Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

commodorejohn
Posts: 1180
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:11 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:The bizzarro world logic is wherein you think these people are more innocent than any of the myriad people the authorities haven't handled with kiddie gloves.

Which is exactly the thing that I never, ever said. Of course these people are creeps; that's a matter of record. But your argument boils down to demanding equal atrocity. I want to be super clear on this. You are arguing that the the government should commit more atrocities in order to ensure that the atrocities it has already committed are balanced out, racially speaking. And your only defense of this insane position is that these already-comitted atrocities (the very ones you're complaining about) are effectively government policy, so it's okay for them to happen more in the name of equal time. That is beyond fucked-up.
Last edited by commodorejohn on Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:20 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby cphite » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:12 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
cphite wrote:
Mutex wrote:Yeah, not everyone is ok with a large mob deciding they're above the law because they're armed to the teeth. Laws are decided by the whole of society and should apply to everyone. If these people think they can pick and choose what laws apply to them, and the government seems to let them get away with it, I wouldn't want to live in that area. And I wouldn't want to have to join another armed mob to be safe from them. Going back to the days of tribal warfare doesn't appeal.


Sure... which is reason enough to cut the power, turn off the water, and wait them out - and then arrest them. There is a huge gap between letting them get away with it, and deliberately escalating to the point where people on either side are killed or injured.

While I agree with you, the point stands that no one cut the power and waited out the Occupy protestors. Or those students peacefully staging a sit in. Or Eric Garner. etc. etc. etc.


Actually they DID wait out the Occupy protesters for while; some would argue that they waited them out for far longer than they should have. Occupy wasn't just sitting on public land; they were also sitting on privately owned land, and using (some might say abusing) both public and private resources. All in all, the Occupy brats got an enormous amount of leeway.

That aside, the key reason not to rush into the building in Oregon is that right now the situation is non-violent, and there is nothing to be gained by making it violent.

The response that these guys are getting is the reasonable, careful, metered response. That's precisely the problem - they are presenting the furthest possible extreme we see in protests. The National Guard was called in because people in Baltimore were rioting. These guys are heavily armed, trying to become martyrs, and staging a hostile take over, and we're saying "Well, lets play it cool".


Exactly... the National Guard were called in because people were rioting and those riots presented a real and present danger to everyone involved, and because local law enforcement wasn't equipped to handle it. The guys in Oregon are, thus far, confined to a single building and have made no attempt to do much else but sit there in that building. There is no reason to call the National Guard at this point because there is nothing for the National Guard to be doing. If it comes to a point where the authorities need to storm the building, there are forces far better qualified than the National Guard. Really, the only reason for the National Guard to be involved would be in the case of riots - which haven't happened. If it comes to a gun fight, the FBI is more than qualified.

The message this is sending is that if white people are armed and extremely dangerous, you listen to them and try and talk them down quietly. If black people are standing in the wrong place or protesting or rioting, you call in the heavy fucking artillery.


Actually the message this is sending is that the federal authorities are capable of showing restraint when it's warranted.

A CHILD was gunned down because someone said they were waving a toy gun around.


Correction: A child was gunned down because he WAS waving a toy gun around - and, as an aside, one that had been modified to look realistic. It's not "someone said" - you can see the whole thing clear as day on video. Bear in mind, I am not excusing the actions of the two officers involved - based on what I've seen in the video, they were absolutely in the wrong. But all the evidence suggests is that both officers acted stupidly; not necessarily maliciously. The driver for pulling up so closely to a kid who was presumed to be armed; and the shooter for making the boneheaded decision to fire his weapon without good reason.

But the key difference is that that situation involved a split-second decision, whereas the Oregon case does not. In the Oregon case, authorities had time to process what was happening and have taken a more reasoned approach - and that's a good thing.

Here a bunch of grown ass men are bristling with guns aimed outward, and the authorities are saying 'Well well, lets just see where this goes'.


Even setting aside that description being more than a bit of an exaggeration - they have guns but they haven't openly threatened anyone - the fact that they're heavily armed is all the more reason to use restraint.

What exactly do you think happens if the authorities go in with force? Do you really want to risk multiple casualties and lives destroyed - on both sides - just to make a point? Or... might it be better to at least try to resolve this non-violently?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:14 am UTC

leady wrote:except having sex with children i imagine


A fair point. Although officially that's alleged conduct, and the people were killed before such a trial came about. I believe the siege's official purpose was to investigate the stockpiling of weapons at the location.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:21 am UTC

just highlighting that however true there was a real set of victims identified in waco providing the impetus for direct action whereas this scenario does not

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:35 am UTC

Has Donald Trump come out saying we need to target these guys' families yet?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:16 am UTC

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon ... ar-AAgmarO

The Pacific Patriot Network, an umbrella group for militias in the region, said it did not support seizing federal property even if it understood the underlying frustration with the federal government. "This land use issue is decades old and it's boiling up in frustration. That's what you're seeing," spokesman Joseph Rice said.

The Oath Keepers, another paramilitary group that participated in the 2014 Bundy ranch dispute in Nevada, also distanced itself from the latest standoff.


I guess the important part is that the other, similar groups dislike the actions the Bundy militia have taken. IIRC, Oath Keepers took a stand on the Rancher case. In hindsight, I should have been able to predict this. The right-wing extremists are typically "non-violent" gun nuts, in that they do not believe in offensive actions. To dumb down the politics a bit, the Federal Government were "offense" when they started rounding up Bundy's cattle, and therefore the right-wingers call to arms was innately about defending the rancher's rights.

But in this case, the Bundy militia are "offense", by taking stand inside of a federal building they do not own, the Bundy militia have attacked first, so to speak. So it is unlikely to actually send a resonating message.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Chen » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:57 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I don't want the government to kill everybody, I want it to stop only wising up for white people.


Which means you should probably take your arguments into some other thread where non-white people are being marginalized. Your arguments are coming off as though the government should do something DIFFERENT here, and the only consistent thing being that they should treat these people as strictly as they did the people at say, the Baltimore riots.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:31 pm UTC

Are there people in this thread doesn't consider this white privilege when the government wants to go through a measured and thought out response? When minorities protest, all we hear is " security first, then we can deal with the protesters concerns". Giving preferential treatment to some but following strictly to the rules to others is the face of discrimination and racism today.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... -discount/
BTW, these ranchers claim to be independent ranchers, but they are done if there biggest welfare queens out there. According to their argument, I can claim California's public lands because my ancestors worked on the land before Amtrak was invented.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:44 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I don't want the government to kill everybody, I want it to stop only wising up for white people.


Which means you should probably take your arguments into some other thread where non-white people are being marginalized. Your arguments are coming off as though the government should do something DIFFERENT here, and the only consistent thing being that they should treat these people as strictly as they did the people at say, the Baltimore riots.

Well that's not the intent - I don't want any of these ranchers to die, and I don't want any law enforcement agents sent to deal with them to die. What I do want is for people of color in this country to be treated the same, and for the media to call these guys thugs or question their parenting or ask why they can't just get jobs or why they can't just protest peacefully. I'm upset about the double standard.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:16 pm UTC

There is no double standard here, you are generating a false equivalence.

Now if you can show when the Police / ATF / FBI go in guns shooting on organised Black Panther gatherings I'll grant you an argument

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:42 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Well that's not the intent - I don't want any of these ranchers to die, and I don't want any law enforcement agents sent to deal with them to die. What I do want is for people of color in this country to be treated the same, and for the media to call these guys thugs or question their parenting or ask why they can't just get jobs or why they can't just protest peacefully. I'm upset about the double standard.
When this is over is the time to make that point. Even if true, it is irrelevant now. It doesn't solve anything. You can't make the treatment of Black lives any better for drawing the comparison, unless you want those ranchers shot to pieces to even the scales. There are no hostages that I am aware of. The closest town is 30 miles down the road. The place is literally in the middle of nowhere. There is no imperative to act.
leady wrote:Now if you can show when the Police / ATF / FBI go in guns shooting on organised Black Panther gatherings I'll grant you an argument
Read your history. From the Wikipedia entry on the Black Panther Party.
The initial tactic of the party utilized contemporary open-carry gun laws to protect Party members when policing the police. This act was done in order to record incidents of police brutality by distantly following police cars around neighborhoods.[39] When confronted by a police officer, Party members cited laws proving they have done nothing wrong and threatened to take to court any officer that violated their constitutional rights.[40] Between the end of 1966 to the start of 1967, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense's armed police patrols in Oakland black communities attracted a small handful of members.[41] Numbers grew slightly starting in February 1967, when the party provided an armed escort at the San Francisco airport for Betty Shabazz, Malcolm X's widow and keynote speaker for a conference held in his honor.[42]
The idea of armed militias acting in self defense isn't a new idea. And the FBI watches them like a hawk, as does the Southern Poverty Law Center. The FBI was accused of targeted assassinations, and certainly ran a campaign of harassment against the Panthers.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:49 pm UTC

leady wrote:There is no double standard here, you are generating a false equivalence.

Now if you can show when the Police / ATF / FBI go in guns shooting on organised Black Panther gatherings I'll grant you an argument
I'm going to presume you missed the post where I did just that. Except they didn't just go in 'guns shooting', they literally dropped a bomb on the building.

morriswalters wrote:When this is over is the time to make that point. Even if true, it is irrelevant now. It doesn't solve anything. You can't make the treatment of Black lives any better for drawing the comparison, unless you want those ranchers shot to pieces to even the scales. There are no hostages that I am aware of. The closest town is 30 miles down the road. The place is literally in the middle of nowhere. There is no imperative to act.
It's absolutely worth pointing out the discrepancy in treatments before/during/after. And while I am glad there are no hostages or people hurt at this point in time, the same could have been said of any number of minority protests that didn't go well.

And, againagainagain, I don't want these guys to get hurt. I don't want anyone to get hurt. I want the authorities to treat unarmed innocent people of color the same way they treat gun toting martyr wannabee hostile take-over-ing white people. That is, with calm, collected, reasoned restraint.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:27 pm UTC

thanks for the links, in summary over 35 years ago, the police waited a year before moving in and being fired at causing a number of deaths and then again over 30 years ago opening fire at the police caused a number of deaths. What I mostly learnt is don't shoot at the police.

On the basis of equality then I assume we are all for waiting a long time, then trying direct force once they've taken the piss for too long, then allowing the police to defend themselves in the scenario they are fired upon. I'm pretty happy with that chain of events as a reasonable escalation chain. I suspect it also the default path the feds are taking too.

No drone strikes needed, no running in guns blazing etc etc.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:35 pm UTC

leady wrote: I'm pretty happy with that chain of events as a reasonable escalation chain. I suspect it also the default path the feds are taking too.
I think your reading comprehension must be particularly lacking today -

" In 1985, another standoff was ended when the police dropped a bomb on their compound."

In 1981, MOVE relocated to a row house at 6221 Osage Avenue in the Cobbs Creek area of West Philadelphia. After the move, neighbors complained for years that MOVE members were broadcasting political messages by bullhorn at all hours and also about the health hazards created from piles of compost. After the complaints as well as indictments of numerous[quantify] MOVE members for crimes including parole violations, contempt of court, illegal possession of firearms, and making terrorist threats,[1] then-Mayor W. Wilson Goode and police commissioner Gregore J. Sambor had begun classifying MOVE as a terrorist organization.[15]

On May 13, 1985, the police, along with city manager Leo Brooks, arrived in force with arrest warrants and attempted to clear the building and arrest the indicted MOVE members.[15] This led to an armed standoff with police,[16] who lobbed tear gas canisters at the building. MOVE members fired at the police, who returned fire with automatic weapons.[17] Commissioner Sambor then ordered that the compound be bombed.[17] From a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter, Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound bombs (which the police referred to as "entry devices"[15]) made of FBI-supplied water gel explosive, a dynamite substitute, targeting a fortified, bunker-like cubicle on the roof of the house.[1]

The resulting explosions ignited a fire that eventually destroyed approximately 65 nearby houses. The firefighters, who had earlier deluge-hosed the MOVE members in a failed attempt to evict them from the building, stood by as the fire caused by the bomb engulfed the first house and spread to others, having been given orders to let the fire burn. Despite the earlier drenching of the building by firefighters, officials said that they feared that MOVE would shoot at the firefighters.[6][17][1][18] Eleven people (John Africa, five other adults and five children aged 7 to 13) died in the resulting fire and more than 250 people were left homeless.[19] Ramona Africa, one of the two survivors, stated that police fired at those trying to escape.[20]


But hey, those guys are making a bad smell because of compost! And shouting from bullhorns! And evading arrest, making threats, and were heavily armed! Oh, hey, by the way, I'm talking about the Bundyite militia now, not the identical accusations that were levied at the MOVE members prior to a literal bomb being dropped on them.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:40 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:But hey, those guys are making a bad smell because of compost! And shouting from bullhorns! And evading arrest, making threats, and were heavily armed! Oh, hey, by the way, I'm talking about the Bundyite militia now, not the identical accusations that were levied at the MOVE members prior to a literal bomb being dropped on them.


A. You had to go back 30 years to find a comparable event.
B. Even in that situation, they managed to not kill everyone for FOUR years.

We're at about four days, here. And there are no neighbors, just trees. Maybe let go of your desire for blood just a bit.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:44 pm UTC

As I said I have no qualms of using equivalent force on an equivalent timeline in response to being aggressively repulsed with firearms and killing an officer. What more do you want?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:50 pm UTC

MOVE happened a long time ago and occurred over time. Starting with a shootout in 72. Even the 85 bombing, as horrific as it was, occurred after 4 years of back and forth. The police didn't just arbitrarily after two days, bomb the place. This is apples and oranges. The FBI, dicks that they might be weren't involved, the event was a local law enforcement fuckup. I expect better out of the FBI, who should have superior training and supervision. You might question that, but when Justice thinks the local police are out of line the FBI is who investigates.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:15 pm UTC

Maybe you three could could pay attention to the point I've now repeated numerous times -

Izawwlgood wrote:And, againagainagain, I don't want these guys to get hurt. I don't want anyone to get hurt. I want the authorities to treat unarmed innocent people of color the same way they treat gun toting martyr wannabee hostile take-over-ing white people. That is, with calm, collected, reasoned restraint.


The day the authorities consider dropping a bomb on a prolonged white person military coup, or shooting a white person for having a gun on their person in a public pace is the day I'll stop thinking there's massive and ridiculous white privilege in America.

In fact, this sort of seems to be the general theme of posting in this thread - some people are pointing to bias, and a few others are rocking the 'So, what, you just want them to nuke the compound from orbit, you fucking monsters!' strawman. Obviously pointing out bias means we want white people treated just as shittastically.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:The day the authorities consider dropping a bomb on a prolonged white person military coup, or shooting a white person for having a gun on their person in a public pace is the day I'll stop thinking there's massive and ridiculous white privilege in America.


Gee, yknow what these ranchers remind me of?

White privilege.


....seriously, is this some kind of a joke? Look, everyone here acknowledges that sure, cops and authorities are systematically racist. You're not informing anyone. You're just parroting what is apparently the accepted liberal misdirect here. Instead of actually discussing the incident at hand, they pivot immediately to discuss what they'd rather talk about instead. If they address this at all, it's only to demand the deaths of everyone involved.

In fact, this sort of seems to be the general theme of posting in this thread - some people are pointing to bias, and a few others are rocking the 'So, what, you just want them to nuke the compound from orbit, you fucking monsters!' strawman. Obviously pointing out bias means we want white people treated just as shittastically.


People, in this thread, have literally been arguing for sending in the tanks.

We didn't make it halfway through the first page before this gem of a post:
sardia wrote:Why haven't the cops considered sending in a few sacrificial police officers. Send them in with batons, tasers and handcuffs. Shoot everyone if the cops don't come back out.


So, tell me, what does "strawman" mean to you?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:The day the authorities consider dropping a bomb on a prolonged white person military coup, or shooting a white person for having a gun on their person in a public pace is the day I'll stop thinking there's massive and ridiculous white privilege in America.


....seriously, is this some kind of a joke? Look, everyone here acknowledges that sure, cops and authorities are systematically racist. You're not informing anyone. You're just parroting what is apparently the accepted liberal misdirect here. Instead of actually discussing the incident at hand, they pivot immediately to discuss what they'd rather talk about instead. If they address this at all, it's only to demand the deaths of everyone involved.


What's there to discuss about the incident itself? These guys are basically the gun rights equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church. Nobody wants anything to do with them, even people who are normally supportive of these kinds of issues think that they're nutjobs.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

First off, this is really a great deal more about land rights than gun rights, so...yeah, discussing land rights would be interesting. Discussing the situation as it stands and might develop would be interesting. Discussing the larger context of public land tensions, or the specific case that prompted this would be fair.

Just because you don't agree with them shouldn't prevent you from talking about them.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:....seriously, is this some kind of a joke?
You tell me - the threads third post was leady effectively calling this a non-issue.

I suspect if isis did nothing more than token occupations of meaningless buildings then no one would care about them either


Hilariously, your FIRST post in this sub was underlining why it's important to remember that racial disparity exists!

The purpose of pointing out racial abuses is to STOP racial abuses. Not to promote them happening to more people.
So, whoa! It's almost like it's a good thing that people are frustrated at the bias, so we can remember how cops shouldn't act. But, and here's the tricky part so do pay attention, that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the fact that racial bias exists and that these guys are getting the kiddy gloves end of it.

So sure, lets talk land rights. They're a thing. Bundy and cronies seem to think theirs trumps the Feds. Do they? I dunno! Bring it up instead of bitching that it hasn't been brought up.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:17 pm UTC

First off, this is really a great deal more about land rights than gun rights,


That doesn't sound right. Think away the guns, and all that's left is some guys who snuck into a remote empty building. It would perhaps make the Burns Gazette in a quiet week. It's only the guns that make it a larger story, based on the standoff in 2014. The original plan to block the Hammond's arrest, now this occupation in the hope to provoke something like the 2014 situation. It's the guns and the challenge to the authorities that make the story, not the underlying issue.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Chen » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:23 pm UTC

Guns yes, but not gun rights. Their protest has nothing really to do with the Second amendment or the like.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:24 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:....seriously, is this some kind of a joke?
You tell me - the threads third post was leady effectively calling this a non-issue.

I suspect if isis did nothing more than token occupations of meaningless buildings then no one would care about them either


It was a response to a ridiculous false equivalence.

You don't seriously think that isis is only considered a problem for racial reasons, do you?

Hilariously, your FIRST post in this sub was underlining why it's important to remember that racial disparity exists!


No. Thanks for trimming out the rest of my post so you could avoid the obvious topic of "hey, maybe don't promote police brutality and murder" that was my actual theme.

The purpose of pointing out racial abuses is to STOP racial abuses. Not to promote them happening to more people.
So, whoa! It's almost like it's a good thing that people are frustrated at the bias, so we can remember how cops shouldn't act. But, and here's the tricky part so do pay attention, that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the fact that racial bias exists and that these guys are getting the kiddy gloves end of it.


Why? Double negatives aside, why the hell must this thread be about racial bias? Why shouldn't EVERY thread and every conversation be about racial bias?

"nice day we're having, it's a shame that people are racist"

We already know that racial bias exists. That is trivially obvious, and it's been covered to death in other, more relevant threads. As for the "kid gloves", well, every comparison so far has been ludicrously unfair. It's an exercise in trying desperately to make crappy evidence somehow fit your preconceived conclusion.

So sure, lets talk land rights. They're a thing. Bundy and cronies seem to think theirs trumps the Feds. Do they? I dunno! Bring it up instead of bitching that it hasn't been brought up.


I have brought it up. Twice now.

If your understanding of it is so simplistic as "theirs trumps the Feds", it's clear you didn't read my earlier posts, or do even the slightest bit of reading regarding the actual news that we are discussing.

There are several different views on how public lands should be used, and why lands should be public. Even a cursory reading would reveal to you that this is tied into a long history of disputes spread across the region, and while unusual in terms of actual actions, has a great deal of sympathy with regard to general goals and grievances. Farmers getting forced off their land, being locked into promising the government to sell to them first, things of that nature. Out east, we don't really see it the same way, because public land here is relatively rare, and usually for a specific purpose. Out west, you've got vast swathes of it, and the market can be significantly impacted by the sheer volume of federal land in some areas.

Image map of federally owned land below. State and locally owned land is in addition to the following:
Spoiler:
Image


Zamfir wrote:
First off, this is really a great deal more about land rights than gun rights,


That doesn't sound right. Think away the guns, and all that's left is some guys who snuck into a remote empty building. It would perhaps make the Burns Gazette in a quiet week. It's only the guns that make it a larger story, based on the standoff in 2014. The original plan to block the Hammond's arrest, now this occupation in the hope to provoke something like the 2014 situation. It's the guns and the challenge to the authorities that make the story, not the underlying issue.


Gun rights have no more to do with this situation than the crowbar used to pry the door open. Merely a tool towards an end. The guns aren't the reason why they are there, merely an aid in getting the attention they seek.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:28 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:You tell me - the threads third post was leady effectively calling this a non-issue.


Sorry but can you spell out the specific issue besides trespass in a remote empty building without the strange juxtaposition to individual policing decisions in a completely different population, economic area etc. If its the open defiance of government, well I hope you apply that universally... Wait theres no chance of that, you're just strangely emotionally invested in hicky rural folks doing it.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

leady wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:You tell me - the threads third post was leady effectively calling this a non-issue.


Sorry but can you spell out the specific issue besides trespass in a remote empty building without the strange juxtaposition to individual policing decisions in a completely different population, economic area etc. If its the open defiance of government, well I hope you apply that universally... Wait theres no chance of that, you're just strangely emotionally invested in hicky rural folks doing it.


Well, I personally have a problem with a group deciding they don't need to follow no steenking laws because they're armed, regardless of their colour or hickyness. And lets not forget this group got away with this kind of shit before. This is the issue.

If they've got a problem with the laws there are plenty of legit ways to try to change them in a democracy.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:38 pm UTC

So then I assume you want all other protests on government land to be brutally repressed, union demos all the black lives matter protests, those whiney occupy idiots etc etc.

I don't think people are going to go for that generally - personally I could live with it

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You don't seriously think that isis is only considered a problem for racial reasons, do you?
No, I think ISIS is generally full of horrible scumfucks, but I *also* think America's reaction to them overblown because they're Muslims.

Tyndmyr wrote:No. Thanks for trimming out the rest of my post so you could avoid the obvious topic of "hey, maybe don't promote police brutality and murder" that was my actual theme.
I'm agreeing with the point of your first post, which was underlying the racial bias serves as a reminder to avoid violence. Which I mention because just recently you told me to stop talking about racial bias.

Tyndmyr wrote:Why shouldn't EVERY thread and every conversation be about racial bias?
... really? Like, after 3 pages of talking about it, you still don't know?

Tyndmyr wrote:Gun rights have no more to do with this situation than the crowbar used to pry the door open. Merely a tool towards an end. The guns aren't the reason why they are there, merely an aid in getting the attention they seek.
Except the 'door' you're talking about here is 'people who are being threatened'. And... because I guess you still don't get it - what happens when black people use guns to not even get attention?

leady wrote:Wait theres no chance of that, you're just strangely emotionally invested in hicky rural folks doing it.
And you're too dug into your position that these hicks are totally just exercising their freedom of speech to consider what absurd horseshit that view is. These guys aren't holding signs and protesting peacefully.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:41 pm UTC

leady wrote:So then I assume you want all other protests on government land to be brutally repressed, union demos all the black lives matter protests, those whiney occupy idiots etc etc.

I don't think people are going to go for that generally - personally I could live with it


If you mean the ones that break the law should be arrested, then yes. The police response to resisting arrest should be consistent too.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:06 pm UTC

leady wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:You tell me - the threads third post was leady effectively calling this a non-issue.


Sorry but can you spell out the specific issue besides trespass in a remote empty building without the strange juxtaposition to individual policing decisions in a completely different population, economic area etc. If its the open defiance of government, well I hope you apply that universally... Wait theres no chance of that, you're just strangely emotionally invested in hicky rural folks doing it.


Such things are frequently called civil disobedience, when minor laws are being broken to protest a greater injustice.

Granted, what constitutes an injustice is one of those things folks disagree over, but it isn't inherently wrong to defy government.

Mutex wrote:Well, I personally have a problem with a group deciding they don't need to follow no steenking laws because they're armed, regardless of their colour or hickyness. And lets not forget this group got away with this kind of shit before. This is the issue.

If they've got a problem with the laws there are plenty of legit ways to try to change them in a democracy.


More accurately, this group contains two people related to the guy who ran the first group. They're not the same group. It's a sort of similar issue, and it's all tied into the same patina of background interests, but portraying them as if they were all the same is rather inaccurate.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:No. Thanks for trimming out the rest of my post so you could avoid the obvious topic of "hey, maybe don't promote police brutality and murder" that was my actual theme.
I'm agreeing with the point of your first post, which was underlying the racial bias serves as a reminder to avoid violence. Which I mention because just recently you told me to stop talking about racial bias.


No, I asked you to stop making non sequiturs in this thread. You ain't being repressed, and there are plenty of places to talk about racial bias, but I'd like to at least vaguely stay on topic.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Gun rights have no more to do with this situation than the crowbar used to pry the door open. Merely a tool towards an end. The guns aren't the reason why they are there, merely an aid in getting the attention they seek.
Except the 'door' you're talking about here is 'people who are being threatened'. And... because I guess you still don't get it - what happens when black people use guns to not even get attention?


Uh, no, the door is a door. The problem here is that they forced their way onto a building. It's a physical door they jimmied open.

And again, we see the left turn into a random racial direction. Yes, cops shooting minorities is bad, duh. We got a thread for that. I'm pretty sure you're aware of it, because we both participated in that. What the hell does that incident have to do with this one?

quote="Izawwlgood"]
leady wrote:Wait theres no chance of that, you're just strangely emotionally invested in hicky rural folks doing it.
And you're too dug into your position that these hicks are totally just exercising their freedom of speech to consider what absurd horseshit that view is. These guys aren't holding signs and protesting peacefully.[/quote]

They...sort of are. Seriously, they're talking with reporters, and demonstrating. They're not shooting people or anything. That, even with the tresspassing, isn't that strange.

It's just a demonstration where the folks happen to have guns.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's just a demonstration where the folks happen to have guns.


And are making actual threats of violence with said guns.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:16 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's just a demonstration where the folks happen to have guns.


And are making actual threats of violence with said guns.


People keep claiming this. Citations, please.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

Image

Yeah, I'm linking breitbart. Nonetheless, its a picture of the Black Panthers doing an armed protest, August 2015. I recognize that armed protests are common in America. I don't like them however, but I understand this fact. Both whites and blacks participate in these sorts of demonstrations.

I don't think LaserGuy wants the next Black Panther rally to have a bunch of deaths. I don't think anyone wants anybody to die... the Bundy group included.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:28 pm UTC

Update: The group, realizing they may be there a while, and maybe not having actually prepared for this all that well, has put out a call for donations. With their shipping address, naturally.

Reddit has boldly answered this call, and has graciously volunteered to supply them with things they may not yet realize they need, such as hopeless amounts of glitter.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:33 pm UTC

I take it the shipping address isn't the actual hut they're holed up in? Or are they expecting couriers to be able to reach them?

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Angua » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

I've already given my citations, but let's go again. Ryan Bundy is willing to kill or be killed. Citation here: https://news.vice.com/article/armed-mil ... -with-feds
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:38 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:I take it the shipping address isn't the actual hut they're holed up in? Or are they expecting couriers to be able to reach them?


Not sure, but either way, someone's gonna be well supplied with glitter.

Angua, that link does not include any statement saying he is willing to kill. Willing to die for their beliefs, sure. That comes up a lot. We already covered this. They believe that the gov might be willing to kill them. That's not the same thing as threatening to initiate violence. Plus, their actual actions show they're trying to avoid involving bystanders. They're obviously doing this for attention.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:46 pm UTC

And you're too dug into your position that these hicks are totally just exercising their freedom of speech to consider what absurd horseshit that view is. These guys aren't holding signs and protesting peacefully.


I have zero qualms about charging each and every one with the trespass, I just don't see any logic in state sanctioned murder to enforce that at the immediate moment. I hate all protesters :)

If you mean the ones that break the law should be arrested, then yes. The police response to resisting arrest should be consistent too.


I don't think you mean that, but I look forward to your new consistent zero tolerance approach to policing in other threads

Angua wrote:I've already given my citations, but let's go again. Ryan Bundy is willing to kill or be killed. Citation here: https://news.vice.com/article/armed-mil ... -with-feds


Ah another literalist emerges - I look forward to your support in the FBI campaigns of raiding mosques, the FBI takedown of the black supremacist groups, those pesky indian groups that still talk of fighting the pale faces, all communist groups etc etc etc

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Angua » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Mutex wrote:I take it the shipping address isn't the actual hut they're holed up in? Or are they expecting couriers to be able to reach them?


Not sure, but either way, someone's gonna be well supplied with glitter.

Angua, that link does not include any statement saying he is willing to kill. Willing to die for their beliefs, sure. That comes up a lot. We already covered this. They believe that the gov might be willing to kill them. That's not the same thing as threatening to initiate violence. Plus, their actual actions show they're trying to avoid involving bystanders. They're obviously doing this for attention.

You must have missed it. Try again. https://twitter.com/IanKullgren/status/ ... _src=twsrc^tfw
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests