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

The armed militants occupying a federal building in Harney County, Ore., will leave peacefully if the people of the county want them gone, a leader of the group tells Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Ryan Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher leading the seditionists with his brother Ammon, says the group will hold a community meeting with Harney County residents, according to OPB's John Sepulvado.

"This is their county—we can't be here and force this on them," Bundy tells Sepulvado. Source

Quote:

If the Government ever makes Muslims carry ID cards or shuts down mosques, I will have no choice but to take up arms against my government. (Montel Williams 11-20-15)

Quote:

I'm calling on Govt to end terrorist siege perpetrated by a bunch of hillbilly American Taliban....Put this down using National Guard with shoot to kill orders...Totally fine with a massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy...(Montel Williams 1-3-16)

Anyone surprised that left-wingers want to shoot to kill trespassers (Oops, I meant to say "terrorists," of course) who are "hillbillies," and shoot up government officials for monitoring muslims? The left wing cheered on union protesters who took over the capitol building in Wisconsin a few years back. They weren't rednecks, though. They were brave freedom fighters righteously resisting a tyrannical government.

That's a commie-ass commie for ya, sho nuff.

Ryan Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher leading the seditionists with his brother Ammon, says the group will hold a community meeting with Harney County residents, according to OPB's John Sepulvado.

"This is their county—we can't be here and force this on them," Bundy tells Sepulvado. Source

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.

b) If you were broken into three times than there is something wrong with you and you are not taking precaution to secure your house.

I'm sure the Wilamette Week has only top notch journalists on staff (kidding) but, no, that's not the point.

And for another fairly sarcastic, but kinda funny, review…
Rolling Stone

Here's hoping they have the sense to lay down their weapons before their true marksmanship is tested.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.Legal Information Institute

On my behalf and that of the women on this site, I ask you not to do it again.

layman wrote:

Quote:

If the Government ever makes Muslims carry ID cards or shuts down mosques, I will have no choice but to take up arms against my government. (Montel Williams 11-20-15)

Quote:

I'm calling on Govt to end terrorist siege perpetrated by a bunch of hillbilly American Taliban....Put this down using National Guard with shoot to kill orders...Totally fine with a massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy...(Montel Williams 1-3-16)

Anyone surprised that left-wingers want to shoot to kill trespassers (Oops, I meant to say "terrorists," of course) who are "hillbillies," and shoot up government officials for monitoring muslims? The left wing cheered on union protesters who took over the capitol building in Wisconsin a few years back. They weren't rednecks, though. They were brave freedom fighters righteously resisting a tyrannical government.

That's a commie-ass commie for ya, sho nuff.

I'm just re-posting this for convenience of reference if Ed wants to make further comment on it.

And, actually, what they're doing does meet the legal standard for "sedition"

Quote:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.Legal Information Institute

Well, we all know the everyday connotations of "sedition," eh? As far as that statute goes, it's gotta be unconstitutionally overbroad. Every jay-walker, trespasser and other petty misdemeanant who resists arrest could be interpreted "to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States..."

Possibly not intentionally. I'll let my post stand for itself, and won't mention this again.

using the very personal analogy of an individual's rape can be outside the bounds of decent discourse.