Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But the problem with that is identifying if the threat is actually REAL or not. The Civil War wouldn't have even happened if the South had just maintained a cooler head upon Lincoln's election. Most of their grievances were unfounded and it wouldn't be until the war had been raging for quite some time that the North changed its tune to mimic their grievances.

I agree with the bolded part, and that's why I don't condone their type of behavior in this instance, and I certainly don't think that, if the theories are correct, that this is just the Bundy kids' hopes of sparking a nation-wide takeover of overbearing government-agency buildings. I have yet to see enough evidence to me that the father/son team did not intentionally set the fires for reasons other than accident and protecting their land. The long ongoing feud raises that concern in my mind--but I'll tell you this: The overreach and strong-arming by government agencies is getting worse, not better, and I do agree with the sentiment that most federal land in America should be returned to the people/cities/counties/states and not retained by federal ownership.

This is why I don't trust or agree with any "patriot groups" and their grievances. They are largely hypocritical, with many not even knowing what the Constitution ACTUALLY says.

Well, I wouldn't say many don't know what it says, I would just say that some don't understand what it actually means and how subsequent legal precedent (since the writing of the constitution) has dictated a more detailed meaning. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS rulings on constitutional interpretation, but I'm smart enough to know that it does act as a better guide, legally speaking, that a 'patriot group's' interpretation.

ETA: Please do not mistake my first response above to mean that I think that the Hammonds should have been tried and sentenced as terrorists--I think that the federal government own the vast majority of culpability for inciting such a response from this group that includes some of the Bundys.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, I am equating Muslims in US government as foreign influence.
Islam is as much a system as a religion.
At any rate Islam is antithetical to Western values of freedom and democracy.
Their allegiance can never be with the Constitution as the law of the land.

Eta: I would be remiss to not mention the dual citizenship automatically given every Jew in the US.
AIPAC and the ADL have a great deal of clout and they are just as bad as any other foreign influence.
When we hand Israel $6 billion a year that pretty much clinches the argument.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, I wouldn't say many don't know what it says, I would just say that some don't understand what it actually means and how subsequent legal precedent (since the writing of the constitution) has dictated a more detailed meaning. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS rulings on constitutional interpretation, but I'm smart enough to know that it does act as a better guide, legally speaking, that a 'patriot group's' interpretation.

Ok this is a fair assessment. Though by that account there are many who DON'T know what the Constitution says. I've seen less radical people here on ATS blame Obama for SCOTUS decisions. So if less radical people can go on and on about the Constitution but not know what they are talking about, I wouldn't hesitate to assume that there are more radical people in the same boat knowledgewise. Though by that same token, there are others who are as you described.

ETA: Please do not mistake my first response above to mean that I think that the Hammonds should have been tried and sentenced as terrorists--I think that the federal government own the vast majority of culpability for inciting such a response from this group that includes some of the Bundys.

I'm not trying to label the Hammonds as terrorists either. They are just the political scapegoat of the real terrorists, the Bundys and their cohorts. They are using the Hammond case to incite terror (or trying, too bad they are failing since most think they are a joke).

a reply to: Asktheanimals

The Constitution, which promotes freedom of religion as one of its core principals? Gotcha.

PS: The existence of a Muslim Congressman pretty much shoots your theory to hell.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
According to the SPLC and HUFF N' STUFF the answer is -
A resounding YES!!

Well, I guess I should stock up my Furher Bunker and await the inevitable onslaught.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Very strictly speaking, the Bundy group doesn't yet meet all three specification that must be met in order for an act to be 'domestic terrorism.' They've hit 2/3, but not all yet.

If we are discussing understanding the meaning of terms and ideas, that's an important one to note.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Out of curiosity, what are those three specifications?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, I meant to post those, but I forgot.

This is from another thread in which you are active right now...

********************

In a court of law, this means that, per your quote from the FBI on domestic terrorism, these three characteristics MUST occur in order to be terrorism:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1: Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2: (at least one of these) 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
3: Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

My additions for clarification are in bold.

I don't see number one happening (yet)...unless you are going to try to tell me that taking over a very remote building is dangerous to human life. Until they start shooting, having guns is not a danger to human life.

They do meet numbers two (2[ii]) and three, though, so they're close.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well what about the threat to use violent means to defend themselves? Is that not dangerous?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well what about the threat to use violent means to defend themselves? Is that not dangerous?

No, threats are not dangerous, actions are. A threat to punch my neighbor in the face is not the same as punching my neighbor in the face. Of course, I could put a blanket threat out to use violent means to defend myself, too...the law actually allows for that in nearly every, if not all, of the United States.

Not to go off on a tangent, but a few years back Indiana passed a law that says it's legal to use deadly force against police officers who trespass (meaning that they have no legitimate reason to be invading your property or home) on your property or in your house--they can be treated just like any other intruder, in other words.

Of course, this FWS building is not their property, but I would contend that if they are being approached with intent to use deadly force just for shacking up in an (apparently) unused building to try and prove a point, that is a gross misuse of deadly force and they should be able to legally protect themselves with equal force. Of course, I haven't researched Oregon law or anything concerning this type of stuff, so it's all mental gymnastics and speculation at this point.

I will say that, without a doubt, though, if the feds use deadly force against people taking up a building, the feds are in the wrong, as there are numerous non-lethal ways of smoking out the rabbits without taking a Ditch Witch to their burrow--even if the burrow is on your property.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But you CAN be arrested for just threatening violence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But you CAN be arrested for just threatening violence.

I wish I knew that when I was younger and my mom threated to use the wooden spoon on me.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I know you are joking, but in today's climate you totally COULD get your mom arrested for doing that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I know you are joking, but in today's climate you totally COULD get your mom arrested for doing that.

Hasn't the statute of limitations run out?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

But you CAN be arrested for just threatening violence.

Sure, but that doesn't make you a domestic terrorist--threatening violence is not an element of domestic terrorism. If you want to discuss little misdemeanor laws, we can, but that wasn't the reason for this line of discussion.

Also, they didn't threaten offensive violence, just to use violence in self-defense, if it becomes necessary.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If I call in a bomb threat I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested for something slightly higher than a misdemeanor.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I wish I knew that when I was younger and my mom threated to use the wooden spoon on me.

Is your mom Italian, by chance? Mine is (well, half Italian, half German...but all fascist, apparently), and she used the wooden spoon a couple of times. The kicker was that it was the same spoon that she used to make her homemade spaghetti sauce, which I loved.

She had the spoon hanging on the wall in the dining room.

Ahhh...good times

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Is your mom Italian, by chance? Mine is (well, half Italian, half German...but all fascist, apparently), and she used the wooden spoon a couple of times

She was born there.

The kicker was that it was the same spoon that she used to make her homemade spaghetti sauce, which I loved.

She had the spoon hanging on the wall in the dining room.

Ahhh...good times

Same. It was handmade and she got really pissed when it broke on my elbow.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If I call in a bomb threat I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested for something slightly higher than a misdemeanor.

Again, you're talking something completely different. I thought we were on a good roll there for a second...bomb threats seem to be governed by state law, anyhow. But I'm sure detonating such a device would then fall under federal domestic-terrorism laws.

Again, I'm talking about the three elements that must be met to be legally considered an act of domestic terrorism. The "Bundy Group" hasn't satisfied the first element.

Yet...and hopefully they do not.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ha...must be an Italian thing.