150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... quiet.html

The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.

The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers – militia and local citizens both – paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.

Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 150 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police try to remove them, they said, though they declined to elaborate.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."


Neither would say how many people are in the building or whether they are armed. Ryan Bundy said the group would release a statement shortly.

"We will do whatever it takes to maintain our freedom," he said.

Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.

Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.


Pennies In Protest
Marchers pause outside the entrance to the Harney County Sheriff's Office to toss pennies. The coins were meant to symbolize citizens buying back their government
The dramatic turn came after other militia groups had tried to dampen community concerns they meant trouble.

Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, told The Oregonian/OregonLive he knew nothing about the occupation. He helped organize Saturday's protest and was at the Harney County Fairgrounds with dozens of other militia for a post-parade function. Another militia leader, BJ Soper, took to Facebook to denounce the occupation.

The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.

Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.

Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.


Burns Protest
Marchers including militia and local residents Saturday head for the Harney County Courthouse as part of a protest against government.
"We went to the local communities and presented it many times and to many different people," he said. "They were not strong enough to make the stand. So many individuals across the United States and in Oregon are making this stand. We hope they will grab onto this and realize that it's been happening."

Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.

He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia's presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.

At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intent.

"The agenda is to uphold the Constitution. That's all," he said.

Cooper, another militia leader, said at that meeting he participated in the Bundy standoff in Nevada.

"I went there to defend Cliven with my life," Cooper said.

Ian K. Kullgren of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed to this report.

So... I was right. Not arresting the little shits back in 2014 DID just embolden them. So, can anyone think of any actual reasons why the federal government should continue to permit these fuckers to exist?

Also, provided they cannot be winkled out peacefully, can anyone who was in favor of drone strikes against US-citizen terrorism suspects overseas give me a reason why they should not be pulverized with drones? Sauce for the goose, and all that.

[Pelranius]

Aw for f**k's sake, even the Hammonds told them to GTFO.

[The Romulan Republic]

So... I was right. Not arresting the little shits back in 2014 DID just embolden them. So, can anyone think of any actual reasons why the federal government should continue to permit these fuckers to exist?

Also, provided they cannot be winkled out peacefully, can anyone who was in favor of drone strikes against US-citizen terrorism suspects overseas give me a reason why they should not be pulverized with drones? Sauce for the goose, and all that.

I don't want the government to storm the place and gun them all down, at least unless all other options have been exhausted. And based on past experience, I very much doubt it will. That said, your apparent eagerness for a blood bath is disgusting.

As to drones, I have my doubts about US drone policy, but the solution to an injustice is not to expand it further in the name of "fairness".

But militia dip shits cannot be allowed to simply get away with breaking the law.

I would negotiate for their surrender, and failing that, storm the place. If they resist, whatever force is needed should be used.

This is illegal, armed insurrection, and at least borderline treasonous. It should be handled accordingly. As I have little doubt it would have been if these cunts were Muslim.

Edited for clarity.

[Patroklos]

Do they storm the place when students occupy government buildings in the same fashion? I want law enforcement to treat them both the same, as they are doing exactly the same thing.

[Jub]

Do they storm the place when students occupy buildings people are actually in? I want law enforcement to treat them both the same, as they are doing exactly the same thing.

The difference is that one group tends to be armed and dangerous and the other group tends to be a bunch of unarmed students... I'm not sure how you missed that.

[Patroklos]

Them being armed or not is irrelevant, what you are objecting to is their presence. Are these ones even armed?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't want the government to storm the place and gun them all down, at least unless all other options have been exhausted. And based on past experience, I very much doubt it will. That said, your apparent eagerness for a blood bath is disgusting.

They should not have been permitted to exist in 2014. Ideally, their little party should have been stormed with armored vehicles then, but given certain constraints (election year) they should have ALL been arrested when they finally dispersed and brought up on ALL the charges. Because there was a laundry list.

But the feds didnt. The hatfuckers have been allowed to sit believing they can intimidate the federal government for a year and a half.

Now they are full fledged domestic terrorists who have taken over a building. The militia movement has been permitted to fester for too long and these wastes of oxygen need to end up in chains or in small pieces. They probably wont come peacefully, so the only realistic option is in body bags for most of them.

As to drones, I have my doubts about US drone policy, but the solution to an injustice is not to expand it further in the name of "fairness".

I just want to know if people like Grumman and Cmdrjones will argue for or against their droning.

I honestly would prefer high caliber sniper rifles. The horror being shot through the walls might induce mass surrender (after the initial offer of life in prison is undoubtedly rejected), and it would not be fitting to risk the lives of people we actually value (FBI agents) on the matter.

As I have little doubt it would have been if these cunts were Muslim.

Had they been Muslim they would have been dead or in Gitmo by now, I am sure.

Do they storm the place when students occupy government buildings in the same fashion? I want law enforcement to treat them both the same, as they are doing exactly the same thing.

Students holding hands and refusing to cooperate with being moved (and burning some American Flags) protesting a government policy is a far cry from 150 armed men setting up an armed camp in defiance of the legal jurisdiction of the state and vowing to use their arms to resist law enforcement.

One of these things you handle with harsh language, mace (not a mace, but mace), and handcuffs.

The other you deal with using armored vehicles and automatic weapons.

Them being armed or not is irrelevant, what you are objecting to is their presence. Are these ones even armed?

Yes they are you illiterate dipshit, and they have outright said they will use violence to secure the location against law enforcement. This is the same bunch who held BLM agents at gun point.

[The Romulan Republic]

Them being armed or not is irrelevant, what you are objecting to is their presence. Are these ones even armed?

You really want to play apologist for these motherfuckers?

I support the right to civil disobedience as long as their is no threat to public safety, but I have far less sympathy for those who back up their civil disobedience with firepower and threats of violence. Moreover, their being armed and possibly willing to use violence definitely changes the nature of the response that is warranted if it is decided to remove them.

[Jub]

Them being armed or not is irrelevant, what you are objecting to is their presence. Are these ones even armed?

"[T]hey would not rule out violence if police try to remove them."

Also, at about 30 seconds in the video halfway down the article in the OP one of the militiamen walks by the camera with a gun slung across his back. Thus, we can definitively say that at least one of them is armed. Also, given that many of the participated in another armed standoff with police and federal force it's a safe bet that more of these 'protestors' will be armed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Better than killing them outright. This is an isolated building, and it is winter. Get 300 FBI agents and police to surround the place, shut off water and power, stop them from bringing in supplies. They will capitulate.

Or engage in cannibalism.

It is a win either way.

[Patroklos]

Yes they are you illiterate dipshit,

The article above says nothing about them being armed. In fact, it outright says they don't know and those in the compound did not say they were when asked.

Its your own fucking article you "illiterate dipshit"

and they have outright said they will use violence to secure the location against law enforcement. This is the same bunch who held BLM agents at gun point.

We went over this in that thread at the time. Nobody ever held any BLM members at gunpoint. That term has a specific meaning, that have them under physical control. That did not happen.

"[T]hey would not rule out violence if police try to remove them."

Which is not the same as they will use violence. This is exactly what ever black panther and OWS protest says/said.

Also, at about 30 seconds in the video halfway down the article in the OP one of the militiamen walks by the camera with a gun slung across his back. Thus, we can definitively say that at least one of them is armed. Also, given that many of the participated in another armed standoff with police and federal force it's a safe bet that more of these 'protestors' will be armed.

I can't watch the video currently. Is that the protest prior or the occupation? The article text specifically states they don't know if they are armed.

EDIT: Got it to play, and they specifically ask people to bring arms.

[Zeropoint]

Ugh. I didn't see this coming, but I can't say I'm surprised. I don't want to see anyone get hurt, but at this point it seems vitally important for the government to step in and decisively end this in favor of the rule of law.

I guess if it were up to me, I'd do something like bring in the National Guard to lay siege to the place. Make sure no one gets in or out, and see how long it takes for them to surrender for food.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Lets see, they wont say if they are armed, but yet:

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.

What? "Oh yeah guys, come on over, bring your guns, but we will confiscate and impound them at the door!"? Really?

We went over this in that thread at the time. Nobody ever held any BLM members at gunpoint. That term has a specific meaning, that have them under physical control. That did not happen.

Oh, fair point. I am sorry. No one was held at gunpoint. They simply used the threat of lethal force to prevent government agents from carrying out a legal court order, and then to secure themselves from arrest and prosecution.

[Patroklos]

They sure did. The question is though, if they won't remove unlawful occupiers from urban populated areas under use, why would they take the risk to do the same to people in a remote abandoned location with people who can more capably fight back?

I don't want them there and they should be removed AD, the question is why you want these particular ones moved and not others in far more relevant situations? I know why, and its because of who they are not what they are doing or how they are doing it.

[Jub]

I can't watch the video currently. Is that the protest prior or the occupation? The article text specifically states they don't know if they are armed.

Maybe come back to the discussion when you can actually look at the evidence for yourself. I'm not going to describe every frame of a video for you.

Regardless of if they're armed or not, the nature of these right wing militia groups means that it makes sense to act as if they're armed until we know for sure. This is especially true when they are shown to be armed while giving statements about having occupied the building.

I'd suggest you refrain from posting until you've seen the evidence first hand.

[T]he question is why you want these particular ones moved and not others in far more relevant situations? I know why, and its because of who they are not what they are doing or how they are doing it.

Non-violent protestors are removed from places all the time. Often with things like fire hoses, tear gas, and riot police. Or did you miss what happened to OWS protestors?

[Alyrium Denryle]

They sure did. The question is though, if they won't remove unlawful occupiers from urban populated areas under use, why would they take the risk to do the same to people in a remote abandoned location with people who can more capably fight back?

They dont remove the student groups very quickly or harshly because they will usually disperse on their own, and if they dont, it is more trouble than they are worth typically. The areas they tend to occupy (less buildings these days, more commonly public fora) are also more... jurisdictionally and legally challenged. Kinda hard to remove people from a public park or university campus lawn without legal issues (peaceful assembly etc). And yet they are still removed.

These fuckers are directly challenging the authority of the state, and have openly stated a desire to take over a federal building for their exclusive use on a permanent basis so as to disrupt the activities of the department of the interior and its associated agencies. They have gone beyond peaceful assembly and protest, and gone straight to the illegal seizure of federal property.

You remove them precisely because they can fight back. What would you say more requires a stronger police response? A bunch of trespassers throwing a raucous party in someone else's house without permission, or someone who invades a house with an arsenal and declares that it is theirs now?

Obviously the latter. Even though it entails more risk to the police.

[Patroklos]

Maybe come back to the discussion when you can actually look at the evidence for yourself. I'm not going to describe every frame of a video for you.

I am under no obligation to outside the information the OP provided. His article should support what he says. If it does not, its a bad OP. Presumably the article writer had access to said video, so why the discrepancy?

Regardless of if they're armed or not, the nature of these right wing militia groups means that it makes sense to act as if they're armed until we know for sure. This is especially true when they are shown to be armed while giving statements about having occupied the building.

Why? What was the last militia protest that had violence?

Non-violent protestors are removed from places all the time. Often with things like fire hoses, tear gas, and riot police. Or did you miss what happened to OWS protestors?

1.) OWS was not nonviolent, unless you consider massive property destruction and attacking police and bystanders (and other protesters for that matter) non violent.

2.) All the time =/ Every time. So, why do we allow some citizen occupiers to flaunt the authority of the Federal government in actual working government buildings, but this one in the middle of nowhere deserves overwhelming force in response to include all the heinous violence the OP suggests?

They dont remove the student groups very quickly or harshly because they will usually disperse on their own, and if they dont, it is more trouble than they are worth typically. The areas they tend to occupy (less buildings these days, more commonly public fora) are also more... jurisdictionally and legally challenged. Kinda hard to remove people from a public park or university campus lawn without legal issues (peaceful assembly etc). And yet they are still removed.

Sometimes they are removed, many times they are not. Everything you just said above applies to these occupiers too.

As to leaving of their own accord, how many militia members are camped on the Bundy ranch today? The hundreds that were before? Its almost like left to their own devices they dispersed on their own...

These fuckers are directly challenging the authority of the state, and have openly stated a desire to take over a federal building for their exclusive use on a permanent basis so as to disrupt the activities of the department of the interior and its associated agencies. They have gone beyond peaceful assembly and protest, and gone straight to the illegal seizure of federal property.

And taking over the administration building of a government university is not a direct challenge to the government somehow? Do the let the buisness of said building go on as usual? I mean, we have had occupiers take over legislatures and they were not forcibly ejected.

Where did they say this was going to be a perminent basis? I am pretty sure they said they would stay until demands are met, which is again the stated method of so many groups to include BLM, OWS, etc.

You remove them precisely because they can fight back. What would you say more requires a stronger police response? A bunch of trespassers throwing a raucous party in someone else's house without permission, or someone who invades a house with an arsenal and declares that it is theirs now?

Until they use said arsenel or at leas threaten someone with it I'd say it is exactly the same. The relevance of the target is what should dictate the priority of the response. A highly populated functioning government center servicing thousands of uninvolved citizens daily? A priority. An abandoned building of a minor department with zero bystander presence and hindering no govenrment function? Very low, if you are going to pick and chose.

I don't want the government to pick and chose mind you, you do.

Obviously the latter. Even though it entails more risk to the police.

Obviously the former. Again, your only issue her is who these people are, not what they are doing or how they are doing it.

[Jub]

I am under no obligation to outside the information the OP provided. His article should support what he says. If it does not, its a bad OP. Presumably the article writer had access to said video, so why the discrepancy?

The video is contained within the link he posted fuckwit and beyond that you've already admitted that you couldn't have watched a video had it been posted. Also, videos can easily be added to web articles after the article has been written, or have your forgotten how modern media works?

Why? What was the last militia protest that had violence?

Why should that matter? They're armed and using the threat of force to get what they want. We also haven't seen what might happen if federal forces try to remove them rather than allowing them to disperse on their own.

1.) OWS was not nonviolent, unless you consider massive property destruction and attacking police and bystanders (and other protesters for that matter) non violent.

99% of the protesters weren't violent. Nor were the camps in, for example, central park places where violence was ongoing. Yet these were dealt with in the same way as an actively violent protest.

2.) All the time =/ Every time. So, why do we allow some citizen occupiers to flaunt the authority of the Federal government in actual working government buildings, but this one in the middle of nowhere deserves overwhelming force in response to include all the heinous violence the OP suggests?

I've never advocated for violence. So why ask me?

[Joun_Lord]

Yeah taking over a forest reserve station is sure to help out the Hammonds. Or fucking not.

Yeah no, I don't consider myself a hateful person. I might not like many people but I don't outright hate that many either. Cliven Bundy I hate. Cliven Bundy is a racist piece of shit willing to endanger lives because he don't want to pay no taxes to da big evul gubmint because he decided he can legally ignore the Constitution. While I didn't want Bundy to get shot I can't say honestly that I'd be torn up if he got a government boot to the face. He is a piece of shit. For once the government was clearly in the right when they tried to take his cows.

The Hammonds on the other hand, they seem like nice people. They made a mistake and paid for it but are getting butt-fucked by a shitty legal system. They aren't out with Tapco'd AKs pointing them at Federal agents or being fucking douches of the highest caliber, not even making any even vaguely racist statements. They said whats happening is bullshit (in far less course words) but are accepting the punishment.

With a public outcry, which wouldn't be a tough sale, this could easily be reversed. Enough people bitching and marching for the Hammond's they might have actually got justice.

But then a fucking Bundy shoves his bullshit covered cock into this shit sandwich and starts fucking it, spraying shit everywhere and possibly hurting the cause of the Hammond's. The Hammond's didn't want the "help" of the Bundys, they rightfully told them to fuck off. They had to know two things about the Bundys, one they are unnecessarily confrontational and violent and two, that the Bundy's know how to sink a cause faster then a remake of the Titanic built out of lead that is using osmium as ballast and hosting an all you can eat convention for grossly overweight people who enjoy wearing weights and also has a gash in the hull like the original for realism sake.

Motherfucking Bundy.

[Patroklos]

The video is contained within the link he posted fuckwit and beyond that you've already admitted that you couldn't have watched a video had it been posted. Also, videos can easily be added to web articles after the article has been written, or have your forgotten how modern media works?

The point of posting the article is to provide the relevant bits. And his article DID provide the relevent bit, telling us they did not know if they were armed. Why should I doubt his source?

Why should that matter? They're armed and using the threat of force to get what they want. We also haven't seen what might happen if federal forces try to remove them rather than allowing them to disperse on their own.

Occupations are by there very nature the use of force to get what you want. Thats what they do. They physically take over places and usually deny their use by others. The question here is whether these guys have a history of using violence at their events. Then answer is no.

99% of the protesters weren't violent. Nor were the camps in, for example, central park places where violence was ongoing. Yet these were dealt with in the same way as an actively violent protest.

99% eh? I suggest you look up some of the videos from Oakland. The important point, as you just admitted, is they were infinitely more violent than the group in question who so far have exactly zero violence associated with them.

I've never advocated for violence. So why ask me?

You are still irrationally advocating differing approaches to the same phenomena.

[Gaidin]

The Hammonds are literally going a polite version of "What? Are you nuts? We're backing slowly away from you and showing up where we're supposed to be when we're supposed to be" to them. If this goes on long enough for them to show up where they go...I wonder what the implications will be.

[Jub]

The point of posting the article is to provide the relevant bits. And his article DID provide the relevent bit, telling us they did not know if they were armed. Why should I doubt his source?

Maybe because somebody has brought up the video and the fact that the posted link is a part of the OP. Not everybody who posts articles inlines the images and videos, yet so long as they link to the article those reading should be expected to be aware of them.

Occupations are by there very nature the use of force to get what you want. Thats what they do. They physically take over places and usually deny their use by others. The question here is whether these guys have a history of using violence at their events. Then answer is no.

Yes, a college sit-in is using force... Can I have some of what your smoking?

99% eh? I suggest you look up some of the videos from Oakland. The important point, as you just admitted, is they were infinitely more violent than the group in question who so far have exactly zero violence associated with them.

You're also aware that OWS wasn't limited to New York and had, ballpark, millions of supporters and protestors across the world. That's also not how infinity works you mathematically illiterate twat.

You are still irrationally advocating differing approaches to the same phenomena.

No, I'm not. I literally haven't posted a stance on what should be done with these protestors one way or the other.

Kindly quote me having done so or fuck off.

[Grumman]

Also, provided they cannot be winkled out peacefully, can anyone who was in favor of drone strikes against US-citizen terrorism suspects overseas give me a reason why they should not be pulverized with drones? Sauce for the goose, and all that.

I just want to know if people like Grumman and Cmdrjones will argue for or against their droning.

I have always been vocally opposed to the Obama administration's assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. I support the use of airstrikes as a tool of war wielded by the military with appropriate authorisation against military targets, but neither the al-Awlakis nor Bundy qualify as far as I'm concerned.

[Lonestar]

So... I was right. Not arresting the little shits back in 2014 DID just embolden them. So, can anyone think of any actual reasons why the federal government should continue to permit these fuckers to exist?

Also, provided they cannot be winkled out peacefully, can anyone who was in favor of drone strikes against US-citizen terrorism suspects overseas give me a reason why they should not be pulverized with drones? Sauce for the goose, and all that.

No immediate lives at risk. It's SOP to just wait them out, this has been the case since at least the AIM occupation of Alcatraz.

Now, you might point out we've droned Terrorist leaders overseas before, but I would respond that it was a lot harder to capture/isolate them in those cases than a bunch of dudes holed up in a FWS building wiht no where to go.

[The Romulan Republic]

Regarding the severity of something like this, and what kind of response it might warrant, I would remind everyone that the American Civil War literally began over Federal property being seized and occupied by armed rebels. Now obviously that was in a very different situation and on a wholly different scale, and I don't think this one incident is going to start a civil war outside of these militia assholes' wet dreams, but still, this kind of thing is serious shit.