BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Correct or not, they have a right to peacefully assemble and protest as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

True. I don't think breaking and entering/occupying government property is included in that?

That's debatable, I thought the building was unoccupied. And if trespassing is an issue, then they could simply go outside.

Just look at the disruptions caused by the BLM protests. Were those infringements on the rights of others? How about Occupy Wall Street? Didn't they trespass?

Protest is a funny thing.

Well, it sounds like they "broke" in -- which means they are guilty of breaking and entering a premise that isn't theirs.

Then if they violated the law, they should be arrested. Regardless of the validity of their cause.

I'm all for peaceful protest. But it falls short if the protesters break the law.

Well I certainly hope that the local/national media is rushing to the area to get both sides of the story....

Seems to me that some folks feel threatened by the BLM.. the more cameras, reporters, the better...

Let the story be told, I don't need to see another Ruby Ridge or Waco unfold..

Nothing wrong with waiting it out and talking...

a reply to: StoutBroux

Jesus, they started a fire that destroyed over 130 acres of land to cover up evidence of illegal deer poaching? Is this real life? I wonder what the penalty for poaching would have netted them?

What a totally idiotic perspective.

Who cares if they violate the law bs.


Ughh

a reply to: xuenchen



Which one was this?

a reply to: Swills

the .gov not only leaves out the word terrorism, they also leave out the word "intentionally"

a reply to: Sremmos80

Who got shot with that toy gun?

originally posted by: onequestion

I don't think my perspective is idiotic.

I think that protest is important, the right to assemble freely is important and that freedom should be upheld and protected.

But if you are breaking the law, infringing on the rights of others, then it invalidates the protest.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sremmos80

Who got shot with that toy gun?

Wait, are you laughing because a 12 y/o black boy was murdered by a cop while this grown white man actually aimed a real weapon at authorities and lives to talk about it?

This has peaceful ending written all over it...

How many of you want to bet there will be people confusing BLM = Bureau of Land Management with Black Lives Matters?

*sigh*

I'm waiting for the ignorant sounding tweets and facebook posts...

a reply to: daaskapital

These people are just looking for a fight, but I wonder if they'll # their pants once the bullets start to fly.

It's easy to talk smack until you have to back it up..I'll be keeping a close eye on how this ends

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I already did but it wasn't long before I caught on. Black Lives Matters gets so much attention on this site that it's all I think of when I see BLM.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

You're right... BLM in my post refers to "Bureau of Land Management" a federal agency, not to be confused with the movement called "Black Lives Matter"

Thanks for highlighting the pending confusion...

originally posted by: threeeyesopen
a reply to: daaskapital

These people are just looking for a fight, but I wonder if they'll # their pants once the bullets start to fly.

It's easy to talk smack until you have to back it up..I'll be keeping a close eye on how this ends

My thoughts exactly. It is a two-way street though. The BLM goons tucked tail and ran down at the Bundy Ranch ... and that was a damned wise move on their part. This time ... let's both keep a close eye on how it ends.

This does not sound good.

a reply to: Snarl

Snarl good to see you, where the Feck you been man?

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Indeed...documentation is essential. For both sides. The media needs to be there to report, document, record what transpires. This isn't a Federal Courthouse, Post Office or DOD post...it's a remote bldg in a remote location and time and patience are needed...NOT a WACOlike assault.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: threeeyesopen
a reply to: daaskapital

These people are just looking for a fight, but I wonder if they'll # their pants once the bullets start to fly.

It's easy to talk smack until you have to back it up..I'll be keeping a close eye on how this ends

My thoughts exactly. It is a two-way street though. The BLM goons tucked tail and ran down at the Bundy Ranch ... and that was a damned wise move on their part. This time ... let's both keep a close eye on how it ends.

That was when Harry Reid tried to push a land issue too far, and people responded. Ironically after that Reid suffered an "exercise equipment malfunction" and has subsequently decided to retire politics.

I don't know what is right or wrong here. I do know that the Hammonds gave the govt. first rights to the land if they sold. So now the govt want's the maximum sentence which leave the Elderly wife and daughter in law to run the ranch for the next 5 years.

(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.

same source

How do you think that is going to end?