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.

That is what pisses me off. We pay taxes, oh, but they have guns so no taxes for them.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is what pisses me off. We pay taxes, oh, but they have guns so no taxes for them.

Just get a gun and no taxes for you either! Just remember to point it at the nearest federal agent and say you'll 'defend yourself'

To anyone from the NSA reading this, it is pure sarcasm, please don't hurt me XD I have a delicate sensibility!

Yknow what I want too see, Bundy want his land returned to the original owners, him. So I want the government to agree, than give it the the Native Tribes.

 The Airman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They are also following law enforcement and employees home and stalking their families and they have destroyed federal property.

Source? Because my line of contact who is an allied third party on site tells a different story.

Did you miss my post, or do you have me on ignore for some reason?

 LordofHats wrote:
You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back

At this rate? Probably. You'll at least have a lot of vocal defenders and people calling for you to just be able to go home afterwards.

No one was really using that IRS anyway, they would say.

 LordofHats wrote:
You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back

Isn't there a picture of the guy standing outside his house holding the U.S. flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other? For some reason that image flashed in my mind when I read this.

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back

Isn't there a picture of the guy standing outside his house holding the U.S. flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other? For some reason that image flashed in my mind when I read this.

It's probably my favorite 'Murica' meme picture



I might need to put on some weight... And get a giant US Flag... and a shotgun...

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back

Isn't there a picture of the guy standing outside his house holding the U.S. flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other? For some reason that image flashed in my mind when I read this.

It's probably my favorite 'Murica' meme picture



I might need to put on some weight... And get a giant US Flag... and a shotgun...

I think we all know the song

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
You know when I owe the government money and refuse to pay, they just garnish my wages. Think if I go to the nearest IRS office with a gun and say I'll defend myself if anyone tries to make me leave I can get all my money back

Isn't there a picture of the guy standing outside his house holding the U.S. flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other? For some reason that image flashed in my mind when I read this.

It's probably my favorite 'Murica' meme picture



I might need to put on some weight... And get a giant US Flag... and a shotgun...

A prize should go to whoever turns that meme into a 40K standard bearer.

It seems Cracked has finally chimed in

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.

They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.

Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Funny, that.

Let's see, they have stated they will use force (i.e., the guns they have) if officials attempt to remove them.
What has the BLM done?
And what is ridiculous about the sentence, it's the mandatory minimum for arson.

And harassment.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/sheriff_managing_oregon_stando.html
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/07/oregon-residents-say-its-time-for-the-militia-to-pack-it-up-and-go

Again, stating you would defend yourself is not a threat. That is considered a warning, and if you were to use legal gymnastics, I'm sure you could accuse them of making 'conditional threats'. Beyond that, it's a warning in self defense. As for the BLM, here's a short collection of things they have done but Stefan Molyneux goes into better details in his videos. And yes, the ranchers being sentenced for terrorist arson is ridiculous that the judge himself said the five year minimum sentence was completely unfair for the damage that had been done.

As for the harassment, I have no doubt some partisan things were said or law enforcement was followed, but I'd need more information to pin it on the Bundy group. Keep in mind you have different people coming in from different groups with different ideas. In short, I find it disingenuous.

As for d-usa: You can call it a waste of time to argue with me all you like, but I have never said the Bundy's have not done anything wrong. Let me be clear on this: the die was cast when the Bundy's and friends decided to hole up on an empty wildlife refuge in the middle of nowhere and now the ball is in play. I'm at ideological odds with most of what they're about in regards to religion and social issues, but I do have parallels in that I do see the overstepping of the Federal government (and it is plain as day in the Hammond case). While I believe the occupation was incredibly stupid because 1) they're outsiders, and 2) people will oppose them just because of what they're associated with. But I feel that I have to throw in my lot in support of this group because they've actually made a statement and the fact that I feel this is a crucial event in terms of how Americans view militias. Because of the above factors, you have these men being labelled 'domestic terrorists' for standing up to the Feds. Something something united we stand, divided we fall.

I support the Bundy's case more than that of the BLM's. They're most certainly not innocent in this case, but the BLM is not either. I'd like to see the Hammonds' sentences overturned and their fines scrapped as well as a BLM that operates less like a mafia. You're free to disagree but that's my stance on this subject. I just ask that you don't put words into my mouth in order to discredit or insult me for daring to not agree with you.

I've had my association with a militia and my experience was that most of the members were incompetent or otherwise socially deficient wannabes or other lame types who couldn't hack it in the real military sprinkled very lightly with some genuine people who were in the military and actually did something. I am glad to see you think their actions are stupid and as evidenced in a previous thread about Cliven, you will see I am not normally a fan of the BLM. In this case though, I think there has been commendable restraint on the part of the Feds and that the militia types in that town are making themselves look like fools and bullies.

Given that everyone has the basic human right of self defence, to declare you will defend yourself against force is a passve-aggressive threat.

 LordofHats wrote:
It seems Cracked has finally chimed in

That's some interesting stuff in there. This argumentation that someone is not a real citizen of the US because of some document wording, it seems to be a common trope amongst certain types of groups. I just found this interesting, maybe you do, too: In Germany, there are some wackos calling themselves "citizens of the Reich", claiming that there never was an official peace treaty between the German Reich and the Allied nations, claiming that the Federal Republic of Germany we have today is just a puppet for the Allies and no legitimate government at all. Therefore, these guys claim citizenship to the German Reich which, according to them, has never ceased to exist. Add a sprinkle of regular tinfoil paranoia (chemtrails and stuff) and a diffuse anti-americanism...

Sorry for the derailment, I just thought it interesting how fringe groups among different countries can have so similar ways of arguing their position.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It seems Cracked has finally chimed in

That's some interesting stuff in there. This argumentation that someone is not a real citizen of the US because of some document wording, it seems to be a common trope amongst certain types of groups. I just found this interesting, maybe you do, too: In Germany, there are some wackos calling themselves "citizens of the Reich", claiming that there never was an official peace treaty between the German Reich and the Allied nations, claiming that the Federal Republic of Germany we have today is just a puppet for the Allies and no legitimate government at all. Therefore, these guys claim citizenship to the German Reich which, according to them, has never ceased to exist. Add a sprinkle of regular tinfoil paranoia (chemtrails and stuff) and a diffuse anti-americanism...

Sorry for the derailment, I just thought it interesting how fringe groups among different countries can have so similar ways of arguing their position.

It's always the same tactics with these groups who claim to champion freedom and founding ideals, no matter where they're from. The militias here are having so called , "secret trials" in abstentions for officials of the local and Federal government.

The constitution and laws of the USA are pretty clear about how you become a citizen.

IDK if you can renounce citizenship, but anyway while residing in the USA you are still bound by its laws and constitution, including the protections and rights afforded by them.

Bundy and his pals, however, don't like the way the laws work towards them, so they claim not to be subject to this illegitmate law while remaining loyal, law-abiding citizens to some imaginary law that surprisingly works in their interests.

 The Airman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.

They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.

Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Funny, that.

FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99


Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.

 kronk wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.

They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.

Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Funny, that.

FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99


Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.

You're quite welcome. He Later said that he was misquoted, but that's what he said.

 kronk wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.

They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.

Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Funny, that.

FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99


Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.

What the freethough project and stefan molyneux aren't bias and terrible new sources? Nooo

 Ustrello wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.

They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.

Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Funny, that.

FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99


Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.

What the freethough project and stefan molyneux aren't bias and terrible new sources? Nooo

They picked up on the story due to what the former fire chief claimed, and that video is linked above. But as I said, the guy claimed he was misquoted. I don't follow the Free Thought Project but the article was decent enough. This is more a case of "No, I didn't say what I said on camera!" than anything -- though the benefit of the doubt could be given that the fire chief misworded his statement.

As for Stefan Molyneux, he covered the Hammond involvement quite well. Poison the well some more, would ya?

 The Airman wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
Domestic terrorists? Really?

An armed group has forcibly claimed a government facility, threatened and harassed law enforcement, and is actively conspiring against the government for political reasons. I'd say it's an adiquite description.

They had keys for an empty wildlife facility, there were no threats or harassment to law enforcement, and it was a move to protest the BLM and the ridiculous sentences the Hammonds received. On top of that, regional support is split on the issue but cowards will be cowards. They seem to have forgotten the track record of the BLM.

Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Funny, that.

FreeThoughtProject... "Those of us at the Free Thought Project have dedicated our lives to shining light into the darkness of these corrupt entities as we believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/about-us/#dXbiHWJKp5THhotx.99


Thanks for the tinfoil hat post of the day. We're good to go, now.

What the freethough project and stefan molyneux aren't bias and terrible new sources? Nooo

They picked up on the story due to what the former fire chief claimed, and that video is linked above. But as I said, the guy claimed he was misquoted. I don't follow the Free Thought Project but the article was decent enough. This is more a case of "No, I didn't say what I said on camera!" than anything -- though the benefit of the doubt could be given that the fire chief misworded his statement.

As for Stefan Molyneux, he covered the Hammond involvement quite well. Poison the well some more, would ya?

Hey if that helps you feel better covering for terrorists sure go ahead

Honestly if they wanted to, they could do more damage than the San Beradino shooters or the Boston Bomber. But they haven't, and elected to take positions inside of a remote compound. You can accuse them of idiocy but not terrorism.

 The Airman wrote:
You can accuse them of idiocy but not terrorism.

That isn't true at all; one could easily accuse them of either of both.

Breaking and entering, shutting down government work, destroying property, threatening violent response if an attempt at lawful removal is made, calling for an armed uprising against the government, stalking federal and local law enforcement, government employees, and their families...

They make a good case to be considered terrorists.

 d-usa wrote:
Breaking and entering, shutting down government work, destroying property, threatening violent response if an attempt at lawful removal is made, calling for an armed uprising against the government, stalking federal and local law enforcement, government employees, and their families...

They make a good case to be considered terrorists.

But they aren't brown...

 d-usa wrote:
Breaking and entering, shutting down government work, destroying property, threatening violent response if an attempt at lawful removal is made, calling for an armed uprising against the government, stalking federal and local law enforcement, government employees, and their families...

They make a good case to be considered terrorists.

h


And when the gak hits the fan, these will be the types raiding people's homes to steal their supplies if the ones I knew are anything to go on.

Relapse wrote:

And when the gak hits the fan, these will be the types raiding people's homes to steal their supplies if the ones I knew are anything to go on.

It's their own fault for not being prepared to defend themselves when the government fails, survival of the fittest!

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

And when the gak hits the fan, these will be the types raiding people's homes to steal their supplies if the ones I knew are anything to go on.

It's their own fault for not being prepared to defend themselves when the government fails, survival of the fittest!

Yep the militia was brewing a plan to raid people's houses if anything ever happens.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
I'll admit it's possible that independent outsiders could have caused some trouble but it's not what the Bundy group is about. Though no federal property was destroyed, and it's not a threat to say you will defend yourself if forcibly removed.

So it's a combination of maybes and outright lies poised as character assassination.

So it is okay for a robber to use deadly force when being forcibly removed from property where they are not wanted then? because that is basically what you are saying. Also federal property was destroyed, once again linked in response to your claims.

Of course not. What he is saying is that saying you'll defend yourself if attacked isn't really a threat, regardless of them occupying the location illegally.

I'm going to beat your face in if you come near me. That doesn't sound like a threat then?

threat
THret/Submit
noun
1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

I think that if we say that asserting you will defend yourself is itself a threat than it could be a serious blow to people who are legitimately defending themselves. Which is obviously not a good thing. We have to consider the ramifications.

If we classify what they said as being a threat, than someone who is defending their home from an intruder who yells out "I'll kill you if you come any closer" could be construed as making a death threat if we follow the same logic. That's not a good precedent.

These morons have already done plenty of illegal stuff, no need to tack on something which could erode other people's rights.