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.

 kveldulf wrote:
As far govt goes I believe in good govt. I don't believe in unlimited submission to civil govt though, as delineation is important or else the state may turn into a God.

As far as, conflict resolution. I teach my kids prior to the spanking what they did wrong, and after, I hold them. I want them to remember what they did. I offer ample warning before I resort to it.

well I guess if you can't parent by earning respect and trust, then fear and intimidation works just as well

how can you teach him to respect authority, when you clearly don't?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
As far govt goes I believe in good govt. I don't believe in unlimited submission to civil govt though, as delineation is important or else the state may turn into a God.

As far as, conflict resolution. I teach my kids prior to the spanking what they did wrong, and after, I hold them. I want them to remember what they did. I offer ample warning before I resort to it.

well I guess if you can't parent by earning respect and trust, then fear and intimidation works just as well

how can you teach him to respect authority, when you clearly don't?

By hitting them?

Anyway going back to an earlier point I saw:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Per the FBI definition, this is domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.

Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?

There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.

Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "

No more off-topic discussion of parenting / medication / etc in this thread - thanks.

 Spinner wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:


I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.

 kveldulf wrote:
BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.

Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.

And putting them on anti depressant / antI psychotics is any better? Especially when they increas suicidal tendencies and mass shootings?

Please.... your moral justification is purely from a collective viewpoint. Mine is at least referencing some manner of natural law.

...define 'natural law', please? I'm curious.

Google it. Sir William Blackstone has a pretty good book about it.

 Chongara wrote:
Anyway going back to an earlier point I saw:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Per the FBI definition, this is domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.

Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?

There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.

Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "

I think the siege tactic is the best available to them at the moment. If this was an important facility, like a state capitol building, I think the FBI would be looking into a way to resolve it as fast as possible.

But in this case, it's a shuttered building not in use. The options are risk an armed confrontation or simply wait for them to freeze and starve. Given those two options, I think that the option to wait it out is the best for everyone. I agree it doesn't send a very strong message, but a building full of dead bodies doesn't send a very good message either (a la' the Waco tx siege).

 kveldulf wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...

Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.

Well, I don't know about all that stuff at the end there. But, here's the abuse stuff.

Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.

That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall. Was it the greatest solution, probably not.

It was child abuse. You will go on ignore if you don't post into this thread "That was child abuse." You're on the clock...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kveldulf wrote:
Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.

Nevermind. Missed this post. Ignore you go. You have nothing of value to say.

 kveldulf wrote:

Google it. Sir William Blackstone has a pretty good book about it.

This explains so many things...

Anyway;

Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?

There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.

Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "

Definitely with Chongara on this. I think the measured reaction to the Bundy Standoff was the right thing to do at the time, but the FBI has been too slow in bringing down ramifications for what happened then. The lack of a government response clearly emboldened the first group to start this, and now others are joining in. But I think the government can wait until these guys run out of supplies and then throw the book at them. The clearly defined line has been unquestionably crossed and while they're charging them with a number of crimes for taking over a government building, charges can be filled for what happened at Bundy's ranch as well.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Anyway going back to an earlier point I saw:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Per the FBI definition, this is domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.

Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?

There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.

Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "

I think the siege tactic is the best available to them at the moment. If this was an important facility, like a state capitol building, I think the FBI would be looking into a way to resolve it as fast as possible.

But in this case, it's a shuttered building not in use. The options are risk an armed confrontation or simply wait for them to freeze and starve. Given those two options, I think that the option to wait it out is the best for everyone. I agree it doesn't send a very strong message, but a building full of dead bodies doesn't send a very good message either (a la' the Waco tx siege).

As stated a few pages back the local Indians aren't very happy about this, because it is spiritual land to them. The Feds could just look the other way when they form a blockade around the area and starve bundy and company out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

Google it. Sir William Blackstone has a pretty good book about it.

This explains so many things...

Anyway;

Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?

There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.

Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "

Definitely with Chongara on this. I think the measured reaction to the Bundy Standoff was the right thing to do at the time, but the FBI has been too slow in bringing down ramifications for what happened then. The lack of a government response clearly emboldened the first group to start this, and now others are joining in. But I think the government can wait until these guys run out of supplies and then throw the book at them. The clearly defined line has been unquestionably crossed and while they're charging them with a number of crimes for taking over a government building, charges can be filled for what happened at Bundy's ranch as well.

Just charge them with subversive conspiracy and send them to federal prison for 20 years

I think you mean seditious conspiracy, 18 U.S. Code § 2384. Which, by the way, doesn't have a recent successful track record prosecution wise, although these guys have with their own words really built a case in my opinion.

Definitely with Chongara on this. I think the measured reaction to the Bundy Standoff was the right thing to do at the time, but the FBI has been too slow in bringing down ramifications for what happened then. The lack of a government response clearly emboldened the first group to start this, and now others are joining in. But I think the government can wait until these guys run out of supplies and then throw the book at them. The clearly defined line has been unquestionably crossed and while they're charging them with a number of crimes for taking over a government building, charges can be filled for what happened at Bundy's ranch as well.

That is a good point - IIRC, this group is being headed by the sons of that original rancher, and I'm sure their success in that matter did embolden them to do this.

That being said, the feds are in a position where they're going to be labeled as either limp-wristed sissies, or jack-booted fascists, so I think they're going with the lesser of two evils.

Time is on the fed's side - though I do hope that the militiamen get punished sufficiently to discourage this sort of behavior. Because if someone gets emboldened enough to do seize something important (like city/state capitol), bad times will be had by all.

 Chongara wrote:
Anyway going back to an earlier point I saw:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Per the FBI definition, this is domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.

Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?

There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.

Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "

I don't think it's that simple, because the people do have the right to assemble and protest. government sit in's used to be a common form of protest.

Occupy was camped out in a park for 2 months, now you have this heavily armed militia waving guns about threatening violence, so shouldn't they get the same leeway? the big difference I see here is the militia has threatened violence and that alone should warrant them being arrested and charged with everything between trespassing to terrorism.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Anyway going back to an earlier point I saw:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Per the FBI definition, this is domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.

Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?

There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.

Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "

I don't think it's that simple, because the people do have the right to assemble and protest. government sit in's used to be a common form of protest.

Occupy was camped out in a park for 2 months, now you have this heavily armed militia waving guns about threatening violence, so shouldn't they get the same leeway? the big difference I see here is the militia has threatened violence and that alone should warrant them being arrested and charged with everything between trespassing to terrorism.

If they hadn't brought their guns and openly refuted the idea of the legitimacy of federal power over them and that land? Sure, they get some consideration.

Sitting in a park unarmed and going "We don't like the way things have been handled. We'd rather they were handled differently"
is a far cry from sitting in that same park, armed and going:
"The government has no right to own this park. We don't wish things were handled differently, the government has no right to handle it at all"


If these guys had waltzed into the exact same building without guns and said "We recognize the authority of the federal government to regulate land use but think that these specific laws are unfair for the following reasons" I'd be singing a different tune. Those guys I'd be fine with. Those guys I wouldn't want them to lob tear gas at.

I get that part, the thing that makes me cringe is the thought of drawing hard lines in the sand and what is an acceptable area for a protest.

while trying to prevent groups like this you can make it harder for those with legitimate grievances to have their voice be heard.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I get that part, the thing that makes me cringe is the thought of drawing hard lines in the sand and what is an acceptable area for a protest.

Once you pull a gun on Uncle Sam, it isn't a protest anymore.

The legitimacy of the grievances isn't really at issue (I mean, they'd still be idiots, but most of us would brush them off as wackos and go about the day).

It's voicing them at gunpoint.

 Chongara wrote:


If they hadn't brought their guns and openly refuted the idea of the legitimacy of federal power over them and that land? Sure, they get some consideration.

Sitting in a park unarmed and going "We don't like the way things have been handled. We'd rather they were handled differently"
is a far cry from sitting in that same park, armed and going:
"The government has no right to own this park. We don't wish things were handled differently, the government has no right to handle it at all"


If these guys had waltzed into the exact same building without guns and said "We recognize the authority of the federal government to regulate land use but think that these specific laws are unfair for the following reasons" I'd be singing a different tune. Those guys I'd be fine with. Those guys I wouldn't want them to lob tear gas at.

Sadly, the Bundy Clan is not know for their restraint, their tact, or their smarts.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Anyway going back to an earlier point I saw:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Per the FBI definition, this is domestic terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.

If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.

But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.

Here's what rubs me the wrong way about all this: Where's the line? Do folks just get to take over any government property they want just because they're armed? How remote does a place have to be before we stop letting this stuff slide? Would this be the right approach for a place that got twice as much traffic, 5 times, 10 times, 100 times? Would we just let them hold the visitor center at major national park? What if they had more supplies?

There has to be some kind of assertion of government authority, at least on a symbolic level. All leaving them alone does is tell every set of yahoos with guns that they're free to take over things as they please for however long their supplies hold out. I wouldn't advocate gunning these guys down or anything but surely we must have something that can lob a couple industrial-sized tear gas canisters in their general direction.

Right now they're saying "We have the right to deny federal authority. We have the right to take over this building." by not actively stopping them, we're kind of saying "Yes. Yes you do. Carry on. "

I don't think it's that simple, because the people do have the right to assemble and protest. government sit in's used to be a common form of protest.

Occupy was camped out in a park for 2 months, now you have this heavily armed militia waving guns about threatening violence, so shouldn't they get the same leeway? the big difference I see here is the militia has threatened violence and that alone should warrant them being arrested and charged with everything between trespassing to terrorism.

People have the right to peaceably asssemble. When you bring guns to the assembly and suggest you may use them if authorities try to remove you, you aren't really peaceably assembling anymore. And even if the assembly is peaceable, authorities can place reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of the assembly, and it is fairly obvious the protesters are exceeding that.

During past government siting people were prepared to be arrested and ready to serve as the faces of injustice when carried out in cuffs after passively resisting.

That's how you do civil disobedience.

 LordofHats wrote:
The legitimacy of the grievances isn't really at issue (I mean, they'd still be idiots, but most of us would brush them off as wackos and go about the day).

It's voicing them at gunpoint.

This. Guns instantly escalate the situation and if that situation goes bad then you need specialised police to deal with it.

Imagine what would have happened if a sizeable portion of a large protest had rifles and/or handguns. Are there enough firearms response officers to police that kind of event, because you certainly wouldn't want standard cops and anti-riot police in there if it sparked off and went violent. They are not equipped to stand up to guns. A standard riot shield and helmet is great defence against a lobbed brick but less so against a bullet.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Occupy was camped out in a park for 2 months, now you have this heavily armed militia waving guns about threatening violence, so shouldn't they get the same leeway? the big difference I see here is the militia has threatened violence and that alone should warrant them being arrested and charged with everything between trespassing to terrorism.

No. They do not get the same leeway for the reason you posted. Occupy was, for the more part, peaceful assembly. These are nuts with guns threatening violence on "gumment" property.

The fact that the guy they're defending is a child abuser is just icing on the crazy cake.

Just because you're carrying a gun does not make it escalating the situation. If you feel that way ok, but it doesn't make it necessarily true...

Furthermore, fed govt or any govt is not absolute in its authority. After proper petition and discussion, protest is in order, then it progresses from there. That's the sensible order. Right now we are at armed protest because... the BLM has a nasty track record.

Read the below link - its concerning unlimited submission to govt - for those queezy about 'that line'. Yea it's religious in nature but I think it points out a great principle regardless.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/discourse-concerning-unlimited-submission-and-non-resistance-to-the-higher-powers/

Also, the whole issue of federal land is a pretty scary, ridiculous thing. If you look at how much federally owned land there is, it makes you question why even having state lines in some areas. Something needs to be done, as it is just simply too much.... but after the adminstrative branches of fed govt get tucked away into state powers.

We could probably reduce the deficit immensely if the government sold off some of that land which is being unused. It is holding onto an obscene amount of land currently.

Dibs on Mount Rushmore!

I'd scale Mt Kronk for sure.

The state should hold land. Long term income, control of development, preservation of wilderness, etc.

Selling land just to sell land also doesn't raise much money. Better to sell it when someone actually wants to develop it for something, which is already what happens.

 LordofHats wrote:
Selling land just to sell land also doesn't raise much money. Better to sell it when someone actually wants to develop it for something, which is already what happens.

I agree with this.

 LordofHats wrote:
Selling land just to sell land also doesn't raise much money. Better to sell it when someone actually wants to develop it for something, which is already what happens.

Well obviously. I assumed that was implied.

 LordofHats wrote:
Selling land just to sell land also doesn't raise much money. Better to sell it when someone actually wants to develop it for something, which is already what happens.

It ought to be relinquished to the State, if the Feds aren't doing anything with them...

That way, any disagreement the locals have, can contact their state reps without bothering the behemoth that his the Federal Bureaucracy.