Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

a reply to: Boadicea

meah we are both in agreement regarding BLM abuses, we differ on how to protest it and whether Bundy is a good man or a self serving man.

Right now you're just a bully hiding behind even bigger bullies with guns and glorifying their cold blooded murder.

You are becoming kind of hysterical here, that comment really is a bit much applied to me.

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: zazzafrazz

are they a constitutional cult?

Possibly, I don't know about their psychology enough. But such a thing may exist I suppose, Good term for them though, thanks for coming up with it

I'll add I don't like zealots of any kind, Islamic, Christian or ones like the Bundites.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Yes, but lets not be foolish in the ranking of threat to humanity, here's what it would look like..

1.Islamic-fundy's

2.Christian -fundy's

3. Bundites & general window lickers buying weapons at Cabelas right now.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

So could it be that Ammon Bundy is using the constitution like kool-aid?
Did LaVoy Finicum die protecting his constitutional rights?

a reply to: TechniXcality

I didn't rank them, therefore was not foolish.
lol @ window lickers though!

a reply to: imitator

Who knows how he died yet? Should we wait and find out?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Federal seizure of land is a serious subject and all these boys did was garner support for the feds as their approach was idiotic and self serving, especially given Bundy benefited from federal welfare support.

I suppose you write your congressman letters about it? Or put an x in little boxes on 'voting day' to draw public attention and effect change?

Look up civil disobedience as a method of demonstrating to 'garner attention' when all other avenues for redress of grievances fail.

Obviously these 'self serving idiots' are upset about something enough too make a stand about it. My attention immediately goes to what that is, not what petty crimes they are accused of.

Bundy was upset and convinced the rest of the sheep that occupying the place was a really good idea, if only for the benefit of Bundy and friends. Note that Bundy and most of his wannabee heroes surrendered. Only two true believers resisted; his brother and LaVoy. Now, the weasel is trying to make a martyr out of LaVoy, who said he would go down fighting. Bundy is in too deep and knows the Feds have him, so he is calling on other fools who think they are deadly killers to come and keep his plan alive. If the other rear echelon commandos do show up and cause grief, Bundy will have additional charges filed against him as will the dolts who think that this is about government abuse and not about Bundy.
As I posted earlier, the suckers in the camp will be the ones who get deals; the leadership group that was captured will get jail time.
Mess with the bull -- get the horns.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

No I wasn't referring to you as foolish,I was just speaking generally and adding nuance cheers.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

meah we are both in agreement regarding BLM abuses, we differ on how to protest it and whether Bundy is a good man or a self serving man.

I am very happy to hear that. And I hope you join the fight against their abuses, so we don't have to have another Bundy or Oregon or especially another Finicum.

You are becoming kind of hysterical here, that comment really is a bit much applied to me.

I'm hysterical? Maybe. Maybe not. To paraphrase some wise words: Hysteria in the face of murder is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

A bit much applied to you? Maybe. Maybe not.

a reply to: Boadicea

yeah too much man. chill a bit, that's crazy talk associating me supporting fed bullying-blood-spilling-gun-toting stuff....isn't me, never has been on this site.

Regarding if I will join the fight, I'm not sure TBH I have a few causes I fight for now, I don't want to be overwhelmed, its better to focus on how and where I can be effective.
I am heavily involved in children services especially abused children, and one or two other causes, that's my choice and I don't have to endorse someone elses cause.
In my opinion, no Bundy was not effective, he just led a guy to his death. I think perhaps his followers had more passion for the cause than he does, he was clever in getting followers, I'll give him that.

So, has the double jeopardy thing been resolved as of yet? I keep seeing stuff about land and cattle, which was a Bundy thing, but this was initially about a double jeopardy problem with the Hammonds.

So, I'm not sure what to think on this whole matter anymore (i.e. who's more wrong), but one thing seems pretty clear; Bundy (and company) made a huge tactical blunder last night, and it should be a lesson for all going forward.

Never, and I mean never, put all your command and control in the same place at the same time...especially outside your zone of influence envelope. HUGE tactical mistake!!

Right or wrong, the Bundy group just screwed the pooch on this one!!!

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Boadicea

yeah too much man. chill a bit, that's crazy talk associating me supporting fed bullying-blood-spilling-gun-toting stuff....isn't me, never has been on this site.

Regarding if I will join the fight, I'm not sure TBH I have a few causes I fight for now, I don't want to be overwhelmed, its better to focus on how and where I can be effective.

I certainly didn't mean taking up arms and going to Oregon! But how about here? At work? With friends and family? Just as you can speak up against the folly of the Bundys, so you can speak up about the crimes of the feds. Knowledge is power. The truth can set us free. I don't want to encourage or support ANY armed revolt/rebellion. But if we don't right the wrongs before it comes to that, we are just as responsible for the consequences.

In my opinion, no Bundy was not effective, he just led a guy to his death. I think perhaps his followers had more passion for the cause than he does, he was clever in getting followers, I'll give him that.

I pretty much agree, but would qualify that to say that Bundy was not successful in his intended goal (and I'm not sure he even knows what that is! I don't.) but he was very effective in getting a big problem out into the public eye. I think that's why he got his "followers." They weren't for Bundy as much as they are against the feds, because one way or another, they've already been hurt by the feds too. So they may very well be more passionate as you say, because it's personal.

Bundy didn't lead anyone to their death. But Finicum and others knew that was a chance they were taking because they knew that's who the feds have become and what they do. If anything, the feds pushed them.

This whole situation has boiled down to not who's right and who's wrong, but rather who's MORE wrong.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Yes, but lets not be foolish in the ranking of threat to humanity, here's what it would look like..

1.Islamic-fundy's

2.Christian -fundy's

3. Bundites & general window lickers buying weapons at Cabelas right now.

Agreed.

general window lickers

You say that in The States as well lol.

I thought that was a London expression.

Eye witness report..www.facebook.com...

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Yes, but lets not be foolish in the ranking of threat to humanity, here's what it would look like..

1.Islamic-fundy's

2.Christian -fundy's

3. Bundites & general window lickers buying weapons at Cabelas right now.

I agree with that ranking as threats to "Humanity"...or the greatest threat in terms of numbers threatened. And the greatest threat in terms of violence, murder etc. to the world population right now.

BUT to the folks in Hammond these were a very real, much bigger and present threat than ISIS.

AND make no mistake about it, these groups (left unchecked or encouraged) do present a terrorist risk...

Oklahoma City Bombing

The chief conspirators, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, met in 1988 at Fort Benning during basic training for the U.S. Army.[17] Michael Fortier, McVeigh's accomplice, was his Army roommate.[18]

The three shared interests in survivalism.
They expressed anger at the federal government's handling of the 1992 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) standoff with Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge as well as the Waco siege

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Indigo5


Actually, under the law it would would not necessarily be so. One requirement for a charge of domestic terrorism would be

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

I do not think the fed wants to charge them with terrorism. They have been handling these guys with kit-gloves, careful to let them get their grievances out, not raiding the grounds etc.

That said they have repeatedly threatened Federal Officers and Local Cops at gunpoint on public grounds..

I think if the Fed chose to come heavy-handed they could easily make a domestic terrorism charge stick according to the letter of the law...but I don't think that is their aim, nor do I think it is a good idea...but would it hold up in court? Pretty sure it would.

Put another way...If these guys had slightly darker skin, were Muslim and had seized the buildings with an armed force to bring attention to Islam... That place would have been raided within 5 minutes with a heavy body count and terrorism charges galore.

a reply to: MisterSpock

I agree

“I want the world to know how my father was murdered today. His hands were in the air and he was shot in the face by the American authorities. Ammon Bundy reported there are 6 witnesses to this evil,” wrote Tenney.