150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[Sovereign Nation]

(01-05-2016, 02:25 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I'm going to break into your house, occupy it, threaten to stay there for years, and if you try to remove me, I just might kill you.

If you don't consider this a threat, you're a moron.

Did they break into a private home or a government building? 

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 02:38 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Did they break into a private home or a government building? 

 They are trespassing.

What is your point.

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 02:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They are armed to the teeth and they insist that they will not leave until their demands are met.  This is about as clear a threat of violence as possible.

Jjust answer one simple question.  If they did not intend to threaten violence then why did they even bring their guns?

If a man pulls a gun on you and demands your money would you consider that "non-violent" until he actually pulled the trigger?

Anyone who does not consider an armed person breaking the law and making demand a threat of violence has been brainwashed.

You have no idea when they will leave. If Feds move in they may very well leave peacefully

To deter those that might try to remove them by force.

No, as soon as he pulls a gun on me it is violent. As soon as one of these occupants pulls a gun on someone it is violent

See that's just you saying they have threatened someone with violence.


Now that I have done you the courtesy of answering your "one" question; Answer this one:

If their goal was to use terror (you know be terrorists) then why did they occupy an empty building in the middle of nowhere?

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now that I have done you the courtesy of answering your "one" question; Answer this one:

If their goal was to use terror (you know be terrorists) then why did they occupy an empty building in the middle of nowhere?

Because it is the closest federal lands to the news story that was suppoed to be their inspiration.


BTW your answer makes no sense.  If they were willing to leave without any violence why would they bring guns?  They have no need for guns unless they are planning on resorting to violence.

[GMDino]

(01-05-2016, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You have no idea when they will leave. If Feds move in they may very well leave peacefully

To deter those that might try to remove them by force.

No, as soon as he pulls a gun on me it is violent. As soon as one of these occupants pulls a gun on someone it is violent

See that's just you saying they have threatened someone with violence.


Now that I have done you the courtesy of answering your "one" question; Answer this one:

If their goal was to use terror (you know be terrorists) then why did they occupy an empty building in the middle of nowhere?

So your (new) argument is to ignore what they have said, the weapons they have, the videos the posted and the messages they've sent and pretend they might not do any of it.

Beautiful.



As to you question: Because it was easy and because it is a federal building and that is who they have an issue with.

Personally I think they are cowards that will give in before they let themselves be hurt in any way shape or form. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 02:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because it is the closest federal lands to the news story that was suppoed to be their inspiration.


BTW your answer makes no sense.  If they were willing to leave without any violence why would they bring guns?  They have no need for guns unless they are planning on resorting to violence.

That doesn't explain how they are using terror as a vehicle to get what they want. Your answer makes no sense.

I could simply answer they brought guns because they had them and that would qualify as as good of an answer as you provided.

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That doesn't explain how they are using terror as a vehicle to get what they want. Your answer makes no sense.

They are using threats of violence to get their demands met.

There is a big difference between a person making demands and an armed person making demands.  The difference is the clear threat of violence.  Everyone knows this.  That is why we have much stricter penalties for people who commit crimes with guns even if they never fire the gun.

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You have no idea when they will leave. If Feds move in they may very well leave peacefully

Yeah, if they are all total liars and don't mean anything they say.

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 03:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They are using threats of violence to get their demands met.

There is a big difference between a person making demands and an armed person making demands.  The difference is the clear threat of violence.  Everyone knows this.  That is why we have much stricter penalties for people who commit crimes with guns even if they never fire the gun.

So if I'm caught sppeding with my regestered gun in my vehicle; I'll incur a stiffer penalty/

Back and forth enough. You and others consider what is going on in Oregon an act of Terrorisim; I do not.

Saying "no it's not", "yes it is" is not going to change anything.

Guess well just have to wait and see what the FBI considers this; as the worst I have seen it called outside of this message board is an armed occupation/protest.

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2016, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So if I'm caught sppeding with my regestered gun in my vehicle; I'll incur a stiffer penalty/

Back and forth enough. You and others consider what is going on in Oregon an act of Terrorisim; I do not.

Saying "no it's not", "yes it is" is not going to change anything.

Guess well just have to wait and see what the FBI considers this; as the worst I have seen it called outside of this message board is an armed occupation/protest.

Don't get so tied in a knot over semantics.  The fact is that a group of armed people are breaking the law and making demandfs.  even if you don't want to call it terrorism it is clearly much different from the 60's "sit in" you tried to comparee it to.

these people aere willing to kill other people in order to get their demands met.  Anyone who listend to them and sees all the guns they have understand this.  They did not bring these guns to hunt or target shoot.  They brought them to kill people who try to remove them.

So even if you don't want to call it terrorism don't you agree it is a clear threat of violence?  Are you okay with what they are doing?  What if they do kill people.  Will you admit that it is an act of terrorism then?

Forget about the label and just tell mt your opinion on what should be done to deal with these people.

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So even if you don't want to call it terrorism don't you agree it is a clear threat of violence?  Are you okay with what they are doing?  What if they do kill people.  Will you admit that it is an act of terrorism then?

Forget about the label and just tell mt your opinion on what should be done to deal with these people.

There is a threat of violence; however, there has been no threat to use violence.

No I am not OK with wha they are doing and I have said so numerous times in this thread

If they kill someone/shoot at someone/ demonstrate any violence toward anyone that tries to make them stop then it is an act of Terrorisim.

The easy answer is block supplies/ turn off power and wait them out. If this is too inconvenient; then enter the grounds and arrest those in charge.

BTW, the semantics is one of the main points; as I mentioned earlier.

[Benton]

(01-05-2016, 01:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously this is the part I am missing.

All I have read is they do not want to hurt anybody, but would not rule out violence.

Perhaps if someone can provide me with the link/quote the stated they we hurt people if their demands were not met then we can revisit this as terror.

I have not seen anywhere where they have threatened violence to achieve what they desire. They are sitting in an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere. No one is currently in danger

It is what I have said all along.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-standoff-armed-protesters-political-reaction-yallqaeda-n490031

Quote: Ammon Bundy told TODAY on Monday that his group has no intention of committing violence unless the government intervenes. But at the same time, he refuses to rule out violence if the building is raided.

"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back," Ammon Bundy told Natalie Morales. "We're putting nobody in harm's way. We are not threatening anybody. We're 30 miles out of the closest town."

It's the equivalent of "touch my fries and I'll slap the shit out of you."

Don't like food analogies?

It's the equivalent of me walking into your house, setting up in your living room and saying I won't hurt you... as long as you let me do what I want. Or taking over the picnic shelters at a local park and telling everybody if they come eat their potato salad near me, I'll shoot them.

And since I'm guessing this is going to be countered with "but... it's a public building," that's even worse. That's sitting up in the living room of everyone who pays taxes. That's my building they're "camping" in. Dad Bundy, the tax dodger? Even worse. He made millions by grazing his cattle on my land and didn't pay for it, then did the same thing, threatening violence if officials came to collect what he owed the public.

They aren't doing anything courageous. They're stealing from the public and damaging public property, and threatening violence if public officials come to collect what's due. I'm opposed to government encroachment. I'm opposed to imminent domain. This is neither.

[Rotobeast]

Schools are closed down, in the area (30 miles).
Feds are supposedly using them as a staging area to prep all their toys to go in.

New Waco ?

[Vas Deferens]

(01-05-2016, 04:06 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: New Waco ?

Waco was on their land and there were some troubling child welfare issues that brought the po-po knockin.

These guys just think they are entightled to my land.  **** that.  Napalm these cocksuckers and use the sale of their assets to rebuild a better lodge with a tiny dick museum in memoriam.  

[Belsnickel]

(01-05-2016, 04:35 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Waco was on their land and there were some troubling child welfare issues that brought the po-po knockin.

These guys just think they are entightled to my land.  **** that.  Napalm these cocksuckers and use the sale of their assets to rebuild a better lodge with a tiny dick museum in memoriam.  

Just getting the money that Bundy's dad owes the federal government would cover the expenses for that.

[Benton]

(01-05-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just getting the money that Bundy's dad owes the federal government would cover the expenses for that.

I think it was NPR, but if I remember right, it only costs $1.35 per cow per month to graze on BLM land. Aside from the fact that Bundy doesn't understand public land usage means it's for the public and not private use, the guy is a serious piece of crap to endanger anyone's life over $1.35 per cow per month.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-05-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just getting the money that Bundy's dad owes the federal government would cover the expenses for that.

Wha-wha???  You mean these good, patriotic, probably christian, certainly WHITE men are fighting for the cause of an adjudicated thief?  If these guys just need a place to stay, lets look at relocating them closer to their brother.


Anyone else find it odd how quite our most prolific poster has been on this thread?  I know he shares many common views with Cliven.  

[Rotobeast]

(01-05-2016, 04:35 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Waco was on their land and there were some troubling child welfare issues that brought the po-po knockin.

These guys just think they are entightled to my land.  **** that.  Napalm these cocksuckers and use the sale of their assets to rebuild a better lodge with a tiny dick museum in memoriam.  

I know.
I was merely referring to the action of killing and razing to the ground of all evidence,  which you've so eloquently described. 
To the victors go the writing of history and federal reports.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-05-2016, 04:59 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I know.
I was merely referring to the action of killing and razing to the ground of all evidence,  which you've so eloquently described. 
To the victors go the writing of history and federal reports.

I mean.  Come on.  I just don't see how anyone can decide they are going to fight the federal gov from the outside, with guns.  GTFO.  You want to change something?  Run for ***** office and get people behind your cause.  These guys are more like spoiled brat sons of a spoiled brat that thinks he can do whatever the **** he wants.  Sorry buddy.  Doesn't work that way.

I'm sure you can tell I'm hyperbolizing my methods.  I would hate there to be any ecological damage in the wake of the full and outright slaughter of each and everyone of these panhandling fucknuts.  

[Rotobeast]

(01-05-2016, 05:09 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I mean.  Come on.  I just don't see how anyone can decide they are going to fight the federal gov from the outside, with guns.  GTFO.  You want to change something?  Run for ***** office and get people behind your cause.  These guys are more like spoiled brat sons of a spoiled brat that thinks he can do whatever the **** he wants.  Sorry buddy.  Doesn't work that way.

I'm sure you can tell I'm hyperbolizing my methods.  I would hate there to be any ecological damage in the wake of the full and outright slaughter of each and everyone of these panhandling fucknuts.  

I don't disagree that these people are dumbasses, but I do sympathize concerning the "resentencing".
I'm in the 2 wrongs don't make a right camp, ATM.