Militia Cleanup: Did you say take away their kids?

[North Calaveras]

"They did last time" that's not evdience in this case is it? so now, my point isn't meaningless, unless you have evidence that supports them actively targeting law enforcement and saying they will be killed.

literally look it up. they have said that they will resist if law enforcement tries to remove them. they are going on about how they are prepared to die. only a person in denial because of favourable bias towards them would deny this.

e: maybe they are taking up sniper positions (again) so they can... uh... yeah i can't think of a joke

the claim was made that they POINTED THEIR FIREARMS AT COPS AND SAID THEY WOULD KILL POLICE.

please prove where they physically picked up their weapons and took deadly aim at the police and said "we are going to kill police"

[Camicon]

Cause it's not like bullets can travel extremely far distances, obviously. And I'm sure that there are kilometres of wilderness encircling these federal buildings which have been taken over, right? Right? I mean, it's not like stray bullets are a thing.

In that case, hunters should be considered terrorists because they can miss? You're being very unreasonable- most of those bullets are going to A) hit a tree or B) fall into the ground. Most of these guys are using AR-15s too. These shoot tiny .22 rounds that don't go very far. This is literally the best possible scenario for this to happen in. It is just the feds vs these guys with no civilians in the way.

Shoo you filthy strawman, back to your field of dirt and salt.

[Ventlimer]

that quote supports the claim and actually goes against you...

Jmazmania said that they only crime they've committed is trespass. I pointed out that he is wrong. Thus, Jamzmania has implied, by omission, that he has no problem with the wildly illegal actions which these crazy bastards have taken, by threatening to kill law enforcement officers who are acting well within their legal authority.

So, no. Context: it's important.

The point is to stand against federal power. Btw, are you from the States?

[The Black Forrest]

It's called the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for a reason.

This is not a wildlife refuge.

An opinion weighs how much on this matter? I agree with refuges so I guess that cancels both of out.

[Grenartia]

I object to the political correctness bullshit in this OP (and in the wider media, and even the government). Everybody's too fucking afraid to call these fuckwads what they are: terrorists.

[Liriena]

Civil Disobedience is treason? Lmao. I love it that environmentalists and Liberals (not saying you are one) become progovernment and patriotic when someone they don't like stands up to the government while using the second Amendment.

I think it's more of a reaction to a perceived double-standard in how law enforcement deals with militias who do this sort of thing, as opposed to other groups. Much in the same way that some people might say "deport all Christians" in response to someone saying "deport all Muslims".

[Ventlimer]

In that case, hunters should be considered terrorists because they can miss? You're being very unreasonable- most of those bullets are going to A) hit a tree or B) fall into the ground. Most of these guys are using AR-15s too. These shoot tiny .22 rounds that don't go very far. This is literally the best possible scenario for this to happen in. It is just the feds vs these guys with no civilians in the way.

Shoo you filthy strawman, back to your field of dirt and salt.

Run along with your Fallacy Fallacy (Really is a thing- when you call out a logical error on your opponent's part but fail to address the points he made.)

[Camicon]

Jmazmania said that they only crime they've committed is trespass. I pointed out that he is wrong. Thus, Jamzmania has implied, by omission, that he has no problem with the wildly illegal actions which these crazy bastards have taken, by threatening to kill law enforcement officers who are acting well within their legal authority.

So, no. Context: it's important.

The point is to stand against federal power. Btw, are you from the States?

There are legal ways to stand up against overreach by one's government. This is not one of those ways.

[Salus Maior]

Not exactly sure what collateral damage will occur in the middle of the woods.

Cause it's not like bullets can travel extremely far distances, obviously. And I'm sure that there are kilometres of wilderness encircling these federal buildings which have been taken over, right? Right? I mean, it's not like stray bullets are a thing.

Yes, actually. If they all have 50 caliber sniper rifles and said stray bullets overcome all trees and obstacles to kill some random incredibly unlucky civilian, then you might have a point. But that doesn't make them terrorists.

And my advocation that this is NOT terrorism is not me condoning this in any way, mind you.

[North Calaveras]

The point is to stand against federal power. Btw, are you from the States?

There are legal ways to stand up against overreach by one's government. This is not one of those ways.

like looting and burning down a walmart, yet there were no crys of " drone strike them!"

[Camicon]

Shoo you filthy strawman, back to your field of dirt and salt.

Run along with your Fallacy Fallacy (Really is a thing- when you call out a logical error on your opponent's part but fail to address the points he made.)

I never said these people should be considered terrorists because they have guns. You claimed I did. You strawmanned my argument.

[Big Jim P]

As I said, double standards are twice as true.

Ewwww can I play the sweeping generalization game too!

Pointing out displayed double standards is sweeping generalizations?

[Ventlimer]

Civil Disobedience is treason? Lmao. I love it that environmentalists and Liberals (not saying you are one) become progovernment and patriotic when someone they don't like stands up to the government while using the second Amendment.

I think it's more of a reaction to a perceived double-standard in how law enforcement deals with militias who do this sort of thing, as opposed to other groups. Much in the same way that some people might say "deport all Christians" in response to someone saying "deport all Muslims".

Things change when you're armed and ready to fight without firing the first shot vs rioters and looters who are at the mercy of police because they are aggressive and they are unarmed. This, regardless of how worthy their cause is, is why the Second amendment was written.

[Kelinfort]

Arson was the sentence, though. Doesn't that carry a mandatory minimum as well?

This is why mandatory minimums are a terrible idea.

They are but I "believe" they came about because like minded judges were basically handing out "slaps on the hand" But I am not positive on that. Vaguely remember reading something somewhere.

One judge probably gave a murder a six month sentence and outraged people used a single or couple of instances to justify a terrible idea.

[The Black Forrest]

[quote="Noraika";p="27263844"]Well...all I can say is that it was never 'their land'. They just payed to be allowed to graze on it. They have no 'right' to it because its not their property, and even then they can only use their property to the degree that they adhere to legal restrictions and regulations. They don't really have anything to stand on in this case.

funny native americans say the same thing all the time.[/quote]

*shrugs* the refuge was set up in 1908. How is it the ranchers land?

[Alyakia]

literally look it up. they have said that they will resist if law enforcement tries to remove them. they are going on about how they are prepared to die. only a person in denial because of favourable bias towards them would deny this.

e: maybe they are taking up sniper positions (again) so they can... uh... yeah i can't think of a joke

the claim was made that they POINTED THEIR FIREARMS AT COPS AND SAID THEY WOULD KILL POLICE.

please prove where they physically picked up their weapons and took deadly aim at the police and said "we are going to kill police"

every body knows that they did it last time and they have already stated flat out they will do it again. like i said, your point is just a meaningless technicality because the cops cba showing up. if the cops were there they would be pointing their guns at them, and nobobdy, not even the guys actually there, have any doubt of this.

i mean, let's be real, do you have any doubt that the people that pointed their guns at the police and threatened to kill them once before and who have now occupied another area and said they will kill the police if they try to remove them and have already taken up sniper positions would not be aiming at the police if they were there?

[Ventlimer]

Run along with your Fallacy Fallacy (Really is a thing- when you call out a logical error on your opponent's part but fail to address the points he made.)

I never said these people should be considered terrorists because they have guns. You claimed I did. You strawmanned my argument.

That I did and for that I apologize. Doesn't change the fact that collateral damage is a none issue here.

[Liriena]

I think it's more of a reaction to a perceived double-standard in how law enforcement deals with militias who do this sort of thing, as opposed to other groups. Much in the same way that some people might say "deport all Christians" in response to someone saying "deport all Muslims".

Things change when you're armed and ready to fight without firing the first shot vs rioters and looters who are at the mercy of police because they are aggressive and they are unarmed. This, regardless of how worthy their cause is, is why the Second amendment was written.

So you're saying the people in Ferguson should have been armed?

[Camicon]

Cause it's not like bullets can travel extremely far distances, obviously. And I'm sure that there are kilometres of wilderness encircling these federal buildings which have been taken over, right? Right? I mean, it's not like stray bullets are a thing.

Yes, actually. If they all have 50 caliber sniper rifles and said stray bullets overcome all trees and obstacles to kill some random incredibly unlucky civilian, then you might have a point. But that doesn't make them terrorists.

And my advocation that this is NOT terrorism is not me condoning this in any way, mind you.

You're right it doesn't. Their stated willingness to kill anyone who tries to stop them is what makes them terrorists.

[Alyakia]

this is like a terrorist who ran through the city with a bomb standing outside city limits saying he's going to do it again and you going "but he hasn't run through the city yet?"

just take a moment to think about how silly the liberals saying that would look to you

[Grenartia]

Civil Disobedience is treason? Lmao. I love it that environmentalists and Liberals (not saying you are one) become progovernment and patriotic when someone they don't like stands up to the government while using the second Amendment.

I think it's more of a reaction to a perceived double-standard in how law enforcement deals with militias who do this sort of thing, as opposed to other groups. Much in the same way that some people might say "deport all Christians" in response to someone saying "deport all Muslims".

Also, I'd like to point out that to call this "civil disobedience" is intellectual dishonesty in its most blatant form. They seized control of a federal facility by force, and are maintaining their current position with the threat of force. That's not "civil disobedience". That's terrorism.

[North Calaveras]

the claim was made that they POINTED THEIR FIREARMS AT COPS AND SAID THEY WOULD KILL POLICE.

please prove where they physically picked up their weapons and took deadly aim at the police and said "we are going to kill police"

every body knows that they did it last time and they have already stated flat out they will do it again. like i said, your point is just a meaningless technicality because the cops cba showing up. if the cops were there they would be pointing their guns at them, and nobobdy, not even the guys actually there, have any doubt of this.

i mean, let's be real, do you have any doubt that the people that pointed their guns at the police and threatened to kill them once before and who have now occupied another area and said they will kill the police if they try to remove them and have already taken up sniper positions would not be aiming at the police if they were there?

We don't even know if this group is the same militia that was with them last time. It's easy to put up a "this well defend" sign and say "we are the militia" Hell, I'm wearing a "Don't tread on me" hoody right now.

[Big Jim P]

I object to the political correctness bullshit in this OP (and in the wider media, and even the government). Everybody's too fucking afraid to call these fuckwads what they are: terrorists.

When they commit an act of terror, I will be the first to call them terrorists.

[Alyakia]

There are legal ways to stand up against overreach by one's government. This is not one of those ways.

like looting and burning down a walmart, yet there were no crys of " drone strike them!"

it's almost like looters and an armed siege are, in fact, two completely different situations

[The Black Forrest]

If you think guns are really that much of a problem Arizona and Vermont would be hell holes.

You mean they aren't?

Bastard. I wanted to say that.