Great article about this on Deadspin. Gets into how US gun culture giving them a false sense of power. At the end of the day they're just dumbos in a gift shop making a point. Best part is italicized.
Great article about this on Deadspin. Gets into how US gun culture giving them a false sense of power. At the end of the day they're just dumbos in a gift shop making a point. Best part is italicized.
Marginalization of these events is a stupid thing. The video in that article (the one linked below) says everything you need to know about the fanaticism of these individuals and the skewed perspective they have on the very document they supposedly swear to uphold. I'll let this clown speak for himself, and much of his brethren in the Oathkeepers.
These are the unhinged #######s who have stockpiles of guns and ammo out there. These deluded idiots are just waiting for their opportunity to show what great patriots they are, meaning getting into an engagement with that tyrannical government they are so afraid of. You talk about what the greatest threat to America is? It's in the video above.
There's a guy who clearly sees himself as a martyr and is convincedoing his death is coming.
I will answer one of his questions though. Yes, I believe the BLM knows how best to manage the use of Federal lands as opposed to RICH LANDOWNERS WHO LEASE IT.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
Terrorism is when your making average citizens afraid of doing normal things, or going to regular places. It's also more against a group of people than the actual government of those people.
My six year old bringing a PB&J sandwich to school is a terrorist then.
The Following User Says Thank You to blueski For This Useful Post:
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”: "International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).
Under domestic terrorism they clearly meet the 2nd (ii) and 3rd tests. But do they meet the 1st?
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
The question is this act dangerous to human life? If they are asked to leave and don't then I think they meet the test.
Ironically they are protesting two farmers who burned fields being charged as terrorists. Which from reading a little info about seems like a ridiculous charge.
God how I wish Obama would authorize the airforce to overfly the joint at around fifty feet with a fully loaded Reaper and then take out the idiots trucks with extreme prejudice, no deaths, just an object lesson on how your gun is now useless, your government is all powerful and that town is a long cold walk away.
Surprising no one I'm sure, the anti-government hyperpatriot running the "show" down there received a loan of more than half a million bucks from the government jackals just five years ago:
"Ammon Bundy runs a Phoenix-based company called Valet Fleet Services LLC, which specializes in repairing and maintaining fleets of semitrucks throughout Arizona. On April 15, 2010—Tax Day, as it happens—Bundy's business borrowed $530,000 through a Small Business Administration loan guarantee program. The available public record does not indicate what the loan was used for or whether it was repaid. The SBA website notes that this loan guarantee was issued under a program "to aid small businesses which are unable to obtain financing in the private credit marketplace." The government estimated that this subsidy could cost taxpayers $22,419. Bundy did not respond to an email request for comment about the SBA loan. "
So not terrorism then if you want to get all definitive about it.
I think this. The Arab Spring uprising.....most definitely an armed group of brown people occupying whatever the hell they wanted...was by and large not labeled or considered terrorism by the west. We liked the cause. They became terrorists when we started to disagree with the cause.
If all Americans routinely had their livestock and land plundered by the BLM, they'd be calling these guys hero's and remaking Red Dawn again for the fifteenth time. But the BLM is not really an issue for anyone except this hand full of kooks. So far they're probably guilty of trespassing but not much else. So we try to prove a point by calling them terrorists because someone thinks (incorrectly) that we call all brown guys with guns terrorists.
Five Thirty Eight with a decent article around the economics of the whole situation. Basically the BLM was requiring a fee for grazing rights that the ranchers wanted for free. Most private land owners would charge a fee for grazing on private property, the government did the same except the governments fees are 93% cheaper and the rancher's militia still refuses to pay. Seizing the land by force seems utterly unnecessary and would be in most countries be considered armed theft.
Quote:
The takeover of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon appears to be more than just a protest of the impending imprisonment of two ranchers who set fires that spread into public lands. The armed demonstrators are led by Ammon Bundy, whose father, Cliven, has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the federal Bureau of Land Management to own some public lands or to regulate their use for grazing. But the government is giving the Bundy family a pretty good deal on the grazing rights it refuses to pay for.
In 1993, the bureau declined to renew Cliven Bundy’s grazing permits in parts of Nevada that were reserved for a threatened desert tortoise. But Bundy continued grazing his cattle there anyway and refused to pay any fines or fees. He claimed that the land really belonged to him, so why should he have to pay over $1 million in fines?
Now his son has furthered the fight by seizing the Oregon refuge. In a news conference Sunday, Ammon Bundy explained that he was there in protest of the “unconstitutional transactions of land rights and water rights.”
Those transactions, though, can be a pretty good deal, regardless of their constitutionality. According to a 2015 report by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bureau of Land Management’s fees for grazing cattle on public land are much lower than the fees charged by private landowners, and they’ve only become cheaper in recent years.
This sounds like Alberta all of a sudden. Not only do we lease grazing land to ranchers for far less than market value, we guarantee them the land and allow them to sell that right to a different rancher for huge sums.
I think this. The Arab Spring uprising.....most definitely an armed group of brown people occupying whatever the hell they wanted...was by and large not labeled or considered terrorism by the west. We liked the cause. They became terrorists when we started to disagree with the cause.
... and that's the thing about the "War on Terror".
Armed insurgents that folk like (or alternatively dislike less then the folk they're pointing the arms at) = Freedom Fighter
Armed insurgents that folk don't like = Terrorist
Terrorist/Terrorism as mere words are all just propaganda.
