Your post is not agenda driven at all...

Why? Why should the federal government concede anything in this situation? Cut the power off to the building, build a barricade around it so nothing gets in or out, let em freeze or throw them in prison when they surrender. Tired of this soft on terrorism mentality.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Why should the federal government concede anything in this situation? Cut the power off to the building, build a barricade around it so nothing gets in or out, let em freeze or throw them in prison when they surrender. Tired of this soft on terrorism mentality.

If they want to put Ryan Bundy's face back in the right place with the butt of a rifle, I'd be ok with that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant believe there is actually a human being in this country that believes half the **** you do.

Soul searching. You need some.

Lol exactly what do I believe that is unfathomable?
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an excellent piece in the NYTimes that provides some historical context about the Oregon occupation:

Arguments about federal land have been a feature of American political life since the birth of the nation. The details of the controversies may vary, but the theme is always the same: How should we use federal lands for the collective and individual benefit of the nation? The issue sounds abstract and philosophical. But given that the federal Bureau of Land Management administers roughly one-eighth of the nation’s landmass, its decisions confront the question in a very concrete way: What, fundamentally, is our land for?
Seen against that backdrop, the recent occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon is a lot less dramatic than current coverage tends to suggest — it’s worrisomely well-armed, yes, but the tension at its core is a long-running one. Americans have, after all, spent the nation’s entire history arguing over (and, at times, rebelling against) the federal government’s decisions about Western land. In 2000, for example, a large gathering assembled outside Elko, Nev., to protest the United States Forest Service’s decision to keep a road closed and pulled aside the four-ton boulder that had been blocking the way. The following year, tens of thousands gathered in Klamath Falls, Ore. — about 200 miles southwest of the Malheur refuge — to protest the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s decision to cut off irrigation water for local farmers in order to protect fish species. Environmentalists have used protest and even sabotage to advance their visions of how land should be administered, including burning federal corrals for wild horses in 1997.
And now the Oregon occupation — a situation that’s easier to grasp when you review the history of the land in question.
Ryan Payne, an occupation organizer, has portrayed the action as a step toward “returning land to the people.” This phrasing implies that “the people” originally “owned” the federal lands — that the national government has somehow taken those lands away and should return them to the states. It’s a recurring claim from disgruntled Westerners, but it’s not exactly supported by the history of the federal estate. (Native Americans might find the argument easier to advance.) All the federal lands were acquired by the national government through purchase and treaties; the federal government is very much their original “owner.” After all, every state in the union — with the exception of the original 13 and Texas and Hawaii — was carved out of that federal estate in the first place.
By the late 1800s, acts of Congress were reconfiguring what was then called the “public domain” by creating national parks, forests and monuments. The remainder of the land was used primarily for livestock grazing — which, over the years, eventually reached destructive proportions. So in 1929, President Herbert Hoover established a committee to make recommendations for dealing with overgrazing. The committee recommended that the remaining public domain should be given to the states, but with two caveats. First, the federal government would retain ownership of the mineral estate of these lands: Revenue from their ores and fossil fuels would still wind up in the national treasury. Second, any lands not accepted by the states would be placed under active federal management.
The reaction of Western states to this proposal was best summarized by Gov. George H. Dern of Utah. During 1932 congressional committee hearings, Dern granted that Western states appreciated the “compliment of being assured . . . they can be trusted to administer the [lands] more wisely than it can be done from offices in the nation’s capital.” He then added: “They cannot help wondering why they should be deemed wise enough to administer the surface rights but not wise enough to administer the minerals contained in the public lands.” Without the mineral estate and revenue associated with it, the Western states had no interest in accepting surface title to the lands.
In other words, the federal government has attempted to do what Payne, Ammon Bundy and their compatriots ask — “return the land to the people.” Had the Western states accepted the offer, we might have avoided a long train of controversies leading to the Oregon occupation. But when the Western states declined, the second caveat in the Hoover committee recommendations was put into play, and Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act, establishing a permit-and-fee system for regulating grazing on the public lands. All of that was to be administered by the Department of Interior’s federal Grazing Service — an entity that would eventually become part of the Bureau of Land Management.
The grazing act was crafted by the Western livestock industry, but it didn’t quite put an end to controversies between stock growers and the federal government. For years, though, those controversies tended to revolve around how much grazing was too much: Stock growers, unsurprisingly, tended to think the land could support a lot more animals than federal managers did. Both sides agreed, though, that grazing was the appropriate use for the land.
That changed in the 1960s, with the first rumblings of what would become the environmental movement. The emphasis on grazing, some advocates said, meant ignoring the recreational and environmental values of public lands. By the next decade, the nation had adopted policies requiring federal agencies to include environmental protection in their management missions. And Congress had passed legislation reclassifying grazing from the dominant use of public lands to just one use among many — all to be weighed and administered by the land bureau.
At the time, this was portrayed as a political compromise, one that would reduce (if not eliminate) public-land conflicts. The fact that the Sagebrush Rebellion erupted three years later would seem to be evidence that the compromise was less than successful. The Sagebrush rebels were a loose alliance of disgruntled Western public-land users, Western stock growers chief among them. Like the Oregon occupiers, they said they were for the “return” of public lands to the states.
In hindsight, though, it seems more likely that the real goal was to counter the growth of environmental regulations restricting their access to public land: After Ronald Reagan, a Sagebrush supporter, was elected president — and after he appointed James Watt, who pledged to make the federal government a “good neighbor” to Western interests, as interior secretary — the rebellion lost most of its steam. Its members could, for the time being, rely on Washington to administer land in the ways they preferred.
But administrations come and go, and over the decades since the rebellion, that central tension over the land has never actually gone away. People in the West are continually rebelling against federal decisions on how to manage the land around them — perhaps especially when they are faced with economic difficulty, and see that management as a threat to their livelihoods and way of life. There’s organized protest, like that Nevada road-clearing or the Klamath Falls demonstration. But even beyond that, there are countless individuals engaged in extended, contentious negotiations with federal power over the land around them — including Cliven Bundy’s two-decade refusal to pay grazing fees and Dwight and Steven Hammond’s long-running wrangles with the Bureau of Land Management in Oregon.
We could easily dismiss all these incidents as the actions of unruly individuals, people who refuse to accept changes that have taken place as a result of a legitimate governing process, even after their challenges have been rejected in court. But it’s also useful to step back and consider them in a broader political context. Opinion polls, for instance, point to a precipitous decline in public trust for the federal government, across the country. Just what is it, exactly, that people don’t trust about the government? These polls don’t provide specifics, but from the perspective of Sagebrush rebel types, it’s easy to guess: The federal government can’t be “trusted” to give their complaints, legitimate or not, a fair hearing. Other groups with some stake in the land — environmentalists, outdoorsmen, big business interests — might feel the same.
This is what’s important about public-land conflicts: They raise thorny questions about abstract political concepts like democracy. Creating wilderness areas, or instituting environmental regulations, inevitably restricts someone’s access to the land or the purposes they would prefer to see it put to. For those who are restricted, the government’s action may not appear very democratic. It’s in these disputes that we get outside the abstractions of political science and reckon with big questions in a very immediate way: How do we all decide what this land is for, how best to use it, who can be trusted to administer it and how our competing visions for it can be heard — right down to each acre of grass, each deer and each gallon of creek water?
Link to post
Share on other sites

How are these guys just stepping out of the building and doing town meetings and shizzz? Shouldnt the police arrest these guys if they leave the building? I thought the purpose of letting them wait this out was so that they could arrest people without putting themselves in danger............A bunch of armed men just took over a federal building and no one has even attempted to arrest anyone. Yet this is considered to be SOP by some.

Edited by mfaulk57158
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fervor-in-oregon-compound-and-fear-outside-it/ar-CCsuxV

These clowns are out walking around and the police aren't doing a **** thing. People in the surrounding town are scared and their lives being disrupted. Elsewhere in America people are being shot and killed for reaching at their "waistbands", and leaning on guns. Is this SOP? How do you explain these guys giving interviews without being cuffed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fervor-in-oregon-compound-and-fear-outside-it/ar-CCsuxV

These clowns are out walking around and the police aren't doing a **** thing. People in the surrounding town are scared and their lives being disrupted. Elsewhere in America people are being shot and killed for reaching at their "waistbands", and leaning on guns. Is this SOP? How do you explain these guys giving interviews without being cuffed?

"These guys are out in the middle of nowhere, and they haven't threatened anybody that I know of," said Jim Glennon, a longtime police commander who now owns the Illinois-based law enforcement training organization Calibre Press. "There's no hurry. If there's not an immediate threat to anyone's life, why create a situation where there would be?"

The local sheriffs probably won't do anything due to a multitude of reasons, ranging from publicly declaring that they view these people as attention seeking morons and likely not having the manpower (remember, this entire county only has ~7,000 people) to blockade the reserve or go into a firefight like this. Once the feds decide the show has gone on long enough this will end. Until then, you can keep laughing as they complain about people sending them dildos and glitter bombs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"These guys are out in the middle of nowhere, and they haven't threatened anybody that I know of," said Jim Glennon, a longtime police commander who now owns the Illinois-based law enforcement training organization Calibre Press. "There's no hurry. If there's not an immediate threat to anyone's life, why create a situation where there would be?"

The local sheriffs probably won't do anything due to a multitude of reasons, ranging from publicly declaring that they view these people as attention seeking morons and likely not having the manpower (remember, this entire county only has ~7,000 people) to blockade the reserve or go into a firefight like this. Once the feds decide the show has gone on long enough this will end. Until then, you can keep laughing as they complain about people sending them dildos and glitter bombs.

Good point

Link to post
Share on other sites

"These guys are out in the middle of nowhere, and they haven't threatened anybody that I know of," said Jim Glennon, a longtime police commander who now owns the Illinois-based law enforcement training organization Calibre Press. "There's no hurry. If there's not an immediate threat to anyone's life, why create a situation where there would be?"

The local sheriffs probably won't do anything due to a multitude of reasons, ranging from publicly declaring that they view these people as attention seeking morons and likely not having the manpower (remember, this entire county only has ~7,000 people) to blockade the reserve or go into a firefight like this. Once the feds decide the show has gone on long enough this will end. Until then, you can keep laughing as they complain about people sending them dildos and glitter bombs.

Good point

Ferguson found assistance from neighboring counties...as did Baltimore BEFORE any "violence" erupted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferguson found assistance from neighboring counties...as did Baltimore BEFORE any "violence" erupted.

Assistance usually happens when the PD in charge is unable to quell riots, which is what happened in Baltimore. Ferguson PD, on the other hand, had their law enforcement abilities suspended and replaced by county police and highway patrol. Also, yes, riots do count as "violence."

In this situation, there is no immediate threat to others as seen in the other two mentioned situations. There isn't much of a need to crack down to restore order ASAP. If that changes or once the feds get tired of them occupying the building then the situation will change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even gonna try and read the whole thread or even debate back and forth.. but this Article NEEDS to be put in here

http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/2430618/oregon-militia-man-request-stop-sending-us-sex-toys

http://gawker.com/angry-militia-leader-stop-mailing-us-dildos-1752580458

Militia request People STOP sending them *****'s laugh.pnglaugh.pnglaugh.pngemot-slick.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first shots have been fired. Victory will go to the gray haired.

BY THE LAPINE · JANUARY 10, 2016
BURNS, OREGON — Grandfather of four Robert Saunders says he was just out to check on some young burrowing owls at the crack of dawn this morning when he was confronted by a “red-faced pudgy man with a big gun”.
And things got physical when Saunders refused the barked orders to halt and identify himself.
But it wasn’t the retired teacher who ended up on the ground.
“Well heck, one second he was warming his hands by this kind of puny little fire and the next second he was running at me and shouting to get down on the ground,” Saunders told reporters gathered near the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
“Made me mad really. It’s public property and here this guy is acting all big and tough and pushy.”
“I don’t swear much at all but I told him to screw right off and that made him really angry. He started yelling right into my face — his breath was…well, pee you…it smelled like beer and maybe salami sausages or something.
So I said there was no darn way I was getting down on the ground and he poked me in the shoulder — so, yeah, I did a leg take-down. Didn’t know I even remembered that old move. Did it without even thinking about it. Haha.”
“He landed pretty hard on his back and I could tell he was winded because he started moaning and trying to suck air into his lungs. And that was that.”
An FBI spokesperson at the entrance to the refuge told reporters that this is the first reported instance of any conflict between the occupying militant group and locals but warned that things could escalate quickly as other armed militants continue to arrive by the truckload.
“We’re hoping this is an isolated incident and we’re asking the elderly not to knock any more militants on their ***,” said the grinning FBI agent.
Harney County Sheriff David Ward appealed for calm among local citizens and the nearly 400 bird watchers who have come to the area promising to drive the militants out of the refuge that is home to dozens of species of birds including owls, white pelicans, sandhill cranes, and yellow-bellied black birds.
“I hope I didn’t hurt the man…well, his pride maybe,” said Saunders from his small bungalow in the nearby town of Burns, population 2,700.
“When I left to go check on the owls, he was still curled up in a ball on the ground.”
“The owls are fine but maybe these guys should just go home.”
Robin Steele
Reportering for The Lapine
“We’re hoping this is an isolated incident and we’re asking the elderly not to knock any more militants on their ***,” said the grinning FBI agent.
laugh.pnglaugh.pnglaugh.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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...