"Good guys with guns" or domestic terrorists? The Oregon Occupation

1. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 8 years ago

   I live in Oregon, so I have been closely following the occupation of the Malheur Refuge by "militants."  Here is a detailed timeline:  http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north … ne_of.html
   
   None of their demands, which changed over time, were met.  Currently, the last four occupants demand that they be allowed to leave with a promise of no arrests.
   
   From my perspective, these outsiders came to Oregon uninvited, staged an armed takeover of federal property, terrorized a community, threatened federal employees, and damaged federal property.  One of the last four occupiers, following the arrest of the leaders of the Bundy gang, called for additional "patriots" to join them and to kill any FBI agents who try to stop them.  The following day, he claimed they had never threatened violence or intended to hurt anyone and said they would leave when the FBI promised them safe departure without arrest.
   
   Are these the "good guys with guns" that gun advocates like to talk about?  Are they "patriots" because they chose to fight the federal government with unlawful, armed seizure of property?  Or, are they domestic terrorists? 
   
   Either way, were they effective? Do you think they furthered their cause?

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Well, they certainly are not "good guys with guns" - nothing they have done fits that description at all.  But neither are they "terrorists" - they have killed no one and have not tried to spread fear into anyone.  They're just common criminals, trying to get out of their obligations via a very stupid protest.
      
      No, they haven't furthered their cause one iota.  Even the locals aren't sympathetic, and that's saying something when that's their peer group.  Rather interesting that their sole demand is now to ignore their criminal actions and just let them go unscathed.  Certainly hope it doesn't happen - blackmail always results in further blackmail.  Once the Danegeld is paid it will be paid forever, and we already do far too much of that for "protesters" that assume they are above the law the rest of us follow.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with most of what you said.  I disagree that they "have not tried to spread fear into anyone." 
         
         “As this issue has developed over the past week, our employees and their loved ones have reported a number of uncomfortable incidences in which unknown individuals from outside the Burns community have driven slowly past or idled in front of their homes, observing the residents and their activities,” said Megan Nagel, a FWS spokeswoman. “In addition, self-identified militia members have tried to engage employees and family members in debates about their status as federal employees. Many of these confrontations are taking place as our employees are grocery shopping, running errands with their families and trying to lead their day-to-day lives. While not direct physical threats, these activities are clearly designed to intimidate.”  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed … -takeover/

         replyreport
         1. 88

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I would disagree with the conclusion of the residents.  I would doubt that the objective was to spread fear and scare the residents; rather I would think that the objective was to raise discontent and hatred of the government.  I do realize that having armed men (I assume they carried their guns with them) driving around the neighborhood scares some people, but I really doubt that was the object.  I would seem to be counter-productive to their goal of raising public awareness and contempt for the actions of government.
            
            Terrorists, on the other hand, deliberately create fear and terror in the minds by intentionally causing destruction and death of people innocent of having any stake in their fight.  This, the ranchers did not do - the only "destruction" they caused was minor and to publicly owned buildings and land rather than directly to the population around.
            
            But in any case, it's a matter of definition and nothing more.  We seem to be applying the label to anyone that does something wrong, but IMO that's a mistake.  "Terrorism" means a specific intent and action, not just vandalism or attempts to convince people (verbally) of joining their cause against their government.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Your response is quite reasonable and I can see your side.  However, the fact that they brought guns, and stated they were willing to die for their cause, elevated it to the level of terrorism, in my mind.  The FBI was smart enough to wait them out to see if they were serious.  Once the amateurs with guns realized their play time was over and the professionals were ready to defend against their bumbling takeover, the smart (or perhaps scared?) ones backed down.  I feel bad for the death of Finicum, but he was the only one true to his stated beliefs, that he would rather die than go to jail.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  It does seem to be just a difference of opinion of what "terrorism" consists of, but that's about all.  An inconsequential difference of pure opinion that doesn't change a thing in the long run, unless the survivors are charged with something as terrorists.  Which would, of course, make my opinion contrary to the law.

                  replyreport
   2. 59

      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      None of the above, in my opinion.

      replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   While I do not agree with their intended  outcome , subsidized  ranching  on federal BLM lands  [ yours and my land ]  isn't THIERS for the reclaiming , I do emphasize  with  ranchers and farmers who subsidized up until now , are being cut lose in subsidizing and   financially though .    Some of this might  be the same as NASA  and all it's employees  being told .   Sorry  , your jobs are gone tomorrow .

   replyreport
3. 91

   IslandBitesposted 8 years ago

   Rebellion or insurrection
   
   Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
   
   Seditious conspiracy
   
   If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Moreover, "Ignorance" of said LAW is not a DEFENSE in the United States of America ~
      
      Domestic "Armed Invaders / Terrorists" should become Acquainted with potential "Underlying Consequences"  & Significant PENALTIES associated therein prior to planning and therafter executing Willful & Unlawful ACTS & Conduct of this nature ~ This exercise could indeed provide a Sufficient Deterrent for most LUCID or Mentally Stable Individuals ~

      replyreport
4. 71

   LauraD093posted 8 years ago

   Although receiving media attention for their twisted cause it seems they have not accomplished anything. Domestic terrorists? Well I know had it been a minority group hunkering down and illegally taking over federal  property it would definitely be seen as such. Had it been a group say "Black lives matter," they would have gone in immediately and more deaths then one would have probably occurred. The four remaining should face legal procedures as have those already arrested. The town wants them gone. The state of Oregon wants them gone.and even their fellow fanatics have told them to go. Stupidity coupled with firearms is never a tale with a happy ending.

   replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   A rather hidden point of contention in the American west ,   about  half [?] , of  the land in the west is federal lands ,thus taxpayer owned !      BLM land [bureau of land management ]   is used as a subsidy  to help farmers , ranchers  , mineral mining ,   natural gas , oil company leases !
   
   So !   The ranchers and all get  moody when  the BLM management starts "controlling " the abuses and exploitations of our land .   The whole Oregon  { Bundy ranch of last year ]  thing is this coming to a head .  Just FYI.   .......:-]
   
   BUT , if you cannot tell the difference because of todays media , between  terrorism  and "God guys with guns " fighting back a bit ,  then you are severely lacking common sense . For instance , if the Oregon incident  was about terror  they would have started killing  innocent's immediately  !

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think it rises to the level of terrorism, but their actions were designed to intimidate, no doubt about that.  However, luckily for law enforcement, the amateur-hour gun nuts were too cowardly to carry out their stated intention, i.e., that they were ready to die for their cause (save four highly unintelligent remaining occupiers, and one Lavoy Finicum, whose bungling attempt at a shootout ended in his very unfortunate demise.  The FBI are professionals.  Duh!)
      
      As for their "cause," us Oregonians like our land to be managed and preserved for current and future generations to enjoy.  If you read the Oregon news, the vast majority of Oregonians were dismayed, disturbed, and angered by these out-of-staters coming here and wreaking havoc for their ever-changing "cause."  The pretend cowboys haven't gotten a single concession from the government and the four remaining have been reduced to whining about being released from any consequences for their stupid and unlawful behavior.  Some protesters!  They can't even go to jail for their cause.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Isn't this "rancher revolt " really just all about subsidized lifestyles and maintaining the same ?   If a rancher owes the feds in taxes and fees   for instance , he isn't then allowed to  revolt against his own mismanagement  , especially then to call it a protest .
         
         We all rail against socialism , against the costs of taxes to our  working lifestyles ,   against the invasive  government ,  yet we have "made our own beds ' now we get to lay in them  and watch an overpowering state or  federal government rule the roost  .

         replyreport
   2. 57

      Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Regardless of claims, If you are sincerely interested in NOT being categorized as a "Terrorist" nor paying penalities as such, you should leave your GUNz Locked Up at home then begin to Demonstrate in a LAWFUL Manner at an appropriate venue & File Legal ACTIONs til' your Hearts Content ~
      
      This is how it's done in a CIVILIZED Society ~

      replyreport
      1. 88

         wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Is it?  How many "demonstrations" are actually lawful?  Vs how many are "civil disobedience" (illegal)?  Certainly guns should be left at home, but if others, if you expect a mob scene with looting, violence, etc. (and what good, media grabbing, "demonstration" doesn't include that?) wouldn't a gun be kind of nice to have along?  Especially if it's your store near where it's going to happen?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Who said I'm condoning "Mob Scenes"? I never have and those involved should be arrested, but just add GUNz to this situation and you've succeeded in significantly ESCALATING the severity of the CRIME & Potential Penalty ~
            
            Everyone understands the FACT that GUNz & Crime are a VOLITILE Mixture and Demonstrating PEACEFULLY according to the LAW is completely different versus an ARMED "Takeover" of Property by mentally un-stable individuals weilding GUNz ~

            replyreport
            1. 88

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               "Demonstrating PEACEFULLY according to the LAW is completely different"
               
               Like the wall street sit in?  Like blocking streets or businesses?  That kind of demonstrating according to the law?  When was the last time you saw a media report of a legal demonstration, where all permits were obtained and all actions were legal?  I certainly do not condone it, but demonstrating legally just doesn't get any attention and demonstrators know that.  So they don't bother, but instead demonstrate [il][/i]legally.  And most of the time with intentional, planned for, violence.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I've met many lost n' angry conservtaive souls who choose to live a "Boxed-in" existence within  the confines of "Republican PRETEND-Land" and as a direct result, are unable to discern the difference between the Blatant Terroristic Activity of an "ARMED Seizure,Takeover & Occupation" of Property which does NOT belong to them, and "Peaceful Demonstration" ~
                  
                  Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to HELP anyone who does NOT understand the DIFFERENCE ~

                  replyreport
                  1. 88

                     wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Ahh.  You refer to the Ferguson "demonstrators" that used their baseball bats to break store windows, steal merchandise and set fires.  (You are aware that more murders are accomplished with baseball bats than long guns?)  Got it.
                     
                     But, as an opinion only, I would not classify those liberal "demonstrators" as particularly peaceful.  Guess that comes from thinking inside the liberal box of socialism (I want, I take).

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm NOT referring to anything of the kind wilderness ~ Once again you "PRETEND"  words Miraculously APPEAR when in REALITY they do NOT exist ~ Typical CONservative ~
                        
                        This is a relatively short thread at this point in time, so anyone who desires the TRUTH can simply scroll back and check my previous COMMENTS to Discover I've said nothing even remotely related to what you claim ~ But unfortunately, your FALSE Accusations are "Par for your Course" ~
                        
                        ONCE Again just to reiterate ~ If Demonstrators are engaged in UNLAWFUL Activity they should be ARRESTED & Held Accountable PERIOD and when Mentally Un-Stable individuals PLAN & Stage an ARMED Seizure & Takeover of Property which does NOT belong to them in an effort to COERCE Personal Gain, they to should be held accountable for their egregious unlawful acts ~
                        
                        Nice try to DEFLECT from the issues at hand ~

                        replyreport
                        1. 88

                           wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           I see.  Then the whackos in Oregon should not have been arrested as they did not want personal gain - they wanted a change to return control of the lands in question to the state.  Plus of course it is quite possible that not all of them had weapons - I've only heard that there were guns involved, not that everyone there had one.  As we cannot test for mental instability until after arrest, should we assume that all demonstrators are stable or unstable and arrest any and all because they might be unstable? 
                           
                           Or do you mean that the Wall Street sit in crowd should have been arrested because there was a weapon somewhere in the group (pocket knife, hammer, box cutter, fist, whatever)?

                           replyreport
                           1. 57

                              Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              I'm not sure if everyone comprehending the issue, but once again, an "ARMED Seizure & Takeover" of Property which is held in Trust for ALL Citizens by the United States of America is indeed an Unlawful Terrorist Act and should be categorized as such ~
                              
                              An Infallible "Psychcological  TEST" can be made by OBSERVATION ~ When an individual grabs a GUN then Plots a "Takeover" of Property which does NOT belong to him/her, then carries out said crime, said individual is "Psychologically FLAWED" ~

                              replyreport
                              1. 88

                                 wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 "Or do you mean that the Wall Street sit in crowd should have been arrested because there was a weapon somewhere in the group (pocket knife, hammer, box cutter, fist, whatever)?"
                                 
                                 You don't seem to have read the entire post.  Or are you so afraid of guns that that particular weapon is the only one that counts?  Is your stance that anyone owning a gun is, by definition, "mentally unstable" and should therefore be arrested?  It does seem that the entire thrust is to take one specific weapon out of circulation while leaving all others - all the gobblegook about observation being able to determine mental stability and occupying public property is just an excuse to arrest anyone with a gun.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              Just a quick correction.  They did not want to return control of federal lands to the state, but to private ownership. They made a big deal of poring through records to determine ownership prior to the feds taking ownership, but my understanding is that the land was never "owned" by anyone except the Paiute tribes.

                              replyreport
                              1. 57

                                 Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 This is my unambiguous understanding as well ~ The DEMAND by the Perpetrators was for Federal Real Property which is now held in TRUST for ALL Americans, to be Transfered to Private Parties or Private Ownership if you will, not to revert back to the Rightful Legal OWNERS which would indeed be Native Americans who were forced to concede ~
                                 
                                 NOTE: I understand a reliable Satellite Signal, Internet, or Cable TV Connection might not be available in certain REMOTE locales in the United States, for instance way Up there in isolated N.Dakota, Wyoming etc, but those of us who receive information via this type hook-Up understand the FACT that the invaders were indeed ARMED as depicted in several Vid Clips, STILLs etc ~

                                 replyreport
      2. 0

         ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         No guns , AP., Tell that to Black Live's Matter dude .    Protesting and terrorism , for you information , are two far and completely different areas of action , Either a socialist - anarchist like yourself doesn't understand that  or your baiting a forum  thread  AGAIN .
         
         I'll bet you didn't consider  A.I.M.  at Pine Ridge  a terrorist group did you , Oh yea , you weren't born then . Better get out your history book .

         replyreport
6. 58

   makowski18061970posted 8 years ago

   Ok

   replyreport