Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why advocating Nevada National Guard troops to go in? More likely it'll be a Combat Unit with two deployment under its belt. It seems some of you all is advocating killing American "Militia's" but were all up in arms with drone strikes killing Americans in certain organizatiions overseas

I was fine with droning some idiot who thought that being an American meant he could be a terrorist and not die

 Jihadin wrote:
Why advocating Nevada National Guard troops to go in? More likely it'll be a Combat Unit with two deployment under its belt. It seems some of you all is advocating killing American "Militia's" but were all up in arms with drone strikes killing Americans in certain organizatiions overseas

Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.

 LordofHats wrote:
Because in the end, extremist conservatives are too busy becoming fascists to explain to anyone why the government is so bad in any sensible way

I love these guys. Best entertainment I never paid for

That's why we need to send in the graboids. It will be like a stage performance of Tremors.

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Because in the end, extremist conservatives are too busy becoming fascists to explain to anyone why the government is so bad in any sensible way

I love these guys. Best entertainment I never paid for

That's why we need to send in the graboids. It will be like a stage performance of Tremors.

Son, you've done good work here.

 dogma wrote:

That's why we need to send in the graboids. It will be like a stage performance of Tremors.

I'm torn. On the one hand, that sounds awesome. On the other, Burt Gummer might be out there

No offence to any, but dogma wins with that comment. I also want to see it.

Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.

Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.

 Jihadin wrote:

Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.

Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.

I'm ok with that.

Thats not a BLM situation rent situation. Thats at best vigilanteeism, which the KKK did in spades. At worst thats open rebellion.

Send in the state troopers backed by something large, black, and hovering with lots of pointy sticks hanging off of it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.

Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.

I'm ok with that.

Thats not a BLM situation rent situation. Thats at best vigilanteeism, which the KKK did in spades. At worst thats open rebellion.

Send in the state troopers backed by something large, black, and hovering with lots of pointy sticks hanging off of it.

People like them are always talking about black helicopters anyway, might as well let them see one.

 Jihadin wrote:

Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.

Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.

The converse of that is the American public takes a publicity hit because in a civilized nation governed by the rule of law we allow armed militiamen the right to set up "security" checkpoints to keep American citizens out of a town because they believe that they "don't belong there."

Goddam am I glad I left Nevada all those years ago.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.

Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.

I'm ok with that.

Thats not a BLM situation rent situation. Thats at best vigilanteeism, which the KKK did in spades. At worst thats open rebellion.

Send in the state troopers backed by something large, black, and hovering with lots of pointy sticks hanging off of it.

People like them are always talking about black helicopters anyway, might as well let them see one.

Exactly. Lets see how your tacticool combat shorts made in China handles the real thing.

Serious question. This Bundy guy owes a lot in back rent money. He refuses to pay it. What can the Feds do?

Put on Lien on his property and start garnishing his income? Arrest him? What?

 Easy E wrote:
Serious question. This Bundy guy owes a lot in back rent money. He refuses to pay it. What can the Feds do?

Put on Lien on his property and start garnishing his income? Arrest him? What?

Wait until he dies and then hit his descendants/benefactors + interest.

 Jihadin wrote:

Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.

Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.

So you're saying we should allow armed militias to inspect papers, because we wouldn't want to risk angering them? I mean, that's basically your stance. We can't risk a firefight, so just leave them to their (highly suspect and probably illegal) doings?

I'm pretty sure people also said National Guard, whose job it is to defend US soil.

I also said send in the state police.

Tha ACLU with an army of lawyers would work too.

 Frazzled wrote:
I also said send in the state police.

Tha ACLU with an army of lawyers would work too.

I do agree that LEOs should be the first ones in; this is in fact a local matter first.

Sheriff seems to be a wussy or even a supporter. They need the state police.

Have the ACLU start suing people and you'll have the state police there very quickly.

Have a shoot out between these losers and someone else and you'll have same.

Whats with the West with their range wars and such? Too much sun?

 Frazzled wrote:

Tha ACLU with an army of lawyers would work too.

Because briefcases are more bullet proof than ideas.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sheriff seems to be a wussy or even a supporter. They need the state police.

Have the ACLU start suing people and you'll have the state police there very quickly.

Have a shoot out between these losers and someone else and you'll have same.

Whats with the West with their range wars and such? Too much sun?

I'd prefer to avoid a shoot out, as I personally suspect these groups may be better armed/armored than the LEOs at this point.

At the very least, far more numerous.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sheriff seems to be a wussy or even a supporter. They need the state police.

Have the ACLU start suing people and you'll have the state police there very quickly.

Have a shoot out between these losers and someone else and you'll have same.

Whats with the West with their range wars and such? Too much sun?

I'd prefer to avoid a shoot out, as I personally suspect these groups may be better armed/armored than the LEOs at this point.

At the very least, far more numerous.

See thats why Nevada's a wussy state.
In Texas, one riot, one Ranger.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Tha ACLU with an army of lawyers would work too.

Because briefcases are more bullet proof than ideas.

Well, they could see fit to bring plenty of ordinance with them. The military types go on about that all the time.

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sheriff seems to be a wussy or even a supporter. They need the state police.

Have the ACLU start suing people and you'll have the state police there very quickly.

Have a shoot out between these losers and someone else and you'll have same.

Whats with the West with their range wars and such? Too much sun?

I'd prefer to avoid a shoot out, as I personally suspect these groups may be better armed/armored than the LEOs at this point.

At the very least, far more numerous.

See thats why Nevada's a wussy state.
In Texas, one riot, one Ranger.

Wheres lone wolf mc Quade/Walker Texas ranger when you need him.

Arnold has a tank, can we send him?

 d-usa wrote:
Arnold has a tank, can we send him?

Send both, best to be sure.

 daedalus wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Tha ACLU with an army of lawyers would work too.

Because briefcases are more bullet proof than ideas.

Well, they could see fit to bring plenty of ordinance with them. The military types go on about that all the time.

My comment was a V for Vendetta joke.

 dogma wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Tha ACLU with an army of lawyers would work too.

Because briefcases are more bullet proof than ideas.

Well, they could see fit to bring plenty of ordinance with them. The military types go on about that all the time.

My comment was a V for Vendetta joke.

I know. I was making a play on words with ordinance vs. ordnance, being as the first is something lawyers could theoretically be carrying copies of, while the second is something you might use in a combative situation.

From what I understand the check point....or ECP "Entry Control Point" is on Bundy property right? If so then we need to start gunning down armed security guards using US Army Rangers, 160th Night Stalkers "NSDQ!!" to take them out. Have the 82nd jump in and secure the entire perimeter of Bundy property and go Vietnam style "Kill Zones" to keep the disease in that could be spread by the militia family trying to escape. Technical (Trucks/cars) we can nail with Long Bows and Kiowa's. have the USMC take control of the ports and disarm the USCG and security there. Air Force can swoop in and lock down TSA... ....not a bad idea.

Though you all voicing for combat are like the non military politicians

No no now you're talking like a newb.

Peacekeeper MERV.

From Orbit

Its the only way to be sure.

I do believe you're the only one voicing for combat there boyo.

 daedalus wrote:

I know. I was making a play on words with ordinance vs. ordnance, being as the first is something lawyers could theoretically be carrying copies of, while the second is something you might use in a combative situation.

Ah, I misunderstood.