So you know how a poacher thinks and acts .

 

Yes, next question....

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.

These are paranoid idiots who believe all the lies told about the federal government .I say if they want an armed confrontation then do it . eliminate their treason . Paranoid tea party idiots .

 

Spoken like a true sheep....

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 January 5, 201610 yr by True blue (and gold)

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 January 5, 201610 yr by True blue (and gold)

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

 

For once we agree. Thats what I mean. Like I said last night, they will shoot back or maybe even shoot first. Not happy campers.

For once we agree. Thats what I mean. Like I said last night, they will shoot back or maybe even shoot first. Not happy campers.

 

Yeah, the difference is these guys are willing to kill people. Nothing at all wrong with that....:lol2:

Yeah, the difference is these guys are willing to kill people. Nothing at all wrong with that....:lol2:

 

Never said anywhere I agreed with them, just said they mean business. Big difference.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

He also tweeted this:

 

Ian Kullgren ‏@IanKullgren Jan 3

Militia guys are offering to help a reporter change a flat tire. Aww.

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.