Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

They've also had to close the schools for at least the remainder of this week.

Nice try but that's pretty tortured logic.

Technically, I don't think Bundy & Co have "broken in" anywhere, but I could be wrong (I haven't been following the details of this story very closely). Never-the-less, no matter how they gained access they didn't do so with the intent to harm anyone or steal or destroy property. They are not comparable to armed home intruders.

In any case, George was criticizing their state of mind, and not their actions (although I suspect he doesn't approve of those either). The comparison I drew was between the states of mind of Bundy & Co. and armed American homeowners.

I first though to make the comparison with the police or the military who undoubtedly have the readiness, the will and the ability to shed blood, but I anticipated an objection on the grounds that the police and the military, to a large extent, exist to have such a state of mind.

But we do potentially have a face-off between two armed groups with the same states of mind that would prepare them to do violence. The question is, what is to be gained by any such face-off?

I most definitely don't support any effort of the government to "take them out" whether that means out of the station or out of this vale of tears.

I also did not support the government (federal or city) "taking out" the Branch Davidians in Waco, the separatists in Ruby Ridge or MOVE in Philadelphia, in the manner in which they did.

If Bundy & Co. fire on law enforcement then the officers should fire back and kill them if necessary. If it comes down to the life of a protester shooting at a sheriff's deputy or FBI agent or the life of one of the latter two, then I hope it's the life of the protester that is lost. Law Enforcement should not however, make eradicating Bundy & Co. their mission, as it seems it was it the previously cited incidents.

There is nothing to be gained by making a move on these men, other than perhaps people on both sides in body bags, or some swaggering pride expressed somewhere in the White House that the "F*cking right-wing lunatics were 'taken out'!"

No one loses face if these men are allowed to sit in the station and stew in the juices of their romantic delusions of being uber-patriots defending Madam Liberty. Other like minded fools or dangerous characters will not be encouraged to try something similar. What would they think?

"Wow! Look at what that Liberty Warrior Bundy has done. Let's go occupy a government shack somewhere in the wilderness! That's sure to ignite the revolution!"

As long as no innocents' or law enforcement agents' are in any sort of peril, there is absolutely no reason to storm that station.

It's not as if discretion hasn't been employed by law enforcement before. The NYC police could have swept into the OWS tent city and made mass arrests. Laws had been broken. It would have been a senseless move on their part that would have likely led to some violence, and they correctly chose not to. In this case the likelihood of more intense violence is far greater.

Whenever their are demonstrators in the street who get out of hand and start destroying property, the police must and usually do make a move to stop them but I don't know that I have ever seen them engage in a full scale military-like action including search & destroy efforts to hunt down and arrest or kill every single protester. Some measure of restraint is always evident.

On very rare occasions the restraint is tantamount to paralysis and is due to governmental malpractice, as was the case with the Baltimore riots last year.

So no, my analogy doesn't come even close to supporting and argument for the government to take out Bundy & Co.

Reminds me of the occupy movement taking over public parks in NYC.

You're correct is most of your statements, but is anyone in this thread arguing that they are being treated too harshly or should not be prosecuted for whatever crimes they have committed? If there is, I've missed it and he or she is a distinct minority.

You may very well have been, but were you as law & order minded when OWS were breaking numerous laws in NYC? Are you as enraged over Mexican immigrants who flout our laws by coming here illegally?

What would you like to happen?

Are you advocating that federal agents, armed to the teeth, storm the station and attempt to arrest or kill a bunch of men who appear to be also armed to the teeth and prepared to resist such a move with violence? If so, why? Because they have trespassed on federal land? Because federal workers are getting paid for not working or working at home or another station? Because they are flouting the law and, in your mind, appear to be getting away with it?

You don't really think that such a raid could be pulled off without the high possibility of one or more of the federal agents being injured or killed, do you?

Do you want to see Bundy & Co. dead because of their "crimes?" There is an excellent chance that this is what will happen if the Feds storm the place.

When bank robbers are trapped in a bank with hostages and the police hold off on storming the bank, the robbers are neither flouting the law nor getting away with anything.

Bundy & Co. isn't going to get away with anything unless the federal, state and local officials refuse to prosecute them. What do you think the chances are of that happening?

No, they "technically" have broken into a government building and have taken the building hostage so to speak. If they did not intent to harm anyone then why are they heavily armed?

By the way, your reasoning that gun ownership is primary there to defend oneself in case of an intrusion, home invasion, doesn't get better when your repeat it over and over like other gun nuts do. Statistics say that most home robberies occur when the occupants are away. 85 % of these break-ins are committed by non-professionals who are more desperate than dangerous.
Read the bureau of justice statistics.

Right wing militia is usually not the smartest bunch and before their cry for Cheetos gets any louder and before we're faced with hundreds of copycats, these folks need to get taught a lesson (they understand) rather quickly.

To be clear, what I wrote was:
"Having the readiness, will and ability to shed blood should not make you
immune to prosecution if you've broken the law."

The readiness and will are states of mind. The ability is physical. None of
these is wrong. What is wrong is when these make you immune to
prosecution.

If one commits a crime, that person should be called to account. It is wrong
to allow anyone to walk free simply because calling him (or her) to
account might be dangerous.

That sinks it. Kill them all!

No, there should not be an armed assault by federal agents. Not at all.

I am disagreeing with those who are saying let them alone until they get
tired of it and go home.

I don't want them to just go home. I want them to be arrested.

they (the Bundy's) are used to getting away with things. The government does not follow through on legal decisions against them.

LOL well you could get the national guard to set up a few mortars and shell them out then all their rifles and such would be worthless to them but it would be kind of hard on the buildings.

Maybe one day, sane Republicans will begin to deal with their media universe which creates such a level of misinformed stupidhood. Maybe.

Police and government agencies of whatever type must always stand down in the face of threats of violence where those threatening that violence demand it be so. It's a law and order thing.

We're all pleased that local and other policing haven't moved in. But it laughable to make any argument or implication that a failure in prudence would therefore transfer blame to police.

I've never suggested we should kill them. I said we should shut down the electricity and water to the refuge so they'll get really uncomfortable and bored and go home.

I have not heard any persons advocate attacking these people. If anybody said to do that, they do not speak for any left or right wing people I know of.

And it's not as if a LACK of discretion hasn't been employed before either. The Honorable Richard Daley, Chicago Mayor, issued some illegal "shoot to kill" orders back in 1968. The Chicago police also decided to "clear protesters out" of Lincoln and Grant parks.

The result was a fiasco, with a subsequent full investigation characterizing it as a "police riot."

Then ya aint read some of the posts here, eh, Ed?

senseless move all right


https://www.rt.com/usa/165144-nyc-settlement-occupy-wall-street/



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/occupy-protest-settlement_n_5527486.html



better to be a cowboy than a NYC bike rider

Another nice try, but no cigar.

Some of you folks seem to think I am defending these guys. I'm certainly not, and I have more than once indicated that I think they are being reckless and foolhardy, that they have unnecessarily created a situation which may result in violence and death, and that they should be prosecuted for whatever crimes they commit.

What I do not believe is that there is any reason what-so-ever for the Feds or the Sheriff or the Lone Ranger, if he is in the vicinity, to light the fuse on this bomb by storming the place and trying to force them out.

It really is amusing to see such a concern for law & order, and a desire for muscular police action from some of you. I wonder why there's such a change in attitude between now and the Occupy Wall Street days. Maybe those unruly days of wannabe anarchy pushed you over the top.

I see they did break in. I acknowledged that I might be wrong about that so no point scored.

That someone is armed doesn't necessarily imply that they intend to harm anyone. This is a simple fact. You may infer from their being armed that they intend to harm someone, and you may even be correct, but you may also be wrong so being armed doesn't mean intending harm.

Have a nice stroll down the gun control side track, but I won't be joining you - not least of all because you are nasty. You clearly don't know what my position is on the 2nd Amendment and gun control and yet you feel it appropriate to refer to me as a "gun nut." Considering that your definition of a "gun nut" is most likely extremely broad and inclusive, I'm probably among good company. Your insult is of little consequence for a number of reasons and particularly so since you obviously have no concept of what I have been posting and are fully prepared to assume what you prefer to believe.

Robbery statistics are utterly immaterial to what I wrote. Apparently you see the words "homeowner," "gun," and "intrusion," and take wild assumptive leaps as to what the topic under discussion is and what is meant by what was written.

Regardless of why homeowners have guns, I think it's safe to assume that should one of those oh so rare occasions when a homicidal maniac breaks into an occupied house, a fair number of the gun owning homeowners will have the readiness, will and ability to shed blood , and they will not be guilty of any crime for possessing such a state of mind. Does your aversion to gun ownership cause you to dispute this? This is what we were discussing, and not the reasoning for gun ownership, the probabilistic danger of home intrusion or any other totally unrelated aspects of an entirely different issue.

As for the tough talk about a lesson the right wing militia types need to be taught, what might that lesson be? Please be more specific. Should they be killed? That will surely learn 'em.

Have you thought about the danger faced by the federal agents who you want to teach that lesson to a group of heavily armed men who have announced they won't leave without a fight, or is that just the nature of the job and what they've signed up for?

Let's see, on the one hand you denigrate Bundy & Co for whining about their situation, but on the other you think that situation will inspire "hundreds" of copycats.

Let's assume for the sake of argument (I would have used "discussion" but you took it to argument right out of the blocks) that the Feds do what I would like to see which is wait these fools out. They can't stay in this station forever (and it appears they didn't come prepared to stay for very long at all - but here again, I could be wrong) and since I assume the authorities are capable of preventing any outsiders from bringing them provisions and supplies, sooner or later they will grow hungry and will miss their families. Their vigil will begin to seem less and less heroic and they will eventually look to cut a deal with the Fed so they can go home. If this is the case, who do you think will appear to have "won?" Do you really think that such an ultimately deflated gesture will inspire anyone to repeat it?

Let's assume the Feds follow your admonition and they teach these fools a less they understand. Well, you haven't been specific about what the lesson should be, but considering you think of them as stupid, it will have to be rather blunt, and so I thinks it's safe to assume you mean some sort of violence, even if it's just treating them roughly as they are all handcuffed and walked out of the station. You acknowledge they are heavily harmed and believe this alone means they intend to harm someone so what do you think will happen when the Feds storm the place?

I hope you don't think the Feds are capable of some sort of ninja raid which allows them to take down all the right-wing nuts during the night, and without any injuries the Federal ninjas. There also isn't any secret government sleeping gas or sonic cannon that can incapacitate the nuts and allow for an easy round up. No, based on realistic expectations and past history, the Feds will go in prepared to open fire. There is certainly enough reason to believe the nuts aren't bluffing about "defending" themselves if "attacked," that the Feds will need to go in assuming they will be fired upon. The chances that shots will be fired and people will be injured or killed is greater than the chance that your home will be burglarized when you are not home.

If you don't think a bloodbath, wherein heroic freedom fighters are slain by the forces of the tyrannical government, will be inspiring to other anti-government nuts, you don't have a good grasp on the situation.

Two BTW's

BTW #1: My home has been broken into three times - twice while I and my family were at home, so the 15% rate you cite is of zero comfort to me, and even if it were "only" 15% I wouldn't find that anymore comforting than the notion that the person breaking in when we are home is "only" desperate. And I don't own a gun.

BTW #2: The last time you jumped to a conclusion about me and launched a nasty post was when we were all being asked to contribute to Shewolf's Fund-me account. Perhaps you remember how that panned out.

I mean seriously calling for it.

Also, they should go straight to bed with no snacks!