Armed Militia seizes control of federal building in Oregon

gimmepie said:

They're not keeping themselves armed "in case things go south" regardless what they might claim though. It's an intimidation tactic and something they had to do to seize the building. If they wanted to negotiate, they should have started a peaceful protest. They might not have killed anyone yet (as you so eloquently put it) but they're still just lunatics with guns that shouldn't have guns.

Click to expand...

Are you a professional psychologist? If so, please try to diagnose them with which mental illness you think they have. If you are not, you have no reason to call them lunatics. They're just exercising normal human nature; they are doing this to fulfill their selfish greed. Taking away their guns because you think they are mentally sick is not a good idea at all; it will only give them more of a reason to justify their protests and knowing the people in my area and in other area like Wyoming, and it may start a damned nation-wide rebellion over gun control.

In my eyes, they are only doing it for intimidation tactics. If they were violent protesters, the politicians would have their brutally murdered corpses paraded in the streets in a similar fashion to Mussolini or some **** like that.

gimmepie said:

Can we please have gun control in the US now? So I can stop hearing about stupid people with guns doing stupid things with guns? It's obvious that peaceful protest was the way to go here and not this ridiculously extreme kind of a reaction. Especially because it looks to me like they're defending the people who did wrong.

All this is, as far as I can see, is selfish people putting others and themselves in harms way because they're throwing a tantrum.

Click to expand...

Gun control will never work in such a country. For one, it will not stop any illegal gun smuggling, and thus endanger the citizen who cannot get their own weapon if they're at the other side of the barrel, secondly there will be a shitstorm and thirdly, it is more federal control which should affect a states' government. However, I'd be fine if we banned weaponry with fully-automatic fire or military-grade firearms. People shouldn't be hunting with damned Uzis. Get a deer rifle for that.

Hiroshi Sotomura said:

So, terrorists seize a federal building.

Click to expand...

QFT

Remember this is America and when white, god fearing, fringe- conservative nutcases do the same things Al-Qaeda does, they're not called terrorists, they're called "militia" or "protestors" or even worse, "patriots" by some people. This is little more than armed sedition and if I were the Governor of Oregon or Obama I would have already mobilized the National Guard to neutralize the threat.

Lance said:

QFT

Remember this is America and when white, god fearing, fringe- conservative nutcases do the same things Al-Qaeda does, they're not called terrorists, they're called "militia" or "protestors" or even worse, "patriots" by some people. This is little more than armed sedition and if I were the Governor of Oregon or Obama I would have already mobilized the National Guard to neutralize the threat.

Click to expand...

So you would want to waste our military resources on a bunch of selfish morons who are using intimidation tactics than an actual threat? Slaughtering them mercilessly will only lead to more problems, my friend. Leave the slaughtering to the ISIS fighters who deserve death penalty via firing squad.

Now, let's have a comparison between Al-Qaeda and these protesters.

First things first, these protesters merely used intimidation tactics to take over a building. Al-Qaeda lobbed a few planes at us because they hated us. In a 2011 study thing (not sure what to call it), the Al-Qaeda death toll has confirmed that Al-Qaeda killed more than 4,400 lives. Our protesters sit here with a bunch of guns and take over a building and have yet to kill a person. Intimidation.

Now, going by Merriam-Webster's definition of Terrorism (which was the first thing that came up in one of my searches), I see no correlation between intimidation tactics and terrorism. Al-Qaeda killed 4,400+ people in many violent acts trying to coerce the people in that country and ultimately achieve their political agenda.

Kanzler said:

Nope. They started fires for various reasons, but burnt federally owned land in the process - land that they do not own. They damaged property that did not belong to them and that's arson. If somebody wanted to start a fire and burnt my forest, don't I have a right to compensation? And wouldn't there be a case to get that person charged for arson? Why should it be any different when it's public property that is abused?

Syria and Yemen are examples of what happens when you have more than one group aspiring to have a monopoly of violence - and hence no monopoly of violence. Both countries were far less bloody when armed groups weren't challenging the government.

Click to expand...

I would agree, the men charged for arson are guilty. I think I misunderstood. :) I would challenge whether or not the government actually owns the land, but that is for another discussion. But under the assumption that the government does not own the land, it is still wrong for them to set it ablaze because the land was never homesteaded by them. Either way, unless they homestead the land (in the second case), they are guilty.

Of course... and I am totally against violence unless someone was violating another's right to self-ownership, civil liberties, or property. Which is why I would rather they peacefully protest. And, while I do want to change to the current US government, I do not want a revolution or anything. I believe peace is the best way.

Thepowaofhax said:

So you would want to waste our military resources on a bunch of selfish morons who are using intimidation tactics than an actual threat? Slaughtering them mercilessly will only lead to more problems, my friend. Leave the slaughtering to the ISIS fighters who deserve death penalty via firing squad.

Now, let's have a comparison between Al-Qaeda and these protesters.

First things first, these protesters merely used intimidation tactics to take over a building. Al-Qaeda lobbed a few planes at us because they hated us. In a 2011 study thing (not sure what to call it), the Al-Qaeda death toll has confirmed that Al-Qaeda killed more than 4,400 lives. Our protesters sit here with a bunch of guns and take over a building and have yet to kill a person. Intimidation.

Now, going by Merriam-Webster's definition of Terrorism (which was the first thing that came up in one of my searches), I see no correlation between intimidation tactics and terrorism. Al-Qaeda killed 4,400+ people in many violent acts trying to coerce the people in that country and ultimately achieve their political agenda.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, I would mobilize the guard to neautralize the threat, which you erroneously equated to slaughtering people, I'm fairly certain they could evict the militia and restore civil order with minimal/ no casualties. And "intimidation tactics" still make you a terrorist if it has a political or ideological edge, lol. Imposing your political or ideological will, through violence, intimidation or threat of violence is right there in your little dictionary entry.

Lance said:

Absolutely, I would mobilize the guard to neautralize the threat, which you erroneously equated to slaughtering people, I'm fairly certain they could evict the militia and restore civil order with minimal/ no casualties. And "intimidation tactics" still make you a terrorist if it has a political or ideological edge, lol. Imposing your political or ideological will, through violence, intimidation or threat of violence is right there in your little dictionary entry.

Click to expand...

Neutralize literally means to kill or destroy. I don't see why you're defending the fact that you want a bunch of people dead for intimidation tactics. Both definitions on there go with what I say; as the full definition's use of terror is using the definition:

• violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal

If you want every single protester dead, I can't possibly see you as any better if not even worse.

Thepowaofhax said:

Neutralize literally means to kill or destroy. I don't see why you're defending the fact that you want a bunch of people dead for intimidation tactics. Both definitions on there go with what I say; as the full definition's use of terror is using the definition:

• violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal

If you want every single protester dead, I can't possibly see you as any better if not even worse.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what the word neutralize really means, I doubt that deploying the National Guard would result in any bloodshed. I would hope that if these guys found themselves surrounded by a larger, better trained, and better equipped force, they would surrender rather than try to engage them.

Nah said:

Regardless of what the word neutralize really means, I doubt that deploying the National Guard would result in any bloodshed. I would hope that if these guys found themselves surrounded by a larger, better trained, and better equipped force, they would surrender rather than try to engage them.

Click to expand...

What if they did not surrender? If a shootout occurred, there would be a lot of bloodshed. The National Guard would only "fuel the flames" so to speak. Peacefully negotiating/giving incentives to leave the federal property is the best way. The issue is a lot deeper than just the two men, it is these people's livelihoods potentially at stake here. The BLM and these people have been conflicting for years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU Puts this into a slightly different light. Im not taking a stance either way with this video.

Nah said:

Regardless of what the word neutralize really means, I doubt that deploying the National Guard would result in any bloodshed. I would hope that if these guys found themselves surrounded by a larger, better trained, and better equipped force, they would surrender rather than try to engage them.

Click to expand...

I think you might be underestimating the zealotry some of these people have.

Reading some comments here is causing flashbacks of me losing faith in humanity after reading the details of the Waco Siege in 1992.

Thepowaofhax said:

Neutralize literally means to kill or destroy. I don't see why you're defending the fact that you want a bunch of people dead for intimidation tactics. Both definitions on there go with what I say; as the full definition's use of terror is using the definition:

• violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal

If you want every single protester dead, I can't possibly see you as any better if not even worse.

Click to expand...

Neutralize does not literally mean to kill or destroy.

"Simple Definition of neutralize

• : to stop (someone or something) from being effective or harmful
• : to cause (a chemical) to be neither an acid nor a base
• : to make (something, such as a country or area) neutral during a war"

From merriam webster, as well.



You also seemed to just ignore the part in Livewire's post that said "with minimal /no casualties". I'm not sure how you can jump from that to "If you want every single protester dead, I can't possibly see you as any better if not even worse."

Omicron said:

Neutralize does not literally mean to kill or destroy.

"Simple Definition of neutralize

Click to expand...

I checked this myself, and you seem to have missed it in the full definitions. Check 2B. It says "Kill/Destroy".

Now, to be fair I probably did miss that part of his post, so w/e.

Pinkie-Dawn said:

According to this article, gun control isn't a necessity. To quote the user who provided the source:



Of course, it's not the guns that are the real issue on this situation, it's a group of selfish people trying to rid of a federal wildlife refugee as mentioned by Kanzler.

Click to expand...

You're right, gun control isn't the issue here. I imagine the bunch of douche bags who've taken over a government building would have found it just as easy if they were packing toothpicks. Still, as Nah has requested I won't go on about the gun control issue passed this post.

Thepowaofhax said:

Are you a professional psychologist? If so, please try to diagnose them with which mental illness you think they have. If you are not, you have no reason to call them lunatics.

Click to expand...

I would suggest there's grounds to consider the sort of people who do stupid things like this might have some underlying mental issues but just to be clear I'm not claiming to be some kind of psychology expert. I was using the word in a laymen's capacity.

They're just exercising normal human nature; they are doing this to fulfill their selfish greed. Taking away their guns because you think they are mentally sick is not a good idea at all; it will only give them more of a reason to justify their protests and knowing the people in my area and in other area like Wyoming, and it may start a damned nation-wide rebellion over gun control.

Click to expand...

You're right, in fact the mentally unstable everywhere should be given free assault rifles just so stupid people can't use not having guns as leverage in a dispute with the government that has nothing to do with guns. The only reason guns have anything to do with this situation is that the terrorists are carrying them.

In my eyes, they are only doing it for intimidation tactics. If they were violent protesters, the politicians would have their brutally murdered corpses paraded in the streets in a similar fashion to Mussolini or some **** like that.

Click to expand...

You're right they aren't leaving bodies in the street or anything yet, I guess that makes them morally upstanding citizens, hell let's give them a medal for showing the government who's boss. They're just causing lots and lots of fear, they're just a potential threat (because of the guns) in a situation that could easily escalate and become violent as the stupid people who started this - baring in mind they're defending people who broke the law anyway, on multiple occasions - become more desperate.

These people are selfish, greedy and quite frankly extremely stupid terrorists who don't like that some people got caught breaking the law. They don't have a leg to stand on so they're resorting to terrorist tactics to try and get what they want. They're dangerous people and they should be treated as dangerous people.

Gun control will never work in such a country. For one, it will not stop any illegal gun smuggling, and thus endanger the citizen who cannot get their own weapon if they're at the other side of the barrel, secondly there will be a shitstorm and thirdly, it is more federal control which should affect a states' government. However, I'd be fine if we banned weaponry with fully-automatic fire or military-grade firearms. People shouldn't be hunting with damned Uzis. Get a deer rifle for that.

Click to expand...

It worked here. It worked in the UK. If people would give up their damn guns it would work just as well in the US, but people like their guns so they'll keep coming up with cock-and-bull excuses like the black market gun trade - even though there's obvious arguments proving how ridiculous a counterpoint that is - to justify the continuation of the widespread gun distribution in the US.


Also, for anyone else who wants to discuss if this is terrorism or not, here's a definition not handpicked to suit anyone's purposes.


Sounds a lot like this situation to me.


The bottom line here is that a group of white farmer terrorists don't like that they're expected to stay within the confines of the law like everyone else, so they've picked up guns that they probably shouldn't have to take over a government building and create a situation in which they, and potentially other people, will quite probably end up dead whilst still achieving nothing of their stupid, greedy and selfish goal to get the government to change the law just to suit them.

Edit: Sorry Nah, no more gun control ranting I promise.

BadSheep said:

What if they did not surrender? If a shootout occurred, there would be a lot of bloodshed. The National Guard would only "fuel the flames" so to speak. Peacefully negotiating/giving incentives to leave the federal property is the best way. The issue is a lot deeper than just the two men, it is these people's livelihoods potentially at stake here. The BLM and these people have been conflicting for years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU Puts this into a slightly different light. Im not taking a stance either way with this video.

Click to expand...

CarcharOdin said:

I think you might be underestimating the zealotry some of these people have.

Reading some comments here is causing flashbacks of me losing faith in humanity after reading the details of the Waco Siege in 1992.

Click to expand...

Do you think they really would try in this case? I suppose you're not wrong that they might be crazy enough to try. Not that the sending the National Guard after them is really my first choice either....

gimmepie said:

1. You're right, in fact the mentally unstable everywhere should be given free assault rifles just so stupid people can't use not having guns as leverage in a dispute with the government that has nothing to do with guns. The only reason guns have anything to do with this situation is that the terrorists are carrying them.



2. You're right they aren't leaving bodies in the street or anything yet, I guess that makes them morally upstanding citizens, hell let's give them a medal for showing the government who's boss. They're just causing lots and lots of fear, they're just a potential threat (because of the guns) in a situation that could easily escalate and become violent as the stupid people who started this - baring in mind they're defending people who broke the law anyway, on multiple occasions - become more desperate.

3. These people are selfish, greedy and quite frankly extremely stupid terrorists who don't like that some people got caught breaking the law. They don't have a leg to stand on so they're resorting to terrorist tactics to try and get what they want. They're dangerous people and they should be treated as dangerous people.



4. It worked here. It worked in the UK. If people would give up their damn guns it would work just as well in the US, but people like their guns so they'll keep coming up with cock-and-bull excuses like the black market gun trade - even though there's obvious arguments proving how ridiculous a counterpoint that is - to justify the continuation of the widespread gun distribution in the US.


5. Also, for anyone else who wants to discuss if this is terrorism or not, here's a definition not handpicked to suit anyone's purposes.

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.​

Sounds a lot like this situation to me.


The bottom line here is that a group of white farmer terrorists don't like that they're expected to stay within the confines of the law like everyone else, so they've picked up guns that they probably shouldn't have to take over a government building and create a situation in which they, and potentially other people, will quite probably end up dead whilst still achieving nothing of their stupid, greedy and selfish goal to get the government to change the law just to suit them.

Edit: Sorry Nah, no more gun control ranting I promise.

Click to expand...

First things first. #5 citations for the definition, please. Anyways,

1. I don't see what points your correlating. I only see the fact that the people here in my state would go on a full rebellion if people start having guns taken away for reasons other than any guns used in illegal crimes, smuggled, etc. Fully automatic-weaponry should be banned anyways, but that's another can of worms.

2. I was only making a point. All they've done is have a temper tantrum, take over a building by going all "hurr durr we have guns listen to us" and throw a bunch of pennies at a government building's door. They are by far not as perfect as you think I am describing them. Their cause is idiotic but it shouldn't keep them form protesting. I'm just tired of people saying we should just mow the little shits down. If anything, I could advocate for them have their gun seized temporarily if it wouldn't cause a damned shitstorm.

3. Touché. They still don't need to be mowed the **** down like what some people are advocating though.

4. No, you don't understand. Guns are heavily ingrained around the culture I live in (which is the South). The moment more gun control is implemented, even if it's something logical like banning fully-automatic weaponry (why is this legal for citizens to have?), the more the people around here will want to go against our government. The first thing they'll said is "Obamer dun taken our guns!" and start causing **** at one of our government buildings because they're mad. Just because Australia had an issue and fixed it (with albeit rising crime rates) after BANNING their guns doesn't mean what you want for America (which is most likely banning the guns as you hinted earlier), doesn't mean it will work. Besides, the moment guns are banned is the moment there will either be a nation-wide rebellion or a coup d'etat.

Thepowaofhax said:

4. No, you don't understand. Guns are heavily ingrained around the culture I live in (which is the South). The moment more gun control is implemented, even if it's something logical like banning fully-automatic weaponry (why is this legal for citizens to have?), the more the people around here will want to go against our government. The first thing they'll said is "Obamer dun taken our guns!" and start causing **** at one of our government buildings because they're mad. Just because Australia had an issue and fixed it (with albeit rising crime rates) after BANNING their guns doesn't mean what you want for America (which is most likely banning the guns as you hinted earlier), doesn't mean it will work. Besides, the moment guns are banned is the moment there will either be a nation-wide rebellion or a coup d'etat.

Click to expand...

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Crime rates probably didn't rise.

Anyways, what would really cause a shake-up in the United States is if one of these militia group goes on a rampage killing hundreds, and if a sizeable proportion of the casualties were carrying firearms. That would really cause Americans to become more aware of how dangerous weapons are.

If this confrontation becomes violent, it'll all be blamed on the government anyways, regardless of the details.

Thepowaofhax said:

Snip

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be mowed down whilst the situation can still be resolved safely without violence. Let's just not pretend this is anything other than what it is.

The local Indians want the protesters off their land now. LOL. Their protest is now an even bigger embarrassment than it already is.

Kanzler said:

The local Indians want the protesters off their land now. LOL. Their protest is now an even bigger embarrassment than it already is.

Click to expand...

Even more embarassing; apparently members have been taking the donation money and using it to buy alcohol.

Keiran said:

Even more embarassing; apparently members have been taking the donation money and using it to buy alcohol.

Click to expand...

It'd be more acceptable if he was just getting snack food, wouldn't it? Although I haven't seen this story on more media outlets so I'll hold off from considering this one confirmed.

Keiran said:

Even more embarassing; apparently members have been taking the donation money and using it to buy alcohol.

Click to expand...

Yes, totally a DEFINITELY logical combo. Drunk and with guns while overtaking a building. There's totally not going to be any problems now, like at all.