Jump to content

Militia occupies federal building in Oregon


SportsGuy41017

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They should go in because the people who are protesting are showing guns and they are using rhetoric that warrants it. Simple as that.

 

Is it legal to threaten govt officials/police officers? If not, then they are not "properly protesting."

 

Legally protesting, but I understand what you are getting at. No, not legal to threaten, and whatever happens next is a shared responsibility between the protesters and the government, not just on the protest side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poacher angle here is equivalent to the Benghazi film causing the uprising that killed the Ambassador. Total crap. These people are mad. Mad about the land and mad about these two Ranchers being jailed for the Arson charge. Heck CNN just had Bundy on and they talked about the fires. I repeat I do not agree with a armed takeover of a building, but these guys have a good point. Occupy Wall Street anyone? Like I said last night, no difference other than these guys are not sissies.

Edited by True blue (and gold)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poacher angle here is equivalent to the Benghazi film causing the uprising that killed the Ambassador. Total crap. These people are mad. Mad about the land and mad about these two Ranchers being jailed for the Arson charge. Heck CNN just had Bundy on and they talked about the fires. I repeat I do not agree with a armed takeover of a building, but these guys have a good point. Occupy Wall Street anyone? Like I said last night, no difference other than these guys are not sissies.

 

And the pesky fact that they're armed and prepared to die, maybe. Just throwing that out there.

Edited by True blue (and gold)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not kid ourselves, if any of the Occupy "camp(s)" had everyone armed not letting anyone that wasn't one of them in the "camp", as well as threaten anyone who attempted to remove them, and said that they will die fighting if forced to leave and or arrested, then SWAT would have come in within a day and there would have been a lot of dead occupiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were not armed they may have some support.

 

They claim that they are there to help the people of that county, yet the people of that county do not want them there, nor do the ranchers that got in trouble in the first place.

 

A friend of mine who lived in Montana said that he loved living near federal land, you could hike in most places, and they had areas where you could camp, fish, and hunt, as well as having some areas for logging. And he said it was great that it was all managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From everything I have seen they are not threatening anyone. Just saw a live interview with them on CNN at around 2 PM. I am sure it can be found online.

Ian Kullgren Verified account ‏@IanKullgren I talked to Ryan Bundy on the phone again. He said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary.

 

That is a threat. I thought it was at least.

 

Some of the coverage has been disingenuous as they keep showing still photos of the actual protesters (few hundred), giving the impression it is a swarm of people taking over a large federal hot spot by gunpoint. Not much imagery from the actual scene, which again, has been described as a remotely located unoccupied building, now inhabited by 15-20 jihadist thugs ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not defending the way they are going about this, but I have said they will shoot back or first. Ammon Bundy said on the interview that if threatened( in some form of words, thats not a direct quote but you get the jest) that they would not take it well, but did not want any violence. I guess he is saying if you try to move us we will shoot you, which I have said all along that these people are serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine who lived in Montana said that he loved living near federal land, you could hike in most places, and they had areas where you could camp, fish, and hunt, as well as having some areas for logging. And he said it was great that it was all managed.

 

Just don't let your campfire get out of control, lol.

 

Honestly thats my main question about this whole thing. If I am camping on federally owned land, legally, and build a campfire that gets out of control due to wind or whatever, would I be charged with arson and sentenced to 5 years in prison? I would have a serious problem with that.

 

These guys were doing a controlled burn on their own land and it got out of hand, spread to federal land, so they were then charged with arson. There is nothing that indicates that they intentionally burned federal land. At least not that I have seen reported by any of the media outlets, however they are not doing a very good job of reporting on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.