Bundy group arrested. One dead.

[The Nehor]

Quick update:

The guy who yesterday was talking on livestreams about fighting to the death and threatening everyone at the roadblocks is now whining about how he just wants to be allowed to go home, how peaceful they are, and how he was never a threat to anyone. There are now comparisons to MLK and Rosa Parks. I guess they missed how those two actually knew how to peacefully protest and did not bring guns.

Ammon Bundy, who insisted that the federal government has no jurisdiction in his cases is now demanding that the United States Supreme Court should be the court of original jurisdiction. I am not sure he gets this whole "justice system" thing.

A bunch of people on a gun website were not happy about the image this was giving to gun enthusiasts and started calling the occupiers Ewoks. Then it was pointed out that Ewoks were actually effective in a conflict situation and did not run away when the stormtroopers showed up.

Ironically the law under which these guys have been arrested was created during the Civil War to deal with Confederate sympathizers seizing public buildings. The Union Army found it difficult when they were stopped by a mob in Washington D.C. because technically there were no federal laws on the books under which you could arrest people for working to overthrow the government or impeding federal officers. The only avenue was the constitutional definition of treason which requires an act of war. Congress quickly passed a law making it illegal to try to destroy the US government or seize federal property. Oddly there are no records of it actually being used in the Civil War.

THEY RELEASED THE VIDEO I recommend starting at about 9:00 if you want to get to the action.

 

After nearly running down an Oregon state trooper Lavoy got out of the car and reached for his weapon. He got out of the car and had his hands in the air and then twice reached into his coat where he had a weapon. Then he was shot. After this the rest of the people in the car surrendered.

It would be hard to find a more justified shooting. It looked like a suicide by cop to me.

My favorite quote I have read about this: "I hope when this is all over, they put the tractor they used on display with a plaque like a tank at an old battle site. That way I can sit in it and remember this saga while i look at some extremely cool birds on our public lands." I also liked the kooky theory that this whole thing is being orchestrated by Wal-Mart to distract from their store closings which are going to be used as bases by invading Chinese.

The last remaining occupiers are in the refuge and law enforcement has moved much closer to the site to allow local traffic to resume. It looks like the rest are thinking they are somehow going to get immunity if they leave.

And to end on a happy note it has been noted that no birds have been killed so far and this has raised awareness of some of the birds in the area. On the downside they are estimating from video that the occupiers streamed that they did tens of thousands of dollars of property damage with their idiot trench digging, ransacking, and going through the government files there looking for federal secrets. Yep, these whackjobs thought the federal government keeps secret documents about their evil regime in a wildlife refuge for birds that was closed at the time they moved in.

They have some cool birds:

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I spent many hours in the last few days listening to their ranting and rationalizations. These people are unstable. They were scaring the neighbors. They ere scaring local law enforcement. They threatened to kill police and federal law enforcement. If you do not see an armed band stealing federal demands and breathing out threats as dangerous then the problem is you. Seriously, sit down and watch this stuff. Are these really the people you want to defend?

Your defense of these people is they will not hurt law enforcement if they do not confront them......that is asinine. They put law enforcement in a position where it was their job to confront them. This is the equivalent of a drunk dangerous nut in a bar claiming he will not hurt the bouncer if the bouncer does not mess with him and trying to shift the guilt to the bouncer. Or replace the bar with a museum and the bouncer with a security guard. I am not sure why you are defending Lavoy on the principle that he did not shoot first. If they had waited for him to shoot there might have been more bodies. Law enforcement is trained that if you go for your gun or even look like you are going for a gun whether you are positive they have a gun or not......shoot. They want to go home that night and Lavoy took that certainty away. He paid for it with his life. The moral of the story is: Don't be an idiot, associate with idiots in a quasi-military fashion, or launch idiotic armed occupations. Words to live by.

And on the 2nd amendment I am a supporter of it. These are not people who own guns and use them responsibly. They are the kind of people who should not have guns. I find it much scarier that you characterize an armed band occupying federal land and threatening all who oppose them as a valid use of the 2nd amendment. If you do then I do not think you should have guns either.

"Your defense of these people is they will not hurt law enforcement if they do not confront them......that is asinine." - It worked for the colonists until the Boston Massacre.

"They put law enforcement in a position where it was their job to confront them." - You're correct. But also the federal government bares great responsibility for these actions.

"This is the equivalent of a drunk dangerous nut in a bar claiming he will not hurt the bouncer if the bouncer does not mess with him and trying to shift the guilt to the bouncer. Or replace the bar with a museum and the bouncer with a security guard." - What did the bar or museum take from them previously? What property did they destroy from them and get away with it with immunity from redress?

"I am not sure why you are defending Lavoy on the principle that he did not shoot first. If they had waited for him to shoot there might have been more bodies." - HUH??? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. I explicitly sided with law enforcement and specifically said that they did not need to wait until he shot first. ttribe saw my posts and even went to my side with it. Ddi you not see what I wrote? (Probaly not Probably too busy live streaming and finding clips of first person shooter video games to show how clever you are in making your point. I wrote:

Quote

When you're part of a group who have sworn to die for their cause and are known to be armed charging an officer is a lawful reason to be shot. I say the same for any civilian. A civilian may absolutely use deadly force to stop the advance of such a person. Even if LaVoy was not armed at the moment, he could be a serious threat to the safety of the officers, once he made close contact with them.

Quote

And not just training. Nobody needs training (though training is very valuable) nor a law to justify using deadly force against someone who has promised to die for his cause charges at you.

Quote

ttribe asks a good question if you've ever been a law enforcement officer. Not seeing a weapon can be more dangerous than seeing one. It's the overall situation t take in when deciding to use deadly force, from law enforcement and even you yourself. LaVoy has promised to die for his cause amongst a group of armed protestors and he chose to charge at law enforcement instead of surrendering. The overall scoop of this event for me more than justifies using deadly force against him.

It's all right there if you just step away from your live streaming audio ad video game clip searches.

" The moral of the story is: Don't be an idiot, associate with idiots in a quasi-military fashion, or launch idiotic armed occupations. Words to live by." - You've absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

"And on the 2nd amendment I am a supporter of it. These are not people who own guns and use them responsibly." - Nobody who walks inside a federal building with guns are *legally* responsible with them. Morally/personally responsible is an entirely different matter.

"They are the kind of people who should not have guns." - WHAT??? They have NOT used them, not once, even AFTER being shot at. you favor taking their guns away because they are willing to use them? Good grief!!!

"I find it much scarier that you characterize an armed band occupying federal land and threatening all who oppose them as a valid use of the 2nd amendment." - WHAT??? I have never ever said that. Those who oppose them is a very broad word. many here oppose them yet they will NEVER use their weapons against any of them, will they? They will use them if force is placed on them. Well, even after that has happened, nobody has used them, have they?

"If you do then I do not think you should have guns either." - Yup, forget that God gave me the right to defend myself. The Nehor knows better than to let me have a gun. I must be praying to the wrong being.

 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Nope, that father returned home form serving in Iraq. No play soldier The Nehor.

We are talking about Ryan Payne right? He is the guy who claimed he was a sniper and a Ranger when he was neither a sniper or a Ranger. He was in intelligence and was in a mission that went bad when the promised air support did not show up. He then became convinced the lack of air support was a deliberate attempt to kill off the team and went into nutter territory.

What happened was bad (though his whole team survived) but I really doubt they wanted him dead. Most everyone who has been in the military can tell stories of gross incompetence like that. The guy needs treatment for PTSD. He is one of the few members of that group I have some sympathy for. I think his brain broke while he was in Iraq and this militia thing is his way of swinging at the US military for being abandoned.

Also note that when I was laughing at the people on the refuge playing at being soldiers Payne was already in custody so I was not referring to him.

[Darren10]

The Nehor;

I have never supported the actual occupation. That was misguided indeed. I have great sympathy for their overall plight. I doubt the Supreme Court will do anything for them. I doubt they'll even take up the case which is standard procedure for the Supreme Court. 

Excuse me while reevaluate who I pray to tonight but I need to go to bed.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"Your defense of these people is they will not hurt law enforcement if they do not confront them......that is asinine." - It worked for the colonists until the Boston Massacre.

Actually the colonists kicked off the Boston Massacre by chucking things at British soldiers. It served as useful propaganda for the Revolutionaries but I am actually on the side of the British soldiers in that one. I might have fired too.

"They put law enforcement in a position where it was their job to confront them." - You're correct. But also the federal government bares great responsibility for these actions.

Not really unless you mean by subsidizing these welfare queen ranchers they emboldened them. If they truly believed the federal government should stay out of this and that they have no jurisdiction over them they should be refusing federal subsidies. They are not.

"This is the equivalent of a drunk dangerous nut in a bar claiming he will not hurt the bouncer if the bouncer does not mess with him and trying to shift the guilt to the bouncer. Or replace the bar with a museum and the bouncer with a security guard." - What did the bar or museum take from them previously? What property did they destroy from them and get away with it with immunity from redress?

I am not convinced their complaints are valid. Even if they were they should protest. They could take a page from Rosa Parks and MLK and stage a peaceful protest to get their story out. So far they have alienated just about everyone and turned themselves into laughingstocks.

"I am not sure why you are defending Lavoy on the principle that he did not shoot first. If they had waited for him to shoot there might have been more bodies." - HUH??? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. I explicitly sided with law enforcement and specifically said that they did not need to wait until he shot first. ttribe saw my posts and even went to my side with it. Ddi you not see what I wrote? (Probaly not Probably too busy live streaming and finding clips of first person shooter video games to show how clever you are in making your point. I wrote:

No, you also argued the militia had the same right. They do not.

It's all right there if you just step away from your live streaming audio ad video game clip searches.

Nah, I was having too much fun.

" The moral of the story is: Don't be an idiot, associate with idiots in a quasi-military fashion, or launch idiotic armed occupations. Words to live by." - You've absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I am the one who just spent hours listening to these nuts. Trust me, they are idiots.

"And on the 2nd amendment I am a supporter of it. These are not people who own guns and use them responsibly." - Nobody who walks inside a federal building with guns are *legally* responsible with them. Morally/personally responsible is an entirely different matter.

I was using responsible in the general sense. They were not being responsible gun owners at all....period. One of them already died for their stupidity. I hope the rest surrender.

"They are the kind of people who should not have guns." - WHAT??? They have NOT used them, not once, even AFTER being shot at. you favor taking their guns away because they are willing to use them? Good grief!!!

Lavoy tried to pull his gun. I favor taking their guns away because they are irresponsible with them.

"I find it much scarier that you characterize an armed band occupying federal land and threatening all who oppose them as a valid use of the 2nd amendment." - WHAT??? I have never ever said that. Those who oppose them is a very broad word. many here oppose them yet they will NEVER use their weapons against any of them, will they? They will use them if force is placed on them. Well, even after that has happened, nobody has used them, have they?

Actually you pretty much did.

"If you do then I do not think you should have guns either." - Yup, forget that God gave me the right to defend myself. The Nehor knows better than to let me have a gun. I must be praying to the wrong being.

Why do you feel you need a gun to defend yourself? I am worried that a slightly less loony militia with real grievances will show up and you will go join them with your gun. I don't want you to get shot or shoot anyone. Anyone who Defends these wackos to any extent makes me believe they should not have a firearm. Obviously I cannot enforce that until I win the Presidency.

 

[salgare]

day late and a dollar short

Edited January 29, 2016 by salgare

[why me]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 

THEY RELEASED THE VIDEO I recommend starting at about 9:00 if you want to get to the action.

 

After nearly running down an Oregon state trooper Lavoy got out of the car and reached for his weapon. He got out of the car and had his hands in the air and then twice reached into his coat where he had a weapon. Then he was shot. After this the rest of the people in the car surrendered.

It would be hard to find a more justified shooting. It looked like a suicide by cop to me.

 

I am not so sure about this. First people react in various ways when faced with a situation. By placing one's hands in the pocket should not get an instant bullet. He could have been reaching for a wallet, a tissue, a hanky, his lucky silver coin etc. Being knee deep in snow, hard to move around, I would think that if he did pull out a gun, then he could be shot. It takes a few seconds to pull out a gun and fire it when the temperatures are cold etc. The police over reacted for sure. But of course, these days, it is best to keep your hands where they can be seen. Also, they left the body in the snow for several minutes. No one checked if he were still alive. Why? Did they want him to bleed to death? Usually police would approach the body and check for life. But not this time. Just left him in the snow. Strange.

[Calm]

I stopped watching when he was killed.  I don't think I should have watched even that.  Curiousity being satisfied wasn't worth it.   Wish I had taken a moment to think about it.

Were there others in the car, perhaps the officers were concerned that checking for life at that time could expose them to other possible gun fire.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Calm

[strappinglad]

Well, this is what I saw. The man gets out hands well out to the side. He walks in knee deep or deeper snow well away from the vehicle ,possibly to draw any firing away from the others. He stops and   faces the man coming from the road, at least one arm still held out ,possible trying to remain steady on his feet in the deep snow. Another officer comes up on him from the rear and he turns slightly and one hand drops to his waist. He is shot. I don't know which officer shot him. In my opinion he did not ' charge ' at the officer.

[BlueDreams]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I stopped watching when he was killed.  I don't think I should have watched even that.  Curiousity being satisfied wasn't worth it.   Wish I had taken a moment to think about it.

Were there others in the car, perhaps the officers were concerned that checking for life at that time could expose them to other possible gun fire.

I watched a little past that point. It appears that the police were still at the ready and highly cautious. So I would assume either there was or they were worried that more were hiding. It seemed justified overall, i wouldn't call it all too strange, considering they know the group generally is armed, he ran from the cops after being stopped, he almost ran over a cop in his escape, gets out hands up at first, but then rapidly moving for his belt a couple of times in rapid unpredictable movements. It's not all that strange to me. According to this, there were others in the car and Finnicum wasn't unarmed. Their caution was definitely warranted.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/fbi_to_release_video_footage_o.html

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

Quote

he almost ran over a cop in his escape

I am wondering if the guy was moving to block the car or moving to get out from behind the car he was standing by when it looked like it was going to get rammed.  Either way, that looked way too close.  

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I asked if soldiers are murderers using your reasoning that these occupiers are murderers. you replied that soldiers are not murderers but there was the My Thai Massacre. So, your reponse in comparable situations where soldiers are murderers is a massacre. How in the world does that come even close to the Oregon occupiers "threatening murder"? Are they going to round up people and kill them. Keep in mind that soldiers go against established law all the time. In fact that's one of the main reasons they exist, to enforce what one group believes to be right upon another. They kill established law enforcement. By your reasoning, they carry out "murder".

My main point is NOT to make these occupiers soldiers or freedom fighters as Calm asked. In fact, I've made it clear that I do not support their armed takeover of the government building and that they should be arrested for it. But, that said, I have lot's of empathy for them. The federal government cannot go unchecked indefinitely and take private property. The situation will get worse if not stopped without armed conflict. I do not inherently reject armed insurrection as a legitimate choice of the people but I most definitely do not think these occupiers are doing the right thing, despite the cowardly efforts of the federal government to prosecute the Hammond family.

It is NOT even remotely comparable. US soldiers are authorized by law to blow things up and kill people on orders from the superior officers, at the direction of the President. We are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Bringing guns, threatening to kill  law enforcement, inciting others to join in insurrection are NOT peaceable actions. If soldiers go against established law they are subject to Courts-Martial and further severe consequences, up to and including the death penalty. Murder has a distinct legal definition. The unlawful taking of a human life.

It wasn't Bundy's in the first place. It isn't county property, it isn't state property. It has belonged to the Federal government since it was part of the Oregon Territory. If ANYONE other than the Federal government owns it, it is the Native Americans who live in that area. The Hammonds rejected the Bundy's efforts, and turned themselves in to law enforcement

[Darren10]

Actually the colonists kicked off the Boston Massacre by chucking things at British soldiers. It served as useful propaganda for the Revolutionaries but I am actually on the side of the British soldiers in that one. I might have fired too.

I agree 100%. Thus I said "it worked for the Colonists *until* the Boston Massacre". (My emphasis). That's when they attacked the British soldiers and they absolutely had the right to fire on the crowd and that event was used by Samuel Adams as propaganda to incite revolt. Was Samuel Adams a domestic terrorist and an idiot? Samuel's cousin (a tad distant), John Adams, successfully defended the soldiers in a court of law.

Not really unless you mean by subsidizing these welfare queen ranchers they emboldened them. If they truly believed the federal government should stay out of this and that they have no jurisdiction over them they should be refusing federal subsidies. They are not.

When the federal government destroys private property they *absolutely* need to recompense the property owner for that destruction. That's a huge part of my sympathy for the occupiers.

I am not convinced their complaints are valid. Even if they were they should protest. They could take a page from Rosa Parks and MLK and stage a peaceful protest to get their story out. So far they have alienated just about everyone and turned themselves into laughingstocks.

They ARE protesting. This is not a violation from the state or Oregon. This is not a situation where they have to sit in a designated area. This is the federal government violating their property. What are they going to do, sit in the fields and get arrested while the federal government burns land under their control and that burn destroys their own property? They've alienated people who place a higher emphasis on live streaming than on understanding individual freedom from a central government, that's for sure. I've seen that quite a bit on this thread. They've also alienated people who see only valid protest from non Whites. But, since they are white, it's kinda of humorous that their property is being destroyed by the government. A poetic justice type of humor.

No, you also argued the militia had the same right. They do not.

Militia and you as a person *absolutely* has the right to stand up and fight and die for a cause. Others have the right to disagree and support the law coming down on you. It dos not matter if you have man made weapons or the natural ones extending from your torso. You have that right because you are human and a creation of God.

I am the one who just spent hours listening to these nuts. Trust me, they are idiots.

Exactly. And you've spent zero time so far as I can tell understanding individual rights and freedoms. You've determined that these people are idiots, I've even agreed with your point of view that their actions were not warranted but idiots they are not. There are deep concerns they have and you'd have them too I suspect if your livelihood was threatened by the same factors as theirs.

I was using responsible in the general sense. They were not being responsible gun owners at all....period. One of them already died for their stupidity. I hope the rest surrender.

I hope the rest surrender too. but there is a difference between being legally responsible according to laws made by society and morally responsible which goes to the teachings of God. Which teachings of God did they violate? We already agree that LaVoy should have been shot by the law. But what about the gropu? What laws of God have they violated?

Lavoy tried to pull his gun. I favor taking their guns away because they are irresponsible with them.

Correct, and he's dead. No disagreement. We even agree that that was idiotic of him to do so but *just because he wanted to use a gun* for his cause, he should not have a gun? None of them? You're so wise and orally good that you can make that decision for them and force it upon them? You're justified and gathering and using the force necessary to enforce such a law/act upon them but they are not. Or was the 2nd amendment created and inserted into the constitution to prevent people like you from actually taking people's guns away?

Actually you pretty much did.

You may have a point there. Even without the 2nd Amendment, they absolutely may protest armed and say they are willing to fight for their cause. A valid use of the 2nd Amendment is that they may have arms, period. That includes them having arms when protesting and saying they would use them to defend their cause. I do not know, however, of any time initially that they said things to the affect of, 'if you oppose us, we'll shoot you". That would be a direct threat against people they should not threaten n that manner. But heir statements were much broader. They said they'd die for a cause and that naturally does mean using arms to do so.

Why do you feel you need a gun to defend yourself? I am worried that a slightly less loony militia with real grievances will show up and you will go join them with your gun. I don't want you to get shot or shoot anyone. Anyone who Defends these wackos to any extent makes me believe they should not have a firearm. Obviously I cannot enforce that until I win the Presidency.

Most of the time I do not feel like a "need a gun". Anytime I fee like I do it's hypothetical. But, what if I do hypothetical or in real life. Should The Nehor tell me when those conclusions are valid and use government to control my possession of a gun in various circumstances in my life. You say that you support the 2nd amendment, so what does it say about impeding the right to bare arms? As President you'd enforce what you think should be proper use of guns in people's lives? You'll use your pen and phone to make sure I'm always in compliance and get punished when I am not? This is your idea of freedom? Militias were supported by the founding Fathers *to prevent* that type of government from being created.

 

 

 

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I watched a little past that point. It appears that the police were still at the ready and highly cautious. So I would assume either there was or they were worried that more were hiding. It seemed justified overall, i wouldn't call it all too strange, considering they know the group generally is armed, he ran from the cops after being stopped, he almost ran over a cop in his escape, gets out hands up at first, but then rapidly moving for his belt a couple of times in rapid unpredictable movements. It's not all that strange to me. According to this, there were others in the car and Finnicum wasn't unarmed. Their caution was definitely warranted.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/fbi_to_release_video_footage_o.html

 

With luv,

BD

I just watched the video and I too did not see any charging from LaVoy. I did see him reaching for his jacket twice. I don't think he was trying to get his balance but to actually grab something from it. Even if he did change his arm position for the purpose of balance, shooting him was completely justified. The officers and a reason to fear for their safety and lives and you would have as well were you in their place as a civilian.

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is NOT even remotely comparable. US soldiers are authorized by law to blow things up and kill people on orders from the superior officers, at the direction of the President. We are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Bringing guns, threatening to kill  law enforcement, inciting others to join in insurrection are NOT peaceable actions. If soldiers go against established law they are subject to Courts-Martial and further severe consequences, up to and including the death penalty. Murder has a distinct legal definition. The unlawful taking of a human life.

It wasn't Bundy's in the first place. It isn't county property, it isn't state property. It has belonged to the Federal government since it was part of the Oregon Territory. If ANYONE other than the Federal government owns it, it is the Native Americans who live in that area. The Hammonds rejected the Bundy's efforts, and turned themselves in to law enforcement

"US soldiers are authorized by law to blow things up and kill people on orders from the superior officers, at the direction of the President." - Civilians are authorized to do the same from the EXACT same document of authority which the President gains his authority to authorize soldiers to shoot, kill and blow [caca] up.

"We are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances." - We have other rights too. Can you name them please?

[And note that just because any specific right s not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Rights are enumerated, not all listed out. States may decide what rights you and I have under the original understanding of the Constitution. That's changed a bit since then. ]

"Bringing guns, threatening to kill  law enforcement, inciting others to join in insurrection are NOT peaceable actions." - Coming armed is NOT unpeaceful nor unconstitutional. Threatening to use violence is not unpeaceful. Don't mix pacifism with peacefulness.

"If soldiers go against established law they are subject to Courts-Martial and further severe consequences, up to and including the death penalty. Murder has a distinct legal definition. The unlawful taking of a human life." - I view murder more as an inhumane taking of life. The established laws which soldiers violate I was referring to laws of other countries. Were our soldiers murderers in Vietnam like all the hippies claimed? What about Iraqi vets? Did they murder? They most definitely went against established law by those in authority to make those laws. Thus, in those places, their killings were unlawful, correct?

"It isn't county property, it isn't state property." - Whenever government at any level owns any property, who ultimately owns it? You've answered this question before correctly so I think you can do it again.

" If ANYONE other than the Federal government owns it, it is the Native Americans who live in that area." - So now the rule of law is meaningless? If the government authorizes the sale of land and private owners buy it, it is not that person's property because the Indians own it?

[Darren10]

12 hours ago, why me said:

I am not so sure about this. First people react in various ways when faced with a situation. By placing one's hands in the pocket should not get an instant bullet. He could have been reaching for a wallet, a tissue, a hanky, his lucky silver coin etc. Being knee deep in snow, hard to move around, I would think that if he did pull out a gun, then he could be shot. It takes a few seconds to pull out a gun and fire it when the temperatures are cold etc. The police over reacted for sure. But of course, these days, it is best to keep your hands where they can be seen. Also, they left the body in the snow for several minutes. No one checked if he were still alive. Why? Did they want him to bleed to death? Usually police would approach the body and check for life. But not this time. Just left him in the snow. Strange.

"By placing one's hands in the pocket should not get an instant bullet." - He absolutely did need to get a bullet in this case.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Darren10

[Yirgacheffe]

30 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Actually the colonists kicked off the Boston Massacre by chucking things at British soldiers. It served as useful propaganda for the Revolutionaries but I am actually on the side of the British soldiers in that one. I might have fired too.

I agree 100%. Thus I said "it worked for the Colonists *until* the Boston Massacre". (My emphasis). That's when they attacked the British soldiers and they absolutely had the right to fire on the crowd and that event was used by Samuel Adams as propaganda to incite revolt. Was Samuel Adams a domestic terrorist and an idiot? Samuel's cousin (a tad distant), John Adams, successfully defended the soldiers in a court of law.

Not really unless you mean by subsidizing these welfare queen ranchers they emboldened them. If they truly believed the federal government should stay out of this and that they have no jurisdiction over them they should be refusing federal subsidies. They are not.

When the federal government destroys private property they *absolutely* need to recompense the property owner for that destruction. That's a huge part of my sympathy for the occupiers.

I am not convinced their complaints are valid. Even if they were they should protest. They could take a page from Rosa Parks and MLK and stage a peaceful protest to get their story out. So far they have alienated just about everyone and turned themselves into laughingstocks.

They ARE protesting. This is not a violation from the state or Oregon. This is not a situation where they have to sit in a designated area. This is the federal government violating their property. What are they going to do, sit in the fields and get arrested while the federal government burns land under their control and that burn destroys their own property? They've alienated people who place a higher emphasis on live streaming than on understanding individual freedom from a central government, that's for sure. I've seen that quite a bit on this thread. They've also alienated people who see only valid protest from non Whites. But, since they are white, it's kinda of humorous that their property is being destroyed by the government. A poetic justice type of humor.

No, you also argued the militia had the same right. They do not.

Militia and you as a person *absolutely* has the right to stand up and fight and die for a cause. Others have the right to disagree and support the law coming down on you. It dos not matter if you have man made weapons or the natural ones extending from your torso. You have that right because you are human and a creation of God.

I am the one who just spent hours listening to these nuts. Trust me, they are idiots.

Exactly. And you've spent zero time so far as I can tell understanding individual rights and freedoms. You've determined that these people are idiots, I've even agreed with your point of view that their actions were not warranted but idiots they are not. There are deep concerns they have and you'd have them too I suspect if your livelihood was threatened by the same factors as theirs.

I was using responsible in the general sense. They were not being responsible gun owners at all....period. One of them already died for their stupidity. I hope the rest surrender.

I hope the rest surrender too. but there is a difference between being legally responsible according to laws made by society and morally responsible which goes to the teachings of God. Which teachings of God did they violate? We already agree that LaVoy should have been shot by the law. But what about the gropu? What laws of God have they violated?

Lavoy tried to pull his gun. I favor taking their guns away because they are irresponsible with them.

Correct, and he's dead. No disagreement. We even agree that that was idiotic of him to do so but *just because he wanted to use a gun* for his cause, he should not have a gun? None of them? You're so wise and orally good that you can make that decision for them and force it upon them? You're justified and gathering and using the force necessary to enforce such a law/act upon them but they are not. Or was the 2nd amendment created and inserted into the constitution to prevent people like you from actually taking people's guns away?

Actually you pretty much did.

You may have a point there. Even without the 2nd Amendment, they absolutely may protest armed and say they are willing to fight for their cause. A valid use of the 2nd Amendment is that they may have arms, period. That includes them having arms when protesting and saying they would use them to defend their cause. I do not know, however, of any time initially that they said things to the affect of, 'if you oppose us, we'll shoot you". That would be a direct threat against people they should not threaten n that manner. But heir statements were much broader. They said they'd die for a cause and that naturally does mean using arms to do so.

Why do you feel you need a gun to defend yourself? I am worried that a slightly less loony militia with real grievances will show up and you will go join them with your gun. I don't want you to get shot or shoot anyone. Anyone who Defends these wackos to any extent makes me believe they should not have a firearm. Obviously I cannot enforce that until I win the Presidency.

Most of the time I do not feel like a "need a gun". Anytime I fee like I do it's hypothetical. But, what if I do hypothetical or in real life. Should The Nehor tell me when those conclusions are valid and use government to control my possession of a gun in various circumstances in my life. You say that you support the 2nd amendment, so what does it say about impeding the right to bare arms? As President you'd enforce what you think should be proper use of guns in people's lives? You'll use your pen and phone to make sure I'm always in compliance and get punished when I am not? This is your idea of freedom? Militias were supported by the founding Fathers *to prevent* that type of government from being created.

 

 

 

What property of these men did the federal government destroy,  I thought this was started over grazing on land that was already owned by the federal government?

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, why me said:

I am not so sure about this. First people react in various ways when faced with a situation. By placing one's hands in the pocket should not get an instant bullet. He could have been reaching for a wallet, a tissue, a hanky, his lucky silver coin etc. Being knee deep in snow, hard to move around, I would think that if he did pull out a gun, then he could be shot. It takes a few seconds to pull out a gun and fire it when the temperatures are cold etc. The police over reacted for sure. But of course, these days, it is best to keep your hands where they can be seen. Also, they left the body in the snow for several minutes. No one checked if he were still alive. Why? Did they want him to bleed to death? Usually police would approach the body and check for life. But not this time. Just left him in the snow. Strange.

Okay, I am going to disagree on just about everything.

The guy had his hands in the air and guns trained on him. You do not reach for anything in that situation. There is also no safety for law enforcement with waiting for him to start pulling the gun and then shoot. It takes less then a second to pull a gun and shoot. Human reaction time is not that fast. I participate in self-defense classes and do drills with fake guns. One fundamental of combat is that action always beats reaction. Even when you are ready for it it is almost impossible to react and shoot at someone pulling a gun. This is why police are trained to shoot when they start reaching for the gun. Did you notice the delay from him reaching and getting shot? That is pretty normal reaction time. If Lavoy had his weapon more convenient to pull instead of somewhere he had to struggle with it his gun would have been out before he was shot.

I am wondering how you think the weather has anything to do with it. It is not harder to use a gun in the cold. They do not have a warm up time.

As to why they did not go to him there were still armed militia in the car. You do not provide medical aid if it puts you in danger. Basic emergency responder criteria. Do not add more bodies to the problem. I think it says more about the militants that they left their friend to bleed in the snow by taking so long to surrender.

The police did not overreact in any way. This one was completely justified. It is exactly how police are supposed to react to maintain their own security.

[thesometimesaint]

32 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"US soldiers are authorized by law to blow things up and kill people on orders from the superior officers, at the direction of the President." - Civilians are authorized to do the same from the EXACT same document of authority which the President gains his authority to authorize soldiers to shoot, kill and blow [caca] up.

"We are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances." - We have other rights too. Can you name them please?

[And note that just because any specific right s not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Rights are enumerated, not all listed out. States may decide what rights you and I have under the original understanding of the Constitution. That's changed a bit since then. ]

"Bringing guns, threatening to kill  law enforcement, inciting others to join in insurrection are NOT peaceable actions." - Coming armed is NOT unpeaceful nor unconstitutional. Threatening to use violence is not unpeaceful. Don't mix pacifism with peacefulness.

"If soldiers go against established law they are subject to Courts-Martial and further severe consequences, up to and including the death penalty. Murder has a distinct legal definition. The unlawful taking of a human life." - I view murder more as an inhumane taking of life. The established laws which soldiers violate I was referring to laws of other countries. Were our soldiers murderers in Vietnam like all the hippies claimed? What about Iraqi vets? Did they murder? They most definitely went against established law by those in authority to make those laws. Thus, in those places, their killings were unlawful, correct?

"It isn't county property, it isn't state property." - Whenever government at any level owns any property, who ultimately owns it? You've answered this question before correctly so I think you can do it again.

" If ANYONE other than the Federal government owns it, it is the Native Americans who live in that area." - So now the rule of law is meaningless? If the government authorizes the sale of land and private owners buy it, it is not that person's property because the Indians own it?

Civilians are not. Ask Timothy McVeigh.

That is a 10ther argument, and a truism.

SEE http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-10th-amendment-definition-summary-examples.html

The 10th Amendment is the final amendment in the United States' Constitution's original Bill of Rights. It was added to assure delegates from the various states that the Federal Government would not step outside the boundaries established in the Constitution. The amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Supreme Court has declared that the 10th Amendment is a truism. This means that the amendment doesn't really add anything new to the Constitution. It was just put in place to emphasize that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over some things, and state governments have jurisdiction over other things.

In the United States, some powers belong to state governments and other powers belong to the Federal Government. We call this a federal system. But which powers go to which government? The 10th Amendment essentially explains this federal system. It says that anything that was not given to the Federal Government and not banned by the Constitution is a power of the states.

Coming armed is by definition not peaceful. Read what George Washington do armed protesters in the Whiskey Rebellion.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Murder has a legal definition. My Lai was murder under US and South Vietnamese law.

SEE http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/My+Lai+Massacre

It is owned by the government; Controlled by government officials; approved by Congress; on behalf of all citizens. Try occupying a military installation threatening murder to any that try to stop you.

The Piute were the original owners who lost possession of it when Oregon became a territory of the US.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_State

Quite frankly we stole virtual all of what was to become to the US from the natives fair and square and we ain't giving it back.

[The Nehor]

Update: 4 people left at the refuge. They are currently outside the building for some reason. They are demanding pardons before they leave. It is believed they do not have much food left so now it is just a matter of waiting for their nerve or their stomachs to give up.

Guess what? Lavoy wrote a book. It is about a nuclear war and the hero's kids have to join their father who was better prepared for the crisis and planned ahead leaving caches of supplies his kids could find on the way all the way to dad's house. The book ends when the Lavoy stand-in character is surrounded by three federal agents with weapons trained on him and quickdraws and shoots all three in a 360 degree spin. Oh......the irony. Then the character hangs a federal employee for giving him a hard time earlier.

At least he died feebly and ineptly attempting to be his idealized self.

The deconstruction of the video has begun. Here is my favorite take so far:

"You can clearly see a bigfoot at 12:12 as it makes off with the murder weapon. The chemtrails that the airplanes made were not enough to stop the car, but did obscure the 13th shooter who was hidden behind the grassy knoll. Also, it was clearly filmed on the moon, rather than Oregon. Probably actors. Suspiciously, there were no Jews in any of the cars when they left. Had they been warned? You can clearly see that he was hit with an RPG before his hands go down. What they're not telling you is that there was fluoride in the refuge water."

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Update: 4 people left at the refuge. They are currently outside the building for some reason. They are demanding pardons before they leave. It is believed they do not have much food left so now it is just a matter of waiting for their nerve or their stomachs to give up.

Guess what? Lavoy wrote a book. It is about a nuclear war and the hero's kids have to join their father who was better prepared for the crisis and planned ahead leaving caches of supplies his kids could find on the way all the way to dad's house. The book ends when the Lavoy stand-in character is surrounded by three federal agents with weapons trained on him and quickdraws and shoots all three in a 360 degree spin. Oh......the irony. Then the character hangs a federal employee for giving him a hard time earlier.

At least he died feebly and ineptly attempting to be his idealized self.

 

I thought you were making some sad joke again, Nehor....and then I figured out you really weren't . And somehow that made it sadder and a little more horrifying.

That, and I read a chapter of it....probably didn't help. It's an odd window as to how he really saw himself and the state of the nation....and the general mentality that may lead someone to follow such a misbegotten cause. The excess sense of fragility of the Nation even though, as he admits, he and his family live in relative "peace and plenty." Validating this sense with one real life example that he alludes to happening to a family member in his "warning" under acknowledgments. Fear of gang-violence and the younger generation comes through as basically a fear of change in general. A sense of false security in material security. Fears of government restraints/legislation. Mixed in with a deep, deep love of guns (he litterally mentioned a gun on every page of the first chapter....including footnotes to explain the gun lingo). The Father figure is idealized and proved right compared to his wife who believed the government and died due to her naiivette. Meanwhile Dad is living off the grid somewhere in southern Utah on a ranch. Cowboy, rugged individualism, gun-loving, glorification of a past america are vindicated causes and what the kids learned from their father is in the end proved omnisciently correct. And this is before going into his depiction of Mom who is an obvious symbol for trusting the system and the ideal life reached by success in it. Needless to say, she doesn't fare well.  

It's almost interesting just for the psychoanalyzing. But I should probably stop and do something other than fuel my morbid curiosity.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I thought you were making some sad joke again, Nehor....and then I figured out you really weren't . And somehow that made it sadder and a little more horrifying.

That, and I read a chapter of it....probably didn't help. It's an odd window as to how he really saw himself and the state of the nation....and the general mentality that may lead someone to follow such a misbegotten cause. The excess sense of fragility of the Nation even though, as he admits, he and his family live in relative "peace and plenty." Validating this sense with one real life example that he alludes to happening to a family member in his "warning" under acknowledgments. Fear of gang-violence and the younger generation comes through as basically a fear of change in general. A sense of false security in material security. Fears of government restraints/legislation. Mixed in with a deep, deep love of guns (he litterally mentioned a gun on every page of the first chapter....including footnotes to explain the gun lingo). The Father figure is idealized and proved right compared to his wife who believed the government and died due to her naiivette. Meanwhile Dad is living off the grid somewhere in southern Utah on a ranch. Cowboy, rugged individualism, gun-loving, glorification of a past america are vindicated causes and what the kids learned from their father is in the end proved omnisciently correct. And this is before going into his depiction of Mom who is an obvious symbol for trusting the system and the ideal life reached by success in it. Needless to say, she doesn't fare well.  

It's almost interesting just for the psychoanalyzing. But I should probably stop and do something other than fuel my morbid curiosity.

 

Nope, it was all dead accurate. This whole thing is incredibly surreal. I am listening to the last four holdouts now try to reason out how they did nothing wrong and are trying to negotiate not being charged with anything. Every 15 minutes they hear something and assume they are about to be attacked. The feds could kill them at any time. It is very sad.

They still think they are some kind of patriots and that people will rally and save them. Deluded fools.

I have also heard that their occupation disrupted and possibly ruined multi-year bird studies. Redneck hicks with guns ruining cool stuff yet again.  

 

Edit: Now they are badmouthing all the people who left. Of course they end up turning on each other.

Edited January 30, 2016 by The Nehor

[BlueDreams]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, it was all dead accurate. This whole thing is incredibly surreal. I am listening to the last four holdouts now try to reason out how they did nothing wrong and are trying to negotiate not being charged with anything. Every 15 minutes they hear something and assume they are about to be attacked. The feds could kill them at any time. It is very sad.

They still think they are some kind of patriots and that people will rally and save them. Deluded fools.

I have also heard that their occupation disrupted and possibly ruined multi-year bird studies. Redneck hicks with guns ruining cool stuff yet again.  

 

Edit: Now they are badmouthing all the people who left. Of course they end up turning on each other.

yeah....this is why I'm not going to go on the hunt and watch them. You've watched WAYYYY to much of this stuff.

[halconero]

On January 29, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Darren10 said:

"Your defense of these people is they will not hurt law enforcement if they do not confront them......that is asinine." - It worked for the colonists until the Boston Massacre.

"They put law enforcement in a position where it was their job to confront them." - You're correct. But also the federal government bares great responsibility for these actions.

"This is the equivalent of a drunk dangerous nut in a bar claiming he will not hurt the bouncer if the bouncer does not mess with him and trying to shift the guilt to the bouncer. Or replace the bar with a museum and the bouncer with a security guard." - What did the bar or museum take from them previously? What property did they destroy from them and get away with it with immunity from redress?

"I am not sure why you are defending Lavoy on the principle that he did not shoot first. If they had waited for him to shoot there might have been more bodies." - HUH??? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. I explicitly sided with law enforcement and specifically said that they did not need to wait until he shot first. ttribe saw my posts and even went to my side with it. Ddi you not see what I wrote? (Probaly not Probably too busy live streaming and finding clips of first person shooter video games to show how clever you are in making your point. I wrote:

It's all right there if you just step away from your live streaming audio ad video game clip searches.

" The moral of the story is: Don't be an idiot, associate with idiots in a quasi-military fashion, or launch idiotic armed occupations. Words to live by." - You've absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

"And on the 2nd amendment I am a supporter of it. These are not people who own guns and use them responsibly." - Nobody who walks inside a federal building with guns are *legally* responsible with them. Morally/personally responsible is an entirely different matter.

"They are the kind of people who should not have guns." - WHAT??? They have NOT used them, not once, even AFTER being shot at. you favor taking their guns away because they are willing to use them? Good grief!!!

"I find it much scarier that you characterize an armed band occupying federal land and threatening all who oppose them as a valid use of the 2nd amendment." - WHAT??? I have never ever said that. Those who oppose them is a very broad word. many here oppose them yet they will NEVER use their weapons against any of them, will they? They will use them if force is placed on them. Well, even after that has happened, nobody has used them, have they?

"If you do then I do not think you should have guns either." - Yup, forget that God gave me the right to defend myself. The Nehor knows better than to let me have a gun. I must be praying to the wrong being.

 

I'm going to be the historical stick in the mud and point out that your 2nd President was the defence for the soldiers involved in the Boston massacre and got them mostly off using the argument of self-defence. Turns out that being a soldier on duty and having your post attacked by chunks of ice, rock, and clubs by ruffians gives you a legal defence to protect yourself.

Hmmmmmm...maybe that is a good comparison for this situation.

[6EQUJ5]

5 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm going to be the historical stick in the mud and point out that your 2nd President was the defence for the soldiers involved in the Boston massacre and got them mostly off using the argument of self-defence. Turns out that being a soldier on duty and having your post attacked by chunks of ice, rock, and clubs by ruffians gives you a legal defence to protect yourself.

Hmmmmmm...maybe that is a good comparison for this situation.

I generally don't like to agree with Canadians -- tends to inflate their egos -- but this post is spot on.