As for the Bundy brothers themselves, they just a couple basket cases with kuru riddled brains from having too much sex with livestock. You should feel sorry for them. They are so mentally disabled, they think their pappy has the right to get rich grazing on public lands without paying god damn dime. Not to mention, no compensation to the Paiute from which the land was stolen to begin with.

Gee, maybe I'll stop paying my parking tickets because the gub'ment doesn't have the right to own land and Obama hates me.

"When was the last time striking factory workers occupied an office _at_gunpoint_ ?"

IIRC, it's happened in France a few times. A vaguely recall a plant manager being executed, even. Not motivated enough to fish for a link.

The Bundy family is less civilized than the first agriculturalists that overran the hunter-gatherers in Mesopotamia. They probably read too much Edward Abbey - if they know how to read.

"Gee, maybe I'll stop paying my parking tickets because the gub'ment doesn't have the right to own land and Obama hates me."

To make the analogy fair, the government would have to declare a special "parking maintenance fee" of $500 every time anyone parked their car in your city. Your neighbors would all get rid of their cars, because who could afford that? No one. But you refuse to pay, because you see through the "maintenance fee" for what it is - a penalty for doing something the government doesn't like. Some unelected faceless mandarin in some cubicle somewhere decided they don't like your way of life and wants to force you to change it, and you have no recourse except to submit to a rigged "administrative hearing" that didn't work for the other 99 people who tried it.

The Bundy family are the last ranchers left in their corner of Nevada. Dozens of other ranchers were all driven off because they couldn't afford the "parking maintenance fees" charged by a government bureaucracy that didn't even exist when these families started ranching that area. You may gloat over the destruction of these gun-owning and probably Republican-voting ranchers (hopefully, you would have the decency not to while enjoying a cheeseburger or other ranching-related food product). But remember that the government that has the power to destroy someone else also has the power to destroy you - and it doesn't take much to turn the Big Guns of the state around on the crowd that was cheering their use against "The Enemy" not long before.

@dirge/bo,

I wonder if you would have the same audacity to refer to members of the BLM movement in the same patronizing tone. Bestiality, illiteracy, really guys? Sure, they are radically different ideologically. And yeah, they are breaking the law. But seriously?

I didn't even get to incest yet.

“Mow them Down,” Americans Once Critical of Police Killings Now Beg Feds to “Slaughter” US Citizens

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mow-down-americans-critical-police-killings-beg-feds-slaughter-citizens/#sKrZmf6tvy6qpxvX.99

Is that directed at me or is that just a random thing you're posting?

non-sense, no one's begging the feds to slaughter ranchers.

Trollvoceteurs

People on Facebook shitposting isn't news when it's nutcases shitposting about slaughtering all Muslims and it isn't news when it's nutcases shitposting about slaughtering the Bundy family. Nutcases shitpost about everything.

Even if it is terrorism, is this direct action so bad? A couple of ranchers set fires on federal land as a move to protect against wildfires and invasive plant species, and they get five years in prison. That's nuts. So a bunch of people protest, and some occupy an empty building. Oh, and since it'd be stupid to try to maintain an occupation without some sort of deterrent against police interference, they bring guns.

In the grand scheme of things, this isn't exactly 9/11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing. And, quite frankly, asking to classify these people as terrorists, whether accurate or not, is an attempt to place them in the same company as Al Qaeda or Timothy McVeigh when they clearly are not.

"You guys are looking so closely at what they have already done and ignoring the firestorm that they can cause."

Well, we can't predict the future, so all we can do is look at what they have already done. Your caricature of the ranchers as illiterate and inbred, while humorous and would probably score you many upvotes on reddit, is silly and it also leads you to ignore the fact that the ranchers are acting rationally. They clearly view this occupation as a last resort, and they clearly don't want to engage in a firefight with the police. They have declared their intention not to fire the first shot, and if there is indeed a gunfight to end it all, then it will be one started by state actors.

It's absurd to think that Bundy et al. are nutters who just want to shoot some cops. There are far less elaborate ways to accomplish that goal. Perhaps this sort of hysteria is what happens when we outsource our critical thinking to Buzzfeed and the Huffington Post.

The moment they said that they were directed to take over a fucking bird sanctuary by God, all logic behind their protest evaporated. The fact that they have incited other violent standoffs with the government before makes their word that they won't shoot first meaningless. Their occupation of federal ground is going to put them in prison for years, and deservedly so. Likewise, every single animal or organism on that reserve that they touch while they're there should pad their sentences pretty nicely.

How do you think they're going to avoid a firefight? Not only is it plainly obvious that those bony, vile, inbred fucks (deal with it, KC) known as the Bundy family aren't exactly rational actors, but it is also plainly obvious that they're not just gonna lay down their guns and go nicely when the SWAT team shows up to bring them in. They'll be in jail for 50 years if they get pulled out of that place. So what are they gonna do? I'll bet every tooth Cliven Bundy used to have that they are gonna shoot.

Your apparent trust in these ratshit bastards is unnerving, and your implication that the occupation of a federal building, empty and useless or not, shouldn't cause hysteria and the subsequent outrage is gross. Why not? Nobody goes to the wildlife sanctuary up the way from me but I wouldn't want it to be ignored if a redneck "militia" came marching in.

I have not seen them anywhere cite religious reasons as the sole justification for their current actions. At any rate, even if they do claim divine guidance, this does not mean that they are not rational actors. The rationality I'm writing of here is that of means: how and under what paradigm do they accomplish their goals? To me, the careful planning and signalling of their intentions indicates rationality.

I have also not seen that the Bundys have instigated numerous violent standoffs, though my news sources do point to the 2014 standoff. Neither the New York Times nor Wikipedia cite any casualties, though perhaps if they are wrong, you should inform them as such.

There are two ways I see a firefight being avoided. The first is if the government stays the sentence on the two ranchers, thus prompting the protesters to disband. The second is if the authorities wait long enough and the protesters get bored and go home.

Again, your caricature of the ranchers as inbred and stupid is clouding your judgment. These people might say objectionable things, but that does not mean they are incapable of rationality. Let us not confuse a difference in opinion or ideology with actual stupidity.

"Your apparent trust in these ratshit bastards is unnerving, and your implication that the occupation of a federal building, empty and useless or not, shouldn't cause hysteria and the subsequent outrage is gross. Why not? Nobody goes to the wildlife sanctuary up the way from me but I wouldn't want it to be ignored if a redneck "militia" came marching in."

I trust that they will not fire the first shot. There are a few reasons for this: first, it undermines the credibility of all of their future claims; second, it gives the invitation to the relevant authorities use deadly force on them (this being generally undesirable because the military might of United States police forces far outpaces whatever weapons the ranchers might own); third, it distracts from the issue they want to draw attention to.

I also did not say that we should do nothing about an armed occupation of a federal building. I simply hold disdain for people who wish to put the Bundys in the same company as Al Qaeda and Timothy McVeigh. There are degrees of seriousness when it comes to illegal action, and this does not begin to approach the scale of 9/11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing. It is the immature mind that looks to deal in black and white, good and evil.

I am, however, against all forms of hysteria. It makes people think and do things that they otherwise would not, and it leads to people like you publishing all sorts of vitriol with no positive contribution to society at large (although in your case, it is not clear that hysteria is a necessary condition).

I will also point out that in all your moralising hysteria, you have forgotten that the Bundys and the ranchers have legitimate grievances with the government. The sentencing of the two ranchers to five years in prison for fires that were beneficial to the federal lands and whose setting resulted in no harm to anyone is beyond ridiculous. Perhaps you could say that there are better ways to draw attention to these grievances; on the other hand, hardly anyone would have noticed if not for these direct action tactics.

If you want to call me stupid and useless, say those three words. Don't make me read five paragraphs before I get there.

Are we to assume that if the animals develop Stockholm syndrome that God is indeed involved?

The Bundy's are God's rejects. But, I will be the first to admit the Hammonds got a raw deal from the Federal courts. 5 years is pretty heavy handed for the crime of burning 130 acres of sage brush. But then again, look at all the poor people from trailer parks and housing projects who end up in prison for possession of cannabis.

"I have not seen them anywhere cite religious reasons as the sole justification for their current actions."

http://www.wweek.com/2016/01/02/militia-group-takes-over-federal-building-in-eastern-oregon-because-the-lord-was-not-pleased/

"At any rate, even if they do claim divine guidance, this does not mean that they are not rational actors."

That's not why I said they aren't rational actors. It is more the fact that they are who they are that leads me to believe they aren't rational actors. If you actually want to believe they are rational actors, then we're never going to get anywhere, because they aren't.

"To me, the careful planning and signalling of their intentions indicates rationality."

It doesn't take careful planning to take over an empty, unguarded wooden box in the middle of Oregon. The fact that they know what they want to accomplish shows organization, but that's about it.

"The first is if the government stays the sentence on the two ranchers, thus prompting the protesters to disband."

....and in 2018 we'll hear from them again.

"These people might say objectionable things, but that does not mean they are incapable of rationality."

Perhaps not, but the fact that they say "objectionable things" - since you're afraid to come out and use the words racist and/or homophobic - and take over empty bird sanctuaries to make a point together suggest to me that they're not terribly rational. If you would prefer I amend my statement that they are incapable of rationality, I will, as below:

Every human being alive today is capable of some degree of rationality. It is a basic evolutionary and anatomical trait of our species. The Bundy family represents the zeroth percentile of rationality. They have some, but no more than is necessitated by their anatomy. Other human beings, such as you and I, choose to train ourselves to become more rational because we know that it is better for us, and through years of rationality training - i.e. education in both school and the world - we end up making the decision not to invade bird sanctuaries when we get upset.

Happy now?

I'm glad you trust them not to fire first. They said they are willing to kill and be killed. That's indication to me that they'll shoot if they feel threatened, not if they get shot at. The former will happen first. Therefore, my bet still stands. Find me some of Cliven Bundy's teeth.

Also, the Hammonds were tried under the suspicion that they set fire to the land to cover up poaching on government property, not to protect themselves from wildfires. That's why they call it arson. You should look up the definition of the word. Besides, if they actually wanted to do that, they could have gone to the proper agency and put aside their fear of the big bad gubmint for a little while in order to get the proper assistance necessary to set a fire line on their own property. It's a very worthwhile insurance policy if you're in a fire-prone area, which they are, and that makes setting the fires on their own even stupider.

You also fail to recognize that the government appealed the initial sentence, which the Hammonds had already served, getting it adjusted to the legal minimum sentence. Whether you like legal minimum sentences or not (I know I don't), they didn't do anything ridiculous. They have no grievance. If you're going to skew the facts to sympathize with them, you should go out tomorrow and bust some clays to knock the rust off and then head out to Oregon and join them.

Bo_sox, I do not think you are stupid. You are but a product of your environment. Your posts are monuments to the colossal failure both of birth control and the American education system. How could you stand a chance against such systemic failure?

My profile's full, sorry.

"Look at all these other people who are also getting fucked by mandatory minimums!" is not a useful counterargument.

Other question, though: do y'all believe the feds coerced/bribed witnesses into saying the Hammonds set the fire to cover up poaching, and then called the BLM to cover up the real reason for the fire? Because if so, that's a much worse miscarriage of justice than 'a raw deal' and mandatory minimum sentencing. But if not, I'm reminded of the recent Affluenza teen discussion, where a fair number of people said the penalty should be equally severe whether or not anyone got killed. The facts of the case, according to official documents, are that the Hammonds committed arson to cover up a crime, and it got out of control, and while everyone's quite lucky no harm was done, let's say I'm not sure this is a great hill for the armed protesters to occupy and/or die on, unless the government's actions are a great deal worse than even the protesters are claiming. (But then, something similar could be said of the Michael Brown case. It'd be interesting to compare people's reactions to each.)

(Sorry, the first part of my post was @dirge.)

It's simple. The risk, and consequently the hesitation, in calling armed squatters "terrorists" lies in elevating their actions, the repercussions of their actions, and the effects of these actions on the general public, to those that we have called terrorists before. There is a power to words, and more importantly, there is a power in words that societies rely upon as rallying cries.

Terrorists are opposed to everything a society they wish to dismantle represents. Perhaps this could explain why the individuals in question have chosen not to start shooting up the place, or to have acquired hostages on the way to the standoff. Their indignation lies with the method the government has dealt with their concerns. It is fair to say no one in this thread agrees with their method, but it amounts to nothing more than armed protest. They want to be heard, and they want change, they do not seek the destruction of the American way of life or the American people. This is usually why it is easiest to identify actual terrorists with their desire to access the easiest form of destroying a way of life they disagree with, namely, the body count.
I understand why in the moment it may excite the individual, driven by fear and misunderstanding, to simplify a situation. Certainly if we simplify an issue it will be easier to deal with! Call it terrorism, and deal with it the way in which we, western liberal society, usually deals with terrorism... no negotiation and indiscriminate extermination. How successful has this been even against groups actually deserving of the title? A perverse vindication of their actions and reasons, and a great by-line for recruitment. This is why authorities hesitate to call independent, non-culturally focused, anti-*establishment* armed groups.

The fact that they are armed is only a symptom of the much larger issue regarding the use of arms as a cure-all approach to problems in America, whether they be in the hands of "baddies" or "good-guys". If we call them terrorists we raise them to the level of other terrorists, this is a label we should reserve when there is no other alternative and when we wish to declare war on ideologies inherently mutually exclusive to our own. Probably not something you would want to do within America to a growing group of individuals disenfranchised with the government. So they want to deal with them as what they are: disgruntled, and dangerous citizens, that were pushed to the brink by lack of attention from their government. Whether or not the lack of attention is deserved or unfairly perceived, is a different question.

Name calling is easy, and we shouldn't resort to the easy way out, especially out of fear (for example, insulting them etc). It simplifies situations into narrow scopes, and those are usually only attached to rifles.

At best in your argument, bo, you are dealing with crazy, armed, Christians fractionalists. Too often is the attempted solution to cut groups away instead of reintegrating. This is what leaves you with various militia groups scattered throughout your country. Don't acknowledge their flags! Don't declare war on your own wayward citizens.

"That's not why I said they aren't rational actors. It is more the fact that they are who they are that leads me to believe they aren't rational actors. If you actually want to believe they are rational actors, then we're never going to get anywhere, because they aren't."

"It doesn't take careful planning to take over an empty, unguarded wooden box in the middle of Oregon. The fact that they know what they want to accomplish shows organization, but that's about it."

They are who they are and therefore aren't rational? Their behaviour in this instance is rational because they have actually put thought and careful planning into it. It takes a lot to organise a year-long stay in a facility that is not one's own. They have prepared plans to brings food and supplies to the building. They have instigated this standoff in the hopes of engaging with the government on a legal matter they believe cannot be settled elsewhere. I do not understand how you could interpret their actions as irrational.

"....and in 2018 we'll hear from them again."

We wouldn't see them taking over other facilities if the government would be more responsive to their grievances. I can't predict what will happen in the future, but you may be right if the government continues to treat them the way it has been up until this point.

"Every human being alive today is capable of some degree of rationality. It is a basic evolutionary and anatomical trait of our species. The Bundy family represents the zeroth percentile of rationality. They have some, but no more than is necessitated by their anatomy. Other human beings, such as you and I, choose to train ourselves to become more rational because we know that it is better for us, and through years of rationality training - i.e. education in both school and the world - we end up making the decision not to invade bird sanctuaries when we get upset."

You're drawing another caricature here, aside from describing these people as stupid. You're saying that the decision to occupy this wildlife preserve is the first response rather than the last one. This is not the case.

"Happy now?"

Very. I just had a slice of pecan pie.

"I'm glad you trust them not to fire first. They said they are willing to kill and be killed. That's indication to me that they'll shoot if they feel threatened, not if they get shot at. The former will happen first. Therefore, my bet still stands. Find me some of Cliven Bundy's teeth."

I am not understanding the link between being willing to kill and being willing to shoot first. There are numerous situations in which the ranchers kill people and do not shoot first.

"Also, the Hammonds were tried under the suspicion that they set fire to the land to cover up poaching on government property, not to protect themselves from wildfires. That's why they call it arson."

OK, so the first fire was to cover up poaching, but the second one seems to be about protecting their winter stores. Regardless, I do not think that a five year sentence is reasonable, and I also generally oppose mandatory minimums.

"Besides, if they actually wanted to do that, they could have gone to the proper agency and put aside their fear of the big bad gubmint for a little while in order to get the proper assistance necessary to set a fire line on their own property. It's a very worthwhile insurance policy if you're in a fire-prone area, which they are, and that makes setting the fires on their own even stupider."

In the second instance, the ranchers had to act quickly because there was imminent danger to their stores. But even if that's not true, I don't see why the ranchers should have trust in the government. First, I'll say that the Hammonds are not the ones who have seized the wildlife sanctuary and so are not the ones who necessarily have mistrust of the "big bad gubmint". It is entirely possible that they don't trust the government anyway, and I will elaborate on why that's reasonable shortly. The Bundys and their friends, on the other hand, espouse a particular political philosophy that states that the government should not regulate the minutiae of their lives.

We can debate the degree to which the government does do this some other time, but I will say that there is the perception amongst the Bundys and others that the government does overreach in many scenarios. To put it in simple terms, why should the government tell me how I should run my ranch? I know my land, I know my work, and the bureaucrat sitting in an office far away doesn't get it. This is an entirely reasonable viewpoint because the vast majority of the direct interaction between the ranchers and the government will be in a quasi-antagonistic: regulations can be seen as impositions upon the ranchers, taxes can be seen as unwelcome burdens, etc. The ranchers won't often get to see the direct effects of, say, national defence. This is all to say that while there are counterarguments to the idea that the government overreaches and is generally opposed to the interests of ranchers, the affected parties tend not to see it that way.

"You also fail to recognize that the government appealed the initial sentence, which the Hammonds had already served, getting it adjusted to the legal minimum sentence. Whether you like legal minimum sentences or not (I know I don't), they didn't do anything ridiculous. They have no grievance. If you're going to skew the facts to sympathize with them, you should go out tomorrow and bust some clays to knock the rust off and then head out to Oregon and join them."

No, I recognise that the government appealed the initial sentence. I think that the ranchers have a legitimate grievance here because (1) mandatory minimums are stupid and (2) it's ridiculous to add time retroactively to a sentence. I do not know if (2) is in widespread practice, but even if it is, it should not be and people should be protesting it. Just because it says so in a law doesn't mean it's not ridiculous.

Maybe we could find their teeth if they had been, and continue to be, more attempts at maintaining determined connections with all members of the citizenry. Maybe showing you care at earlier ages keeps healthy people with more teeth than they have guns. But hey, each society picks what they care for the most- having more constitutionally protected rights geared towards being able to kill my neighbour rather than maintaining adequate dental health perhaps?

Lethologica, I think I stated I sympathize with the Hammond's situation. To restate and summarize:

1) The Hammonds should _not_ have got 5 years in prison for burning 130 acres of sage brush. For fucks sake, there's no trees for like 300 miles.

2) The Bundy's are bat shit mental defects who believe they have the right do whatever the fuck they want on public land. They are frauds and criminals and suffer from severe mental deficiencies.

3) Whatever is happing in Burns, it is not terrorism. At least not yet. It's more like civil disobedience.

. . . with guns.

. . . and for you city dwelling dweebs, 130 acres of sage brush is nothing. Nothing.