Breaking Oregon Militia Occupies Federal Building

yubba · 01-03-16, 10:10 AM

http://conservativetribune.com/milit...al-facility-2/ 0945 someone had a chance to post Americans standing against government tyranny,, I ain't skreeert to do so ,,, I certainly enjoyed posting The Bundy Ranch thread acouple years back,,, and had a chance to watch the live feeds of what happened that day, I saw that tyranny tuck it's tail and leave, Seems as always The Bureau of Landmanagement is up to it's old tricks,,, either this story will get buried or The Commander en Cheif will come out with one of his best speeches ever,, how he needs to take away our guns, and about us domestic terrorist without a bunch of aaahs ,,mmmmhs ,oooohhs,anndds like he does when speaks about ISIL who the hell is ISIL I thought they called themselves isis,,,,you know something there wouldn't be any domestic terrorist ,, if you hadn't forgotten your oath of office to where you use the Constitution as Toilet paper.

XabbaRus · 01-03-16, 10:31 AM

I was wondering how long it would take for this to appear here.

I thought I recognised the name of the family.

I've also read reports it is more like 15 people rather than a 150.

Storm in a teacup.

Rockstar · 01-03-16, 10:45 AM

Shouldnt this go in the all purpose terrorism thread?

Betonov · 01-03-16, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Shouldnt this go in the all purpose terrorism thread?

Oberon beat him to it by about half hour. More or less.

Rockstar · 01-03-16, 11:20 AM

Upon further reading.

After having read the case United States of America v. Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., Steven Dwight Hammond. The current situation and actions by certain individuals and groups in Oregon. Their action does at the moment look much less than terrorism as defined by U.S. law and more like a 'protest' lead by an eccentric individual.

Jimbuna · 01-03-16, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Shouldnt this go in the all purpose terrorism thread?

I'm not convinced this is actually terrorism-related so we'll give the thread a chance.

Platapus · 01-03-16, 11:48 AM

government tyranny?

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Oberon · 01-03-16, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

government tyranny?

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

If anything, I think Yubba is rebelling against the tyranny of the English language.

Betonov · 01-03-16, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I'm not convinced this is actually terrorism-related so we'll give the thread a chance.

I agree, this is a redneck rebellion.

eddie · 01-03-16, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov

I agree, this is a redneck rebellion.

Buddahaid · 01-03-16, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov

I agree, this is a redneck rebellion.

YeeHawww! Yo is rat 'bout that'n.

Rockstar · 01-03-16, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov

I agree, this is a redneck rebellion.

Platapus · 01-04-16, 08:47 PM

Does anyone know what these knuckleheads want?

I think it is unreasonable for them to expect the government to release the Hammonds. They seemed to have been given a fair trial (for both the 2001 and 2006 arson events) and it was reviewed by the court of appeals.

So what do they hope to accomplish?

How do they think this will end?

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/ea...e-years-prison

Despite repeated publications that the Hammonds were convicted under an anti-terrorism law, they were, in fact convicted under18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1)

Subsection f was amended under an anti-terriorism law to add the minimum 5 year sentence. But amended by does not equate to convicted under.

Of course parties sympathetic to the Hammond case and or unsympathetic to the government would never deliberately miss-cite the law in order to get people emotionally spun up. That would be wrong.

Torplexed · 01-04-16, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Does anyone know what these knuckleheads want?

I don't think it's really about the Hammonds. The Bundys and their buddies believe that federal land should belong solely to the states or the ranchers themselves since the ranchers have grazed their cattle on it for so many generations. Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government sway over land in the nation’s capital, but nowhere else. If you believe that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states, then I suppose the Bundys are correct. However, the federal government has owned land outside the capital pretty much since 1790, when Alexander Hamilton convinced the states to give up land west of the Appalachians in exchange for federal assumptions of state debt. A few years later, Thomas Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase even as he wrangled the Senate to approve it.

It's possible that is what Bundy and his ilk think they are doing. Just as tree sitters raised public awareness of issues related to old-growth forests in the 1980s, maybe these guys see their occupation of a closed Fish & Wildlife Service building as their way to raise public awareness of alleged federal overreach on land control. Seems a few centuries late though.

The underlying problem with this tactic is that nowadays 90 percent of western US residents are urban dwellers who are much more likely to sympathize with spotted owls and sandhill cranes than with cattle and sheep.

nikimcbee · 01-05-16, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

I don't think it's really about the Hammonds. The Bundys and their buddies believe that federal land should belong solely to the states or the ranchers themselves since the ranchers have grazed their cattle on it for so many generations. Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government sway over land in the nation’s capital, but nowhere else. If you believe that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states, then I suppose the Bundys are correct. However, the federal government has owned land outside the capital pretty much since 1790, when Alexander Hamilton convinced the states to give up land west of the Appalachians in exchange for federal assumptions of state debt. A few years later, Thomas Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase even as he wrangled the Senate to approve it.

It's possible that is what Bundy and his ilk think they are doing. Just as tree sitters raised public awareness of issues related to old-growth forests in the 1980s, maybe these guys see their occupation of a closed Fish & Wildlife Service building as their way to raise public awareness of alleged federal overreach on land control. Seems a few centuries late though.

The underlying problem with this tactic is that nowadays 90 percent of western US residents are urban dwellers who are much more likely to sympathize with spotted owls and sandhill cranes than with cattle and sheep.

I'm going to go with this answer. Bundy is a religious fruit loop, looking for attention. I'm not even paying attention to it and I live here. Meh. This is the red neck version of greenpeace. Go do you protest and enjoy the freezing rain.

01-03-16, 10:10 AM	#1
yubba Admiral Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: in a neighborhood near you Posts: 2,478 Downloads: 293 Uploads: 2	Breaking Oregon Militia Occupies Federal Building http://conservativetribune.com/milit...al-facility-2/ 0945 someone had a chance to post Americans standing against government tyranny,, I ain't skreeert to do so ,,, I certainly enjoyed posting The Bundy Ranch thread acouple years back,,, and had a chance to watch the live feeds of what happened that day, I saw that tyranny tuck it's tail and leave, Seems as always The Bureau of Landmanagement is up to it's old tricks,,, either this story will get buried or The Commander en Cheif will come out with one of his best speeches ever,, how he needs to take away our guns, and about us domestic terrorist without a bunch of aaahs ,,mmmmhs ,oooohhs,anndds like he does when speaks about ISIL who the hell is ISIL I thought they called themselves isis,,,,you know something there wouldn't be any domestic terrorist ,, if you hadn't forgotten your oath of office to where you use the Constitution as Toilet paper.

01-03-16, 10:31 AM	#2
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I was wondering how long it would take for this to appear here. I thought I recognised the name of the family. I've also read reports it is more like 15 people rather than a 150. Storm in a teacup. __________________ Last edited by XabbaRus; 01-03-16 at 10:46 AM.

01-03-16, 11:48 AM	#7
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	government tyranny? I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

01-04-16, 08:47 PM	#13
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Does anyone know what these knuckleheads want? I think it is unreasonable for them to expect the government to release the Hammonds. They seemed to have been given a fair trial (for both the 2001 and 2006 arson events) and it was reviewed by the court of appeals. So what do they hope to accomplish? How do they think this will end? http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/ea...e-years-prison Despite repeated publications that the Hammonds were convicted under an anti-terrorism law, they were, in fact convicted under18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1) Subsection f was amended under an anti-terriorism law to add the minimum 5 year sentence. But amended by does not equate to convicted under. Of course parties sympathetic to the Hammond case and or unsympathetic to the government would never deliberately miss-cite the law in order to get people emotionally spun up. That would be wrong. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

01-03-16, 10:45 AM	#3
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Shouldnt this go in the all purpose terrorism thread?

01-03-16, 11:20 AM	#5
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Upon further reading. After having read the case United States of America v. Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., Steven Dwight Hammond. The current situation and actions by certain individuals and groups in Oregon. Their action does at the moment look much less than terrorism as defined by U.S. law and more like a 'protest' lead by an eccentric individual.