Posted on Jan 3, 2016
If a militia group breaks into and occupies a Federally owned building and won't leave, is that a crime, treason, terrorism, or Patriotism?
27.7K
450
317
8
8
0
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
The story:
Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.
"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Neither man would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said there were no hostages, but the group is demanding that the Hammonds be released and the federal government relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest.
He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.
"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," he said. "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."
Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.
Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.
Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.
The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.
Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.
Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.
"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.
"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.
Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.
"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.
Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.
-- Les Zaitz
What should the state, local and Federal authorities do about the situation?
The story:
Update at 9:15 p.m.: Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward: "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."
The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.
Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.
"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Neither man would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said there were no hostages, but the group is demanding that the Hammonds be released and the federal government relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest.
He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.
"The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," he said. "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."
Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.
Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.
Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.
The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.
Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.
Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.
"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.
"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.
Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.
"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.
Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.
-- Les Zaitz
What should the state, local and Federal authorities do about the situation?
Posted in these groups: 
Terrorism
Patriotism
Terrorism Patriotism
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 42
4
4
0
You mean like when the unions occupied government buildings in Wisconsin? You do know that the militia is "we the people" and the last I checked union members are people also. Did you protest the unions occupying government buildings or did you post the article because you are trying to draw parallels to militias and those not identifying as democrat?
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote
Wis. Democrats Flee To Prevent Union Bill Vote
As an ever-growing throng of protesters filled the state Capitol for a third day, 14 Democratic senators left the state. The lawmakers want to avoid giving the GOP majority in the state Senate the quorum it needs to vote on a bill that would eliminate collective bargaining rights for state workers.
(4)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
PO1 (Join to see), Cpl (Join to see) - there are two significant differences between the protests in Wisconsin and the one in Oregon:
1. The folks in Oregon are armed and have implied violence by their words and actions. The folks in Wisconsin were not armed but overtly threatened the duly elected Governor of Wisconsin and members of the State Assembly.
2. The building occupied in Oregon is in the middle of nowhere, and is only in use part of the year. The Capitol building in Madison was in session and the protesters were actually attempting to prevent their duly elected representatives (confirmed in a recall election soon after) from discharging their functions as elected officials and in fact what they said they would do upon election during the campaign. They were preventing the State of Wisconsin from having the people's business done, affecting all Wisconsinites with their agenda.
So what's the bigger issue, having guns on federal property (gun control?), or the tyranny of the minority (political motivations)? I know where I'd put my money.
As an aside, the Wisconsin State Assemblymen running away from the state house to hide in Illinois in order to prevent a quorum was about as politically cowardly a stunt as I've seen in a long time. Just think of where we'd be if all legislators pulled stunts like that when they don't have the votes to get their way.
We would do well to remember that elections have consequences. Don't like them, vote for the other guy (or gal) next time.
1. The folks in Oregon are armed and have implied violence by their words and actions. The folks in Wisconsin were not armed but overtly threatened the duly elected Governor of Wisconsin and members of the State Assembly.
2. The building occupied in Oregon is in the middle of nowhere, and is only in use part of the year. The Capitol building in Madison was in session and the protesters were actually attempting to prevent their duly elected representatives (confirmed in a recall election soon after) from discharging their functions as elected officials and in fact what they said they would do upon election during the campaign. They were preventing the State of Wisconsin from having the people's business done, affecting all Wisconsinites with their agenda.
So what's the bigger issue, having guns on federal property (gun control?), or the tyranny of the minority (political motivations)? I know where I'd put my money.
As an aside, the Wisconsin State Assemblymen running away from the state house to hide in Illinois in order to prevent a quorum was about as politically cowardly a stunt as I've seen in a long time. Just think of where we'd be if all legislators pulled stunts like that when they don't have the votes to get their way.
We would do well to remember that elections have consequences. Don't like them, vote for the other guy (or gal) next time.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Cpl (Join to see) - Did armed protesters storm the Wisconsin's capital building?
It's one thing for peaceful and unarmed students and union members to walk into a building legally and then protest by not leaving, and quite another for an armed militia to take and hold a building by force of arms.
It's one thing for peaceful and unarmed students and union members to walk into a building legally and then protest by not leaving, and quite another for an armed militia to take and hold a building by force of arms.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I don't see the comparison between heavily armed groups that refer to themselves as a "militia" (latin root...military??) taking a government building by force and a group of unarmed protesters trespassing into a government building. Let law enforcement try to arrest one of the former and see what happens (firefight), the latter would get arrested regularly and peacefully for civil disobedience.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Matthew Arthurs
I have to mention, and I may not have read the right articles, but I'm still unsure as to the veracity of "taking a government building by force." All articles I have read state they broke into the unoccupied building, trespassing and possibly criminal trespassing to be sure, however "taking by force" and "seizing" the property does not seem to be in any way an accurate portrayal of what occurred. I wish I worked for an organization that actually had definitions for tactical and operational tasks such as this... in that case I might point out that "seize" requires offensive action against anticipated enemy action. I think "occupy" better serves this case, although there might be an argument for "secure" as well.
Are the semantics really that important? I think so, for while I don't agree with the methods of this organization, to this point they have not been violent - which the terms "seizing" or "taking by force" would indicate. As far as threats of violence, that's a mixed bag. There have been individuals stating they are prepared to die, but the "official" statement claims they will use violence only to protect themselves.
I am in agreement with an assessment I saw earlier today; cut the roads in and out, cut the power and let winter do it's work.
Are the semantics really that important? I think so, for while I don't agree with the methods of this organization, to this point they have not been violent - which the terms "seizing" or "taking by force" would indicate. As far as threats of violence, that's a mixed bag. There have been individuals stating they are prepared to die, but the "official" statement claims they will use violence only to protect themselves.
I am in agreement with an assessment I saw earlier today; cut the roads in and out, cut the power and let winter do it's work.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Let us speak truth to power.
If it were any other group that conducted this activity, we would be reading about mass arrests or a MASCAL event
If it were any other group that conducted this activity, we would be reading about mass arrests or a MASCAL event
(4)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
SSG Porter, B. Like you, I don't see race in every instance but unlike you, I see the double standard and unequal treatment groups have gotten because of race. For example, if it were any other minority group that had weapons trained on those BLM officials in Nevada or were brandishing those weapons, the response would have been wildly different, those people would have been called criminals, and those people would have been arrested or shot. Yes all lives DO matter but until we as a people demand that everyone be held to the same standard and that the law is upheld no matter who you are or where you live, instances like this will continue to happen and these issues will never be resolved
(1)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
Don't worry. I'll happily accommodate you. What compelled me to take this position is how throughout my life I have seen the unequal application of justice on minorities. How throughout my life I have seen the double standard when minorities are called "criminals", "thugs", and "threats" while Whites are "just letting off steam" or "overindulging" when similar acts happen. How throughout my life I seen minorities that exercise the same rights ALL Americans are SUPPOSE to have be told they are "taking advantage of the Constitution" and "fake" and those that openly flaunt their rights be called "patriots" and "standing up for themselves against government oppression."
That is what compelled me, good SSG. That is why I said what I said because, like it or not, the disparity has become more obvious and what was once speculation has shown itself to be true
That is what compelled me, good SSG. That is why I said what I said because, like it or not, the disparity has become more obvious and what was once speculation has shown itself to be true
(1)
(0)
SGT Jerrold Pesz
Actually if it was a black, Muslim or far left group doing exactly the same thing the government would do absolutely nothing and the news media would be supporting them just as in Ferguson and other places including here when the Occupy people did the same and far worse.
(1)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
Ok SGT Jerrold Pesz, I'll play.
In the instances you mentioned:
Were the police involved?
Were arrests made?
Did (after a while) the police restore order?
AND
Did any of them identify themselves as a member of a militia?
In the instances you mentioned:
Were the police involved?
Were arrests made?
Did (after a while) the police restore order?
AND
Did any of them identify themselves as a member of a militia?
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
So much for the well regulated part.
"Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move."
"Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move."
(4)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Certainly sounds like sedition, threatening federal law enforcement to me....so much for 'peaceful protest'
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
None of the above. It's called civil disobedience, a very commonly used device to bring attention to a grievance. Typically it's employed when a simple petition for the redress of grievances fails to produce any results. This is endemic in this age when the press serves as the propaganda arm of the government and fails to publicize any news that is adverse to the "official" narrative. Of course, all who employ civil disobedience must be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions. After all, responsibility for one's words and actions is the hallmark of a free people exercising individual liberty.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
CPT Jack Durish - I don't assume they. They have already expressed criminal intent. They have broken into and occupied a government building. They have committed that crime. That have openly stated their intent to commit more crimes.
Are they violating laws concerning weapons? Do Federal Laws concerning not having firearms on Federal property and in Federal building count? Then, yes, they have. Federal Laws apply on Federal Lands and Federal Law says you can't have weapons in Federally owned buildings.
I just find the disparity interesting between this case and other cases with other "activists." I think one significant difference is the proximity to larger population groups - this group isn't anywhere near other people, so the urgency to remove them is not as intense. However, it doesn't change the fact that they are in clear violation of the law, have intent to continue to violate the law, and have implied threats of violence if the government tries to remove them.
They are criminals. They are knowingly advocating and executing armed sedition against the government of the United States.
Should they be killed? Not if they surrender peacefully.
Are they violating laws concerning weapons? Do Federal Laws concerning not having firearms on Federal property and in Federal building count? Then, yes, they have. Federal Laws apply on Federal Lands and Federal Law says you can't have weapons in Federally owned buildings.
I just find the disparity interesting between this case and other cases with other "activists." I think one significant difference is the proximity to larger population groups - this group isn't anywhere near other people, so the urgency to remove them is not as intense. However, it doesn't change the fact that they are in clear violation of the law, have intent to continue to violate the law, and have implied threats of violence if the government tries to remove them.
They are criminals. They are knowingly advocating and executing armed sedition against the government of the United States.
Should they be killed? Not if they surrender peacefully.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MAJ Bryan Zeski - "Should they be killed? Not if they surrender peacefully." Sounds blood thirsty to me. Of course, you and I can discuss this forever without repercussions. We aren't the "deciders". However, as we contemplate this, a large force of armed FBI agents are on their way. They never even got going to Baltimore and Ferguson when riots were ensuing. However, they are well on their way to confront a bunch of seemingly peaceful protesters. No shots have been fired. No looting has occurred. Why are you so agitated?
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
CPT Jack Durish - I'm not personally agitated. It's no skin off my nose, but I would like to see an equality of action when it comes to different groups. At Ferguson and Baltimore, local events, there were plenty of police from the local community and even neighboring communities. They took place on city land, so the need for Federal intervention wasn't there. However, I do believe that the State Guard Units were called up for both events, weren't they?
In this case, the government level being affected and threatened is the Federal government - so it becomes their issue to deal with.
My point about surrendering and not being killed was just to say that if the "protesters" resist arrest and removal with force, the only expected outcome is causalities.
In this case, the government level being affected and threatened is the Federal government - so it becomes their issue to deal with.
My point about surrendering and not being killed was just to say that if the "protesters" resist arrest and removal with force, the only expected outcome is causalities.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MAJ Bryan Zeski - They may be emboldened by their success in Nevada when the federal lawmen backed down refusing to go to war with a bunch of veterans just to help Harry Reid and his son make a killing in a land deal. The issue in Oregon is based on bureaucrats going overboard charging ranchers as terrorists for lighting a backfire to protect their winter cattle feed from a range fire. As more of the story is exposed it appears that these bureaucrats had long been harassing the ranchers. They were also upset when it was discovered that the bureaucrats had been poor stewards of the land under their control. It seems that the judge who sentenced them minimally was responding correctly to the events and the bureaucrats are upset with the course of justice.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I would if I could... but really, isn't insurrection a form of rebellion? A rebellion a form of treason?
(1)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
MAJ Bryan Zeski Not necessarily; it's more of a precursor to rebellion. Consider the 1765-1775 period prior to Lexington - that's the insurrection portion of the American Revolution. Starting with the refusal to pay the Stamp Act taxes, the colonies wound up becoming more organized and united against the various Acts of Parliment. The most blatant act was the Boston Tea Party.
A better synonym might be "civil disobedience".
A better synonym might be "civil disobedience".
(3)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
CW4 Guy Butler - Except if the British government and military responded more forcefully to acts of 'sedition' and 'insurrection' early on (as some in the government and military advocated) then today many of the 'founding fathers' would be nothing more than a foot note in history stating they where imprisoned or hanged
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT (Join to see), it is not necessarily racist if one group of "largely homogenous in terms of race/religion/other minorities" is treated differently from others if their behavior is significantly different from others. For instance, if one group is significantly more violent or perpetrates more crime than the others it is not racist if they are involved with the police more than the others. If the involvement with law enforcement is controlled by behavior it does not represent racism or disparate treatment by the government.
Consider the difference in attention by Homeland Security that Muslims receive compared to Quakers for example; there is a behavioral reason for that which does not involve bias.
The same can be said of the differences between blacks and Asians with respect to criminality which reflects cultural differences rather than bias.
Just because there are differences does not mean there is bias involved – if those differences are based upon behavior or danger posed to the larger society.
Consider the difference in attention by Homeland Security that Muslims receive compared to Quakers for example; there is a behavioral reason for that which does not involve bias.
The same can be said of the differences between blacks and Asians with respect to criminality which reflects cultural differences rather than bias.
Just because there are differences does not mean there is bias involved – if those differences are based upon behavior or danger posed to the larger society.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell - Application of generalizations like "significantly more violent" to individual citizens is exactly the kind of bias that the government is required to avoid in order to provide its citizens with equal protection and due process. It doesn't help that many of the generalizations are wildly inaccurate - as demonstrated by phenomena such as the increase of attacks on Sikh citizens after terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims. There are actually studies that demonstrate that having lower general intelligence in childhood is a predictor of conservative political ideologies as adults, and that low-effort thought result in more conservative beliefs. Does this mean that we should make the generalization that the insurgents in Oregon are too dumb to be allowed to live as free citizens? Maybe a little big brother action is necessary?
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT (Join to see), "Application of generalizations like "significantly more violent" to individual citizens is exactly the kind of bias that the government is required to avoid"
You were talking about groups, not individuals, when you claimed that "...large disparities in the enforcement of the law exist, and when they are strongly correlated with perpetrators that are largely homogenous in terms of race/religion/other minorities"
My point is that when groups have significantly higher levels of criminality in their culture it is not a reflection of bias when that group experiences a significantly higher interaction with law enforcement.
When it comes to the individual, it has been my experience that the attitude and behavior of the person sets the tone for the way the police respond to them. A cooperative and polite demeanor rarely leads to unfortunate reactions by the police.
Remember - the life of the police officer is also on the line with every interaction they have with the public.
You were talking about groups, not individuals, when you claimed that "...large disparities in the enforcement of the law exist, and when they are strongly correlated with perpetrators that are largely homogenous in terms of race/religion/other minorities"
My point is that when groups have significantly higher levels of criminality in their culture it is not a reflection of bias when that group experiences a significantly higher interaction with law enforcement.
When it comes to the individual, it has been my experience that the attitude and behavior of the person sets the tone for the way the police respond to them. A cooperative and polite demeanor rarely leads to unfortunate reactions by the police.
Remember - the life of the police officer is also on the line with every interaction they have with the public.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Its called trespassing. Just wait them out, its cold, they will get tired and leave.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I had to laugh when I saw a couple of names the internet had given to these guys:
Y'all Qaeda. Vanilla ISIS
and they're waging YEEHAWD.
Y'all Qaeda. Vanilla ISIS
and they're waging YEEHAWD.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I chose Crime because all the other choices can fall under Crime.
Occupying and protesting are one thing, yeah you have to get your point across and protesting is a great way of doing it.
The biggest problem is that they brought guns onto Federal property and its against the law as far as I know, unless the law has been changed.
I do realize that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but we also have to follow the law while bearing those arms and if your weapon is not allowed in certain places they until the law is changed you should not bring said weapons there.
Still an armed stand off is just something bad waiting to happen. So far cooler heads have prevailed.
Occupying and protesting are one thing, yeah you have to get your point across and protesting is a great way of doing it.
The biggest problem is that they brought guns onto Federal property and its against the law as far as I know, unless the law has been changed.
I do realize that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but we also have to follow the law while bearing those arms and if your weapon is not allowed in certain places they until the law is changed you should not bring said weapons there.
Still an armed stand off is just something bad waiting to happen. So far cooler heads have prevailed.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Would you call 9/11 a crime?
I encourage you to read the FBI's definition of terrorism and think about why you're equivocating around the issue and reluctant to call it terrorism.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
I encourage you to read the FBI's definition of terrorism and think about why you're equivocating around the issue and reluctant to call it terrorism.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
Definition of terrorism, definition of terrorism FBI, domestic terrorism, define terrorism, domestic terrorism definition, terrorism defined, FBI definition of domestic terrorism, definition terrorism, what is the definition of terrorism, definition of domestic terrorism, define domestic terrorism, the definition of terrorism, FBI’s definition of terrorism, “terrorism”, FBI domestic terrorism definition, U.S. definition of terrorism, “domestic...
(1)
(0)
PO1 Glenn Boucher
1LT Manny Vicente, yes I would call 9/11 a crime because Terrorism is a crime be it domestic, foreign or whatever its a crime and that's why I chose Crime because every other choice is a crime.
I do understand the definition of terrorism and I am far from reluctant to call a terrorist a terrorist and in the end they are criminals or enemy combatants which makes them military criminals.
I don't like what those people are doing in Oregon one bit, but they do have the right to protest like each and every one of us do. My issue with this group is that they have decided to bring their guns onto Federal property in violation of the law.
I am thinking that the FBI isn't just rushing in there because they don't want some itchy trigger fingered moron to let off a shot and start a fire fight, because I think we all know that if the FBI marched in there that someone would fire and next you know we will have a lot of dead agents and civilians and that would not be good for anyone.
And if you look closely you will see people can be arrested and prosecuted for committing terroristic attacks which as far as I know make it a crime.
I do understand the definition of terrorism and I am far from reluctant to call a terrorist a terrorist and in the end they are criminals or enemy combatants which makes them military criminals.
I don't like what those people are doing in Oregon one bit, but they do have the right to protest like each and every one of us do. My issue with this group is that they have decided to bring their guns onto Federal property in violation of the law.
I am thinking that the FBI isn't just rushing in there because they don't want some itchy trigger fingered moron to let off a shot and start a fire fight, because I think we all know that if the FBI marched in there that someone would fire and next you know we will have a lot of dead agents and civilians and that would not be good for anyone.
And if you look closely you will see people can be arrested and prosecuted for committing terroristic attacks which as far as I know make it a crime.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
If you are Black Lives matter or Occupy Wall Street. You are social justice warriors. But you occupy an abandon building in the middle of no where. Waving an American flag you are considered s terrorist. If Obama pulls a WACO will he blame Loretta Lynch. Like Clinton blame Janet Reno?
(2)
(0)
TSgt Kenneth Ellis
lol. Under the Oboma administration if you are white you are privilidge. He can tell that to the people living in the Appalachian . Our founders were Racist Biggits. They use racist to describe anything and everything. But blacks cannot be racist. But a black commentator can giggle and make fun of Mormans and no one calls him on it. Those people did no damage and Black lives matter which is funded by a billionaire white guy. Burnt down the city not once but twice. Looted it , intimidated the citizens. And I know two police officers who were executed for it in New York. The jobs are never coming back. Obama has done more to devide us just like the Democrats favorite president Woodrow Willison. and Obama and Hilary embrace these groups. these ranchers did not burn Dow a town , loot or kill an FBI agent. And intimidate any one.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
TSgt Kenneth Ellis - no, the 'farmers' actually started a fire on a federal wild life refuge to cover up extensive poaching on a wild life refuge.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Kenneth Ellis
Lol I have not heard that one. But unlike Blm and ows. Eventually they will go home.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
TSgt Kenneth Ellis - Are you being serious or just trolling for the fun of it. Leaving aside your inability to spell or use a coherent sentence, you make a series of assertions that are both non-factual and borderline racist in and of themselves.
The rioters in Ferguson, Baltimore and similar locations where wrong, the misguided little moron who killed two police officers in NYC was wrong. Some of those folks where racist, and there are plenty of mainstream media who called it out. The ignorant racist who wanted to start a 'race' war killed 9 people in a church - he was a racist.
As for the yahoos in Oregon, they have threatened violence and have pointed weapons at LEO - most of them are the same idiots who participated in the Cliven Bundy stand-off. Cliven Bundy by the way is a racist, he is also a 'free man of the land' and claims not to recognize the government. Most of the 'free man of the land' and 'sovereign citizen' movements espouse the same crap as previous "Aryan' movements. They are mostly racist.
And by the way - I'd be curious at the intellectual gymnastics that allowed you to compare Obama as similar to Woodrow Wilson - would you care to enlighten us as to what links those two presidents and how you conclude Wilson was / is the democratic favorite? Perhaps you mean Franklin D Roosevelt? If you did, and you merely are confused, know that Wilson was actually a very conservative southerner who had outlooks typical of a southerner at that time with regards to race relations.
So before you start blaming "Obama" or Woodrow Wilson or Hillary, have some actual facts. You might find facts to be useful things.
So are you trolling for the giggles, or merely making ignorant outrageous claims because it makes you feel better? I am hoping you are trolling, because the alternative is just too depressing.
The rioters in Ferguson, Baltimore and similar locations where wrong, the misguided little moron who killed two police officers in NYC was wrong. Some of those folks where racist, and there are plenty of mainstream media who called it out. The ignorant racist who wanted to start a 'race' war killed 9 people in a church - he was a racist.
As for the yahoos in Oregon, they have threatened violence and have pointed weapons at LEO - most of them are the same idiots who participated in the Cliven Bundy stand-off. Cliven Bundy by the way is a racist, he is also a 'free man of the land' and claims not to recognize the government. Most of the 'free man of the land' and 'sovereign citizen' movements espouse the same crap as previous "Aryan' movements. They are mostly racist.
And by the way - I'd be curious at the intellectual gymnastics that allowed you to compare Obama as similar to Woodrow Wilson - would you care to enlighten us as to what links those two presidents and how you conclude Wilson was / is the democratic favorite? Perhaps you mean Franklin D Roosevelt? If you did, and you merely are confused, know that Wilson was actually a very conservative southerner who had outlooks typical of a southerner at that time with regards to race relations.
So before you start blaming "Obama" or Woodrow Wilson or Hillary, have some actual facts. You might find facts to be useful things.
So are you trolling for the giggles, or merely making ignorant outrageous claims because it makes you feel better? I am hoping you are trolling, because the alternative is just too depressing.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google