43
   

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

 
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:38 am
@layman,
Died for freedoms my ass no one is taking any freedoms from him and he is a damn marine which mean that he took an oath to defend the constitution and the government that he is now eager to attack.

I have no problem with using force even deadly force against a government where there is no other means available for redress of serious grievances but we are still far from reaching that point in the US.
layman
 
  0  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:38 am
I think they all know that the feds don't want another Waco to explain, and will just leave them be, before staging an armed onslaught on them. So, they have a good chance to air their grievances, give their side of the story to the press, make demands, and all that fun stuff, ya know?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:43 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
took an oath to defend the constitution and the government that he is now eager to attack.


Wrong. They don't take a oath to defend the government. They take an oath to defend the constitution against it's enemies foreign and domestic. That's how these "oath-keepers" operate. They pledge not to follow unconstitutional orders given by the government. They feel that Hitler could never done what he did if only Germans had done the same, ya know?

At Ruby Ridge, the feds clearly gave out unconstitutional "shoot to kill on sight" orders. Some fbi agents vowed not to follow them. Others did not make that vow. As a result, the government ended up paying millions to settle lawsuits against them.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:48 am
@Lash,
The hate is direct at them for how they are looking to address their grievances not how valid or not valid those grievances might be.

Force as in deadly force against the government is the last resort not the first or the thirty resort for that matter.

For myself I would have no problem supporting the government with arms if need be to over this matter.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:49 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
They feel that Hitler could never done what he did if only Germans had done the same, ya know?
Quote:
... and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, ...
There certainly is a difference to the so-called Hitler oath:
Quote:
... to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience ...
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:50 am
@layman,
Anyone going to a trouble spot arm to the teeth and preparing to give his life is also willing to kill so let not play any games.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:51 am
Quote:
Under the Ruby Ridge Rules of engagement 1 and 2, deadly force against the Weaver adults should be used without the justification of defense and without any verbal warning.

The Denver FBI SWAT team assigned to Ruby Ridge thought the ROE were "crazy" and agreed among themselves to follow the FBI deadly force policy. However, most of the FBI HRT sniper/observers accepted the ROE as modifying the deadly force policy. Examples: HRT sniper Dale Monroe saw the ROE as a "green light" to shoot armed adult males on sight and HRT sniper Edward Wenger believed that if he observed armed adults, he could use deadly force...Both the internal 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force Report and the public 1995 Senate subcommittee report on Ruby Ridge criticized the rules of engagement as unconstitutional.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:54 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,


All soldiers have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders, aincha heard?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 06:58 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
BTW, I didn't mention muslims. Your homeboy, Montel Williams, done that.
Sorry, you mentioned it in this thread via a quote.

I had never heard before of Montel Williams. And after having got some infos about him. - I wouldn't really call every (former) member of a navy 'home boy', but there are a few similarities in his and my naval career, I admit.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:00 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
For myself I would have no problem supporting the government with arms if need be to over this matter.


So, then, Bill, would it be fair to say that you would kinda be lookin to kill someone, like Montel Williams, or maybe like those FBI snipers at Ruby Ridge?
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:01 am
@layman,
My my an act over decades old where everyone who order it is likely long gone from government is now as excuse to threaten deadly force again that government?

Another marine was at Waco and used that as an excused to killed hundreds and it was not a valid excuse of any nature either.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:03 am
To clarify some facts on the Bundy dudes and their holy war...

Quote:
"Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy owes more money to the federal government than what all other ranchers owe collectively in late grazing fees, according to new data obtained from the Bureau of Land Management.

Of the roughly 16,000 ranchers who graze cattle on BLM lands, 458 have late grazing bills totaling $237,000, according to agency data.

Compare that to the more than $1 million Bundy owes Uncle Sam for refusing to pay grazing fees on his Bunkerville, Nev., allotment beginning in 1993 and for trespassing fees he has been accruing since 1998.

It suggests Bundy, whose high-profile standoff with BLM over the roundup of his cattle in early April rekindled a national debate over the federal government's ownership of public lands, is an outlier among his rancher colleagues.

Of those 16,000 public lands ranchers, less than 1 percent have grazing bills that are more than two months past due, BLM said."
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060000713
layman
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:07 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Of those 16,000 public lands ranchers, less than 1 percent have grazing bills that are more than two months past due, BLM said."


Yeah, and that's even in the face of the BLM raising fees to $1.35 per DAY, per head of cattle, eh? Anyone wonder why the price of beef has sky-rocketed? The feds don't really need (or deserve) that kinda money. They just want to put them out of business so they can take the land at bargain-basement prices.
BillRM
 
  3  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:14 am
@layman,
It federal lands and ever owner of lands including the federal government can raise their rents to whatever degree they care to do so.

At least compare to a private landlord such as myself the renters have the extra route of political actions when they do not care for the rent being demanded.

My renter and the government renters however do not have the right to threaten arm attacks over such issues.
layman
 
  0  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:18 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
It federal lands and ever owner of lands including the federal government can raise their rents to whatever degree they care to do so


And that's the problem. No matter how avaricious and malicious their demands are, they have the POWER to do it. So they do. Hence, protestors peacefully takin over federal buildings, caincha see? They've had their fill.
blatham
 
  2  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:28 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Ranchers have rifles. Lifestyles among ranchers and country-folk call for rifles. It's legal. You can bet your ass the BLM has them. I think the liberal base now feels righteous in the immediate condemnation of anyone who has a firearm.

Sure. Hunting rifles for game (or sometimes for protection). As contrasted with machine guns for slaughtering multiple humans quickly.

Where I live now on Vancouver Island, many people have rifles. There's no social condemnation for such ownership. And I've lived in Oregon and Texas where folks who live in something like a very rural setting commonly hunt to add meat to the family's food stores or perhaps for sport. That's the traditional and understandable use of long guns. Obviously, there are some people who hold that hunting animals for sport is cruel and unnecessary, therefore unethical or immoral, but that's a valid argument.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:30 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

As contrasted with machine guns for slaughtering multiple humans quickly.


Who has machine guns? Are we back to the old canard that all guns are AK-47's or M-16's?

layman
 
  0  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:34 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
For myself I would have no problem supporting the government with arms if need be to over this matter.


So, then, Bill, would it be fair to say that you would kinda be lookin to kill someone, like Montel Williams, or maybe like those FBI snipers at Ruby Ridge?


You never answered this question, eh, Bill? Why would you be anxious to engage in armed combat with these guys? Principles? Just lookin to kill someone? Why would you want in on this "action?" I thought you said it was nonsensical.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:35 am
@layman,
If they was peaceful they would not had come arm to the teeth period.

layman
 
  0  
Mon 4 Jan, 2016 07:37 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

If they was peaceful they would not had come arm to the teeth period.


So, you figure they're fixin to head out and slaughter some people, that it?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 02:42:36