Why are conservatards so scared of calling these guys terrorists?
Stop pussyfooting around the term and call it for what it is
T E R R O R I S M
>No property damage
>30 miles from nearest town
Yeah, a bunch of dudes camping in a parking lot is totally the same thing as gunning down coworkers because they celebrate a holiday you don't.
6/10, got me to reply.
It's not terrorism at all. There's also nothing wrong with terrorism. It's just a tactic.
This burger, needs too be assimilated.....Knowing too much kills you....
Ron Paul 2012
Well language is sometimes hard to define. When does a fight become a battle? How big does a tavern brawl have to be, to be called a war?
Well i would say it depends on the context. They are an armed militia (Called militia i assume because they came together and claimed it so, otherwise we could just call them an armed group) A terrorist is someone who uses terror to meet political ends, have they terrorised anybody? Not that i know. They have occupied a house, so they are occupiers. They are occupying in protest.
Lets call them Armed Land-Occupying Protestors
>terrorists literally unexpected open fire into civilians, blow buildings up, and kill others
>people with some guns protesting something they sere as unjust should be compared to those
Fuck off Ahmed.
>arming yourself so that your protest isn't immediately cracked down on by federal agents in MRAPs, swat gear, and sniper hides.
>burning down whole cities because you are upset with a grand jury's decision
I don't get it. They're peacefully protesting but are smart enough to be armed so government agents don't break it up like they did to the unarmed occupy groups. And BLM regularly incites riots, has caused millions in property damage and loves to aggressively shut down public roads and buildings in populated areas.
>tfw I see liberals saying that Obama should bomb them
>Not a single shot fired
>Not a single death
>Not a single Muslim involved
>w-why aren't you sperging out over this government created psyop, anon
these are terrorists. They took over a federal building while armed. They've already committed several felonies and should just surrender now and face justice or things will go down really badly for them.
>Awareness of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense grew rapidly after their May 2, 1967, protest at the California State Assembly. On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the "Mulford Act", which would make the public carrying of loaded firearms illegal. Eldridge Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of 26 armed Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill. The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale and five others. The group pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of disrupting a legislative session.
This. It's NOT terrorism. They have a right to bear arms, and they're exercising that right. Simultaneously, they have occupied a federal government building and are protesting.
They're protestors. They haven't threatened anyone with anything, and they haven't used violence.
They are, however, equipped to defend themselves, should the need arise.
There is literally nothing wrong with what they're doing.
Anyway, you always hear these anti-gun faggots screaming "BUT IT SAYS WELL-REGULATED MILITIA!"... Ok, well now there's one doing something. Wat nao, faggots?
You always hear these anti-gun faggots screaming "BUT YOUR AR-15 IS USELESS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!", except now there's a bunch of people with them protesting the federal government *inside* a government building. Wut nao, faggots?
These guys are fucking heroes, for showing the rest of the world how to take on the government properly; peacefully, but armed and ready to defend themselves.
If they surrender, they go to federal prison.
If they stick to their guns, there is a chance they could be allowed to walk out of this "free" men. (And by free I mean not in prison but on every watchlist in the country)
Why on Earth would they ever surrender?
>Why are conservatards so scared of calling these guys terrorists?
Because under current US policy and law, the war on terror means pulling a ripcord on all the normal domestic protections.
Full NSA unreasonable search and seizure wrecking, guantanamo bay, and extrajudicial operations, drone strikes. Mobilizing the military, or police who are armed and act practically identically to the military. All that shit is what comes with terrorism.
What's more it should be very troubling that the fires were prosecuted/reclassified as terrorisim in the first place.
So far, it seems more like occupy BLM than anything terrorists.
this terrorism thing is exactly what the spyops documents describe as what one could do to have more favorable views made into the population
>be the first one to repeat a single thing over and over, even if its a lie
>hope that it sticks
No, this is not controversial, your opinion is artificial. Your spamming of this opinion, your shitposting wont make it the main narrative.
Threads like this should be removed and people like you should be banned.
With one swift drone strike they are all fucked.
2nd amendment is outdated, they are just peashooters compared to what the gummint has.
>if only it would happed, my popcorn is ready.
You're absolutely right. These retards are occupying federal state property. The wildlife refuge was a state run property. They are occupying that land, it's an illegal occupation.
Meanwhile, according /pol/ the Wall Street Occupy movement was shut down by the police and /pol/ were cheering the heavy handed tactics of removing people from the square
And just like here,
>no damage to property
/pol/ has serious double standards and can't form a coherent argument beyond happening threads and posting vertically
>terrorism is when you attack civilian populations
This too. EVEN IF THEY WERE SHOOTING, if they were shooting at federal government agents, it would NOT be terrorism.
Governments are ALWAYS a legitimate target in war.
Daily reminder that the oregon terrorists are not being arrested because they happen to be white
Oh did they start killing people or blow up any school busses? Or decapitate a federal agent?
No, they are literally just doing the same shit Occupy did, but they are armed so they don't just get broken up immediately.
>they're just armed protestors who have illegally occupied a building and have firearms to defend themselves!
>police clear the area
>"protestors" use their guns
REEE DONT LE TREAD ON ME LEAVE ME ALONE LADS : )))
And if it happened, what then? Mass outrage and mass uprising. If the US government is going to use its brains, it'll let these guys occupy that building until they get sick of it and just leave.
There's absolutely nothing to be gained by forcing a showdown here for the authorities. I know, it's always tempting for them to try swinging their big dicks around, but that's what got the situation this far already. It'd be a dumb move.
They would already have lost if they did that.
>OY VEY THESE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING AND USING THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT
>LETS KILL THEM
If you think this would go over well AT ALL, you'd be surely mistaken.
>illegally occupied a building
How is that even possible? It's a federal government building. That means it was bought and paid for by the US citizenry. How can US citizens illegally occupy something that they own?
The same thing went down at Bundy Ranch. Some local fed representatives got a little power crazy and made a giant mess, and after a long standoff everyone realized it wasn't worth the trouble and went home.
The same thing will happen here if the Feds are smart. Just drop the extra petty 3 year charge and let everyone go home so we can all get on with our lives. It's really not worth the trouble on the Feds part.
In all seriousness, it's hard to take these guys seriously. Having a problem with federal govt's land practices or whatever is fine, but there are other ways to express/achieve the desired change without potential armed conflicts. Such a stance only serves to escalate the situation and delegitimize any otherwise valid grievances they have as the ramblings of thugs or whatever.
Also, if they think that govt tyranny is such a problem, what is their stance on police brutality, in which govt employees use excessive, sometimes lethal, force as a disproportionate means of solving disputes with citizens? If anything should be called "tyranny", it should be cops beating/killing citizens unjustly, but this Oregon Militia seems to be silent on that matter. They don't need to convince conservatives that their position is correct, but they do need to convince liberals in order to get further support. Therefore, refocusing their grievances to include things like police brutality, a hot liberal talking point right now, could allow them to craft a more inclusive coalition with the left, the strength of which could allow non-violent political pressure to be exerted on the govt for reform which everybody likes.
But they're not doing that. Instead, a dozen guys broke into an empty bird sanctuary or something and set up camp with their ARs and think they're the cradle of the revolution.
They're activists. Did you call the rioters in Ferguson, terrorists? They actually terrorized the town. These people are supporting the town. And have hurt no one.
They could BECOME terrorists, but that hasn't happened. You're just assuming.
Because the vast majority of those protestors don't even pay basic income tax and are survialists. And even if they did pay tax and didn't shoot every irs official that enters their "community", just because you pay in to something doesn't mean you have free reign to just walk in with fully automatics and shouting muh freedom.
1) They haven't shot anyone and have specifically said they won't shoot anyone unless they are shot at
2) Police brutality, statistically, is a non-issue. It happens about 3% of the time, so it's completely irrelevant.
Try again, Reddit.
Statistically, how often do things happen like what the militia is upset about? The land stuff.
If the public owns them, as you describe it, that means that the building they're in is also mine, so they're trespassing on my property.
They are there to have very specific demands met.
>Drop all charges on the Burn Ranchers
>Cease attempts to purchase land from Burn Ranchers
>Allow all militia members to return home
If the protesters started giving out vague demands like "end police brutality" or "end tyranny" they would end up exactly like Occupy Wall Street where nobody is even sure why they were there. No, they kept their demands small and local.
If they protested in the "normal way", the rancher would already be done with his extended prison sentence by the time they got to court, thus defeating the entire purpose of the protest to begin with. Also, it is obvious that the BLM only understands force since they have a long history of fucking with rural land owners until fucking militias show up.
No. The public elect officials who administer the funds and upkeep of the building. Just because you don't like the officials, doesn't mean you have a right to occupy it.
Tough shit buddy, put it to a referendum, and if the people back it, then you have a mandate.
Only a civil war or splitting this country can fix the problems honestly. The Progs want to use the government to kill whitey and implement islamic communism (joking, but something like it). America is either going to be fixed or it will die forever and become a mutated mongrelized dystopia that I will not be part of.
>If the public owns them, as you describe it, that means that the building they're in is also mine, so they're trespassing on my property.
Maybe you should go do something about it then, tough guy.
>won't shoot anybody unless they are shot
So we ask kindly for them to leave, they don't, then the state initiates force to take it back, then the protestors shoot.
What kind of fucking retard logic do you have?
Some more well-armed "terrorists", no doubt:
Because feeding the homeless is illegal now.
I'm trying to get the feds to bust them, but /pol/'s over here being apologists for crimes against property
>thieves and free loaders
family owns lands since the 1870s
Fed has wanted your land for years to turn into a wildlife reservoir (i.e. make them money)
never sell to them regardless of their constant harassment by ATF and BLM (bureau of land management)
>2001, routine bush fire on property
tell fire department beforehand, accidentally burn 100 acres of federal land, put it out yourselves
>2006: lightning storm starts bush fire on your property
start backfire to push it away from your private property
cops show up next day and press charges , go to court
tried and convicted, sentenced to a year in jail
go to prison for roughly one year
get let out, government says you've served your time
>2011: feds want your land again, still won't sell
feds issue re-sentencing convicting you of domestic terrorism
now a convicted terrorist - must serve a mandatory minimum of 5 more years in federal prison
.gov focuses on deer/elk hunting on your own property while in season - call it poaching - say lack of evidence is no reason not to plaster it in media
>2015/6: 150 men and women occupy a completely empty government building that was closed for the winter - nobody hurt
liberals call them terrorists, make them look radical, don't look into what actually happened and compare to a hypothetical if they were muslim or black etc. yet ask why these people havent been droned/murdered by the feds
The united states does not specifically target civilian populations. They target military targets and assets which just so happen to have civilians in/around them.
A terrorist group is a group of people who specifically target civilians specifically to kill just civilians in order to make regular people fearful and in effect turn them against their government.
Man, you shills have really got your marching orders for this one, don't you?
It's good to see you guys working so hard to discredit them. It means they have your controllers scared.
These hashtags are trending all over Facebook and Twitter.
Way to win the hearts and minds, you fuckin rubes..
Even Harney County wants these fags to go home
>I'm trying to get the feds to bust them, but /pol/'s over here being apologists for crimes against property
The entire federal government is an apologist for this behavior. >>60034046
Black Panthers literally walked into a legislative session with guns and all they got was misdemeanor charges.
>T E R R O R I S M
I think it starts being terrorism once they kill people.
This is just a case of robbery. Farmers robbing federal land because they figure who's going to notice in Oregon.
>kike media calling the right to bear arms terrorism
Let's go through our checklist, shall we
>No property damage
>Far away from town
Now let's go through the list and compare it to recent chimp-outs. Oh wait, they did all of those things.
Don't forget that the 5 year sentence was the supposed minimum for their conviction, but the first judge couldn't give them that because it was excessive, but they get around that with a second judge.
The reason statist faggots like OP flip shit so hard about these guys is that it runs counter to their gun confiscation fantasys. They long for the day when they manage to sign away someone else's freedom and self empowerment. When they see us stand up to the state it gives them fits of rage to remind them that they are a bunch of limp dicked crybaby faggots. They want everyone to have to rely on the state just like they want to and they can't stand it when people dissent against them and their precious nanny state. It's the same reason they cry so hard about open carry. It's a living reminder that they haven't gotten their way.
So when the Black Panthers would show up with m1 carbines around polling places during elections or civic buildings during protests that was T E R R O R I S M then right liberals?
if they are terrorist, the black lives matters are terrorists, occupy wall street where terrorists, the tea party where terrorists, any gathering of more than three people are terrorists, is that the world you want to live in because I don't and I will fight to the death to prevent it.
I love the narrative the media is trying to push...
They were poaching on 160 acres.
Wow, that sounds like a lot. other another way, 0.25 square miles. hrmm
Then, to cover evidence of poaching they start a fucking forest fire? What evidence would be left after they removed the corpse? If they had stands, just take the fucking stand down.
Why does it matter?
The accusations of poaching come from before the ranchers first trial and imprisonment. If he had committed poaching, he would have been found guilty in a court of law, and would have already served his time for it.
Not only are the accusations of poaching stupid, but they hold no power over him one way or the other because he already served his sentence. So even if they are true they are completely irrelevant to the double jeopardy he faces now.
>yfw liberalism is the new McCarthyism
Seriously what the fuck happened to liberals in the last 5-10 years? They went full fascism full anti-white racism mode.
>poaching on your own land
>leaving evidence out to such a degree that you have to burn it in the open
The entire accusation is baseless and 100% full retard.
Most/all poachers are not state residents and get rid of the evidence immediately. That's how poaching works.
>Poachers should be shot on site, you dumb redneck.
>Right wing terrorists have stand-offs with the federal government
>Left wing terrorists shut down highways, disrupt events, threaten individual people online and loot their own neighborhoods
Pretty sure most Americans would rather have a militia group protesting in their neighborhood in comparison to a black lives matter group. While they do fit the term of terrorism its with a very weak t since they're only using violence defensively rather than offensively to achieve a political goal.
>Most/all poachers are not state residents and get rid of the evidence immediately. That's how poaching works.
but not all. Locals will just leave the evidence out right and cry the town rally to circle the wagons. This is typical , dumb redneck behavior,.
>the right actually protests against the feds
>the left doxs some poor factory worker, contacts the factory he works in, gets him fired and ruins his life
Who's the real terrorist.
Even if locals trespassed and did it, it wasn't the ranchers who did, and good fucking luck proving the animals (if there even were any) were poached.
It's unproven, baseless bullshit.
Not at all, these courageous patriots are simply moderate rebels protesting against the tyrannical government that is oppressing them. Hopefully Obongo will send them some armaments to aid in their noble cause.
rednecks gonna redneck. its still just a bunch of hillbillies throwing a tantrum because , >muh sovereign citizenship < and being the immature and uneducated shitbrains that they are
>I can't prove they were poaching
>Better just call them rednecks again
The term redneck also implies someone who works a hard, simple job outdoors. How this is a derogatory term is beyond me. I find hard, manual labor to be a noble thing, but you seem like the kind of person who would have a panic attack if you weren't within wifi range of a starbucks.
>drone operators don't go home to there families after shift.
Trust me federal agents don't want to do shit that might make their neighbor slit their throats in their own home. This isn't a distant 3rd world shithole with no repercussions.
You are a gigantic faggot. This is the main reason we fight for the 2nd amendment, not just because we love a material piece of metal.
Even though this is bait, the fact you even thought of it makes you a moron.
redneck actually means, the uneducated help.
their defense mechanism is to rally the town and circle the wagons when threatened. Its pretty hard to prove wrong doing when the town sheriff is the one leading the cross burning every Sunday.
Nah it's the federal government that are the terrorists.
these guys are just a taste of things to come as state after state succeed from answering to washington's dictatorship.
Rome is on fire and the empire has a problem, is the truth
Please enlightenment me on the double jeopardy that the Hammonds face o masters of jurisprudence. Clearly you know more about the law that those two bit hacks that ruled in
United States v. DiFrancesco that prosecutorial appeals of sentences do not violate the fifth amendment.
>the vast majority of those protestors don't even pay basic income tax
and are survialists
just because you pay in to something doesn't mean you have free reign to just walk in
with fully automatics
If their demands are not fulfilled they'll continue to sit in the parking lot of a little used federal complex... if that's enough to "terrorize" you then you're a massive pussy.
The charge of terrorism was deemed unapplicable due to the insubstantial nature of the crime. Under common law, the men could not be given the typical minimum sentence because to do so would be a gross, unethical misapplication of said anti-terror law.
Any attempt of charging him again is simply a retrial of the same actions he committed.
Any further concerns you may have will be addressed by my rifle.
>the state initiates force to take it back,
A clear first use of force.
>then the protestors shoot.
A clear-cut case of self-defence.
>What kind of fucking retard logic do you have?
Yes, what exactly IS your retarded logic, you Danish pastry?
Libruls and their 'progressive society standards' that let jamal and achmed rape and kill your wives and daughters. Not to forget MUH WHIT PEPOL EBIL NAZI mentality
Last but not.least is the OBEY GUBMINT STUPID GO-ERR CITIZEN attitude
The fact that they aren't as bad as Occupy Wall Street.
Anything these guys get charged with, ex-OWS will have to be charged with too. And liberal politicians don't want their kids to go to jail, while conservative politicians are scarfing popcorn like Newman at the Seinfeld trial.
Neither violence nor threats have occurred. Stop being a fucking idiot.
>Farmers robbing federal land
You got that backwards, as usual, Germany.
Anytime you take on a bunch of government agents with your bare hands, please put the video link up on /pol/ - I want to laugh at you.
>Death to poachers! Death to terrorists!
Lucky for the Oregon guys that they are neither of those things then.
Shut up Turk.
I REFUSE TO READ: the post
>Liberals literally changing the definition of 'terrorist' to fit their narrative
Haha, and the niggers from the BLM protests were nothing but peaceful protesters who dindu nuffin, right?
These hicks aren't even doing anything. They've literally just seized a building, peacefully at that, to make a point. They aren't blocking highways, destroying property, or physically assaulting anyone.
They're literally making a stand against what they see as an injustice. Regardless of what your feelings on their protest, they're still protesting. The only difference between these guys and the niggers sitting in front of a police station for rightfully shooting a criminal is that they're a peaceful group with a tangible goal.
They've even invited other citizens to join them to help their cause. Their cause is not terrorism because they have guns.
You cucks that are calling for the military to kill it's own citizens with cowardly 'drone strikes' (which, by the way, are not the do all end all of fucking warefare) is basically just kicking and screaming in the hopes of giving up freedom for 'security' from the scary white guys with guns who aren't afraid of your twitter posts.
I don't even know why there's so much sliding going on, to be completely fuckin' honest.
There are peopele in combat gear heavely armd on gov property.
Yep i am a pussy and i am threatend by this kind of beahavier. Kill them and takey there freedoms. My freedoms are more important.
Or dare you to hinder my freedom?
They were never charged with terrorism. They were never convicted of terrorism.
No one has tried to charge them again with anything. The charges have not changed.
The trial judge set sentences that did not meet the mandatory minimums set by the statue they were convicted under. The government appealed the ruling and was successful. The 9th vacated the original sentence and remanded the case back to the trial circuit. There they were resentenced to five years each and ordered to surrender today.
So basically what you are saying is "I don't understand how the justice system works, but it did something I don't like and I have a gun so I am right."
>but not all. Locals will just leave the evidence out right and cry the town rally to circle the wagons. This is typical , dumb redneck behavior,.
>They where in jail for that you wood nigger! There is more then enath evidance. The jury has spoken. Now fuck off terrorist.
Nope. They were never in jail for poaching. Charges of poaching have not been laid at all. Fuck off Turkroach.
Wow, you have no argument and you know it.
>better imply they are KKK.
You sure showed us!
>broke the law again.
Except they didn't.
Have you any proof they did?
Terrorism: The use of violence to propagate ideological, political, religious and conspiratorial views.
When they use violence then they are terrorists. Until then they are just armed protestors.
Sorry leftist faggot, guns don't make you a terrorist, no matter how hard you want to push that agenda.
lol poor federalist kikes, I dont think them and their rabid leftist pawns have the balsl to confront these folks in military fashion.
They're going to butcher these yankee terrorists. :)
>thread of violance
The only entity that has threatened violence is the government, you sad cuck.
Shut up arschlecker.
>There are peopele in combat gear heavely armd on gov property.
First they are not "heavily" armed. They lack crew-served weapons and rocket launchers. They are lightly armed at best.
Secondly, you have no freedoms, you are n Germany.
Thirdly, no one cares about your opinion.
Their actions violate the spirit of the law, which is more important than the law itself.
The actual judge who passed down the sentence put it very nicely. To charge the ranchers the minimum sentence would be a gross abuse of the law.
If this case were still ongoing, sure I could understand appealing for a longer sentence. However, these men paid their time and fees. To drag them back to prison now over a small infraction is unethical and immoral.
So thew best you've got is two things that didn't happen?
Apparently criminals arent criminals when theyre white
>Or dare you to hinder my freedom
You have a lot in common with the people in the building; The only difference is that you wouldn't stand in with them if given the chance, lest you miss your evening refugee dicking.
>did not meet the mandatory minimums
which were deemed unconstitutional under the 8th amendment.
and under the SECOND ruling the court issued the BLM first denial rights to the families farm land.
This means that when they do sell their land it /must/ be offered to the BLM first.
You're a fucking retard if you see nothing wrong with any of this.
>muh religion of peace
Because libtards can't get enough of mudslide cock desu
Guess these niggers are heading straight to jail
>Armed gunman taking over a federal building is inherently threatening and inherently political.
>says a nobody.
"Gunman" implies they intend to shoot someone or hold someone hostage. Neither of which is true.
>You just got BTFO again.
Occupy wall street types were clogging up public spaces and making it difficult for people to get home from work. If they weren't disrupting the public, I wouldn't have given a shit.
>Squatting around and occupying an area with assault rifles is not a normal activity.
Normal for the US Government. Do you need a list of nations it has done it in?
>They're invoking fear through the threat of using their weapons.
No they aren't.
Keep trying though. You're really earning your NSA paycheck today. Well done!
Seems like even the big bad gubmint you want to have 'make thing I don't like' disappear doesn't even want to bother with these people.
What makes you afraid of them? Is playing their victim helping your narrative?
Which hashtags are trending right now, senpai?
They could be protesting against it instead. Without guns.
Average citizens are granted the right of the 2nd amendment, but what they are not allowed to do is steal land and threaten the government and anyone else in the surrounding area with their weapons
>Gunman" implies they intend to shoot someone
No, filming farewell videos to their families where they tell them they don't expect to see them again and then holing up in a federal facility with guns is what implies they intend to shoot someone.
By this flipflopping liberal logic the chinese shop owners that were exercising their 2A rights during the LA riots were terrorists.
You photoshop savy boredom havers should be making fake occupy democrats/similar images comparing these militia members to the chinese shop owners and calling them terrorists.
Much like those fake brady campaign 'rape isn't an excuse for murder' images /k/ did.
>T E R R O R I S M
No, black person. Grow up
You dont argue with the federalist fascists using signs and billboards. Because that's not going to help anyone.
Because these jackboots already have weapons and are more than ready use them on defenseless people.
You fight fire with fire.
But the second amendment right guarantees their right to bear arms, and the First Amendment their right to assemble peaceably. They haven't brandished their weapons or shot at anyone, they haven't even flipped any burning cars or looted storefronts.
They _are_ protesting. They also happen to be armed in case any government agent gets it into his silly little head that his name is Rambo like the FBI faggots did at Waco or Ruby Ridge.
>what they are not allowed to do is steal land and threaten the government
Yet that is the express purpose the founders included the 2nd Amendment. Preventing government tyranny.
Why not with guns? Do guns trigger you anon? Does it bother you that these men can actually stand up for themselves? Obviously they have no intention of causing unnecessary violence or they would have stormed an occupied building and killed people.
The BLM literally runs around threatening people with phony terrorism charges and hired guns in order to steal peoples land. The irony of your statement is not lost to me.
>not allowed to do is steal land
When did occupying federal buildings which has been a form of protest since the founding of the country turn into "stealing" land? Do you not know what the word stealing actually means?
Does that mean that smoking pot or meth is a terrorist act? Kind of makes sense giving the War on Drugs.
>filming farewell videos to their families where they tell them they don't expect to see them again and then holing up in a federal facility with guns is what implies they intend to shoot someone.
Actually, my ignorant Burger anon, that implies they think the government is going to try and kill them all. Which it's not like the US.gov has never tried murdering it's own citizens in cold blood before.
That's right friend. Those fags that keep shouting terrorists are statists and braindead degenerates.
These protestors are making a George Washington style last stand against tyranny the US constitution does NOT grant the federal government the authority to seize land that belongs to the states. Federally owned one does NOT belong to the people, because the government will control the land and all the resources. It's just another plot of the government to control every aspect of our lives.
no, if they are terrorists, then all whites are terrorists
oh wait, that is their argument
Didn't you already comment this? Why post twice?
The men are armed. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but these guys stormed a place with their weapons as a sign of intimidation. We have the rights to carry our guns to defend ourselves, but not to use them maliciously like that.
It looks like a threat to me.
You've got me all wrong, I'm looking at this and seeing a misuse of gun rights as a "terror tactic". Correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm all ears ameribro
They don't need to, they just make up evidence and sentence them to death.
they've done nothing that could possibly be considered terrorism. they aren't terrorizing anyone. they have a beef and they're making it known. it's even less of a nuisance than all those faggots blocking traffic in the cities.
>I know the culture better than you even will, ausfaggot.
I'm sure you do, being a redneck yourself.
>ARSON IS TERRORISM
Prove they were poaching nigger. You do believe in innocent until proven guilty in the court of law right?
Oh wait. They were never charged with poaching and poaching has literally nothing to do with this debacle.
I'm not even going to bring up how you honestly believe a minor case of accidental arson is literally terrorism.
throwing a tantrum because you can't start forest fires on federal land and poach animals on federal land isn't a real issue.
Its just retards throwing a tantrum because the government wont let them have free stuff.
How the fuck do you loot nature?
How the fuck do arsonists burn nature down then loot the ashes?
Do you even think before you write or are you just a talking point regurgitating bot?
actually, its really anti-american. Bundy doesn't like paying taxes on federal land? I guess he doesn't recognize the United States government as lawful. He waves the flag while refusing to abide buy the laws that makes this country possible. You're secessionists, you literally just too fucking retarded to fucking get it.
You don't know the facts of the situation. Why are you making this judgment after, at best, having read a couple of fucking news articles from the same biased media that brought you the zimmerman trial?
A terror tactic would be them giving anyone a reason to fear them. You shouldn't fear them any more than you should fear a guy carrying a concealed weapon, legally.
It's literally a legal way of saying "hey we're ready and willing to defend ourselves against threats to our own safety". The only people that need to fear them are people who threaten their own safety.
Try reading the initial head to those bullet points m8, you might learn something.
>you get it AussieBro
No one among these mem is going to start any shit for keks. However, they are ready for any outcome. I'm thinking they have the surrounding 30 miles pretty well scouted out for any kind of force wanting to intervene. The US government may be doing whatever it likes abroad, but here at home we have a few rules to follow. The militia is using our 2nd amendment to uphold our rights and constitution, nothing more, nothing less. Double jeopardy, being tried for the same crime twice, is what this is about. Fair treatment by our courts is paramount to civility. Anyone who want to change those rules, needs to go talk with some protesters over in Bend.
Lol, one dissenting opinion and the whole world is up in flames.
So instead of signaling and counter signaling; I'm going to attempt to see what the general consensus is:
They are allowed to open carry their weapons due to the rights granted by the second amendment, and because of that, what they are doing now is simply a protest against a harsh government executive decision, correct?
So the main disagreement of my original statement was that I was viewing their use of open carrying their rifles as an intimidation tactic, but in reality they were just exercising their rights while protesting at the same time?
Otoh, here's one for your copypasta files:
Don't think the government would try to kill you?:
>"It's okay when we do it!"
lol go kill yerself you communist whore.
I already know how to argue with your kind, it these arguments are executed using blades and bullets.
>these guys stormed a place with their weapons as a sign of intimidation
They entered an empty building. You need to read the dictionary definition of "stormed" before using that word.
>We have the rights to carry our guns to defend ourselves
And that is exactly what those people are doing with those guns.
>It looks like a threat to me.
No, it FEELS like a threat to you, even though it's not.
>I'm looking at this and seeing a misuse of gun rights
Then you need glasses.
How could you ever appeal a conviction if it were required to be ongoing? That doesn't make any sense at all as it would exclude any appeal at all.
They haven't served their time yet as they were resentenced to five years. They were never fined, but settled a separate civil case. Arson is not a 'small infraction'.
The trial court ruled they were unconstitutional. The appellate court reviewed and overruled the trial court. That is how appeals work.
They agreed to a settlement to resolve the separate civil suit. How can I object to that?
>due to the rights granted by the second amendment
You should have paid attention in school. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant shit, it's supposed to constrain the government.
Do you even America, bro?
>They are allowed to open carry their weapons due to the rights granted by the second amendment, and because of that, what they are doing now is simply a protest against a harsh government executive decision, correct?
>So the main disagreement of my original statement was that I was viewing their use of open carrying their rifles as an intimidation tactic, but in reality they were just exercising their rights while protesting at the same time?
Essentially correct. They armed themselves in the likely case some political hack decided to attack them.
... So even when I'm agreeing with you, I'm still wrong?
Did you even read my comment? I realize that it is within their rights to express views against the government, and that them open carrying their weapons isn't as bad as I thought it was initially.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.
>They were never fined
they were fiined $400,000, 50% of which has been paid back.
>They entered an empty building.
That's a very kind way to describe breaking and entering
>And that (defend ourselves) is exactly what those people are doing with those guns.
You don't have a legal right to defend yourself during the commission of a crime, which the armed occupation of a federal facility is.
>No, it FEELS like a threat to you, even though it's not.
>The protest has prompted Harney County School District 3 to call off classes for the entire week, Superintendent Dr. Marilyn L. McBride said.
>"Schools will open on January 11," she said. "Ensuring staff and student safety is our greatest concern."
Seems like it feels like a threat to people who actually live in the community.
The judge overseeing the case specifically called it a small infraction. It was a minor fire and there wasn't enough evidence to prove malicious intent. The judge himself said that the case was so minor that giving him the typical minimum sentence would be grossly unethical.
They DID serve time for setting the fires. A year and a half, as per the judges orders. In addition, they have fully paid off their fines.
It is unethical to demand that they do even more. Their trail AND PUNISHMENT are over and done. Combine this with the fact that the BLM is absolutely notorious for legally stiffarming people off their property and you can see why people are upset.
>That's a very kind way to describe breaking and entering
Who says they broke anything? Although I'm certain the government will claim it anyway.
>You don't have a legal right to defend yourself during the commission of a crime, which the armed occupation of a federal facility is.
I'd like you to show me the statute that states that "the armed occupation of a federal facility" is a crime.
>Seems like it feels like a threat to people who actually live in the community.
One school district releases a statement to calm some soccer moms, afraid of "safety" (of what and caused by whom we are not told), when the biggest danger is a government overreaction?
I think you need to think.
They are w-well respected marine veterans.