Burns Oregon Refuge Takeover Ends In Blood

Like that stopped people before.

...oh, you meant legally.

My point was I'm not sure they would actually get out of prison, there is a long list of crimes they can and should be charged with.

...wait, what?

If anyone is caught with a gun after a felony conviction, it's a damn near guarantee that they will be arrested/sentenced with a longer prison sentence.

Then again, odds are good that any felon who has a gun in their possession is going to use it to commit more illegal acts, so their possession of a gun is moot....

It's shakey ground, but what your case is referring to is that 2 identical offenses made in the same event aren't exclusive crimes. Basically, if you sell someone 50 pills, it's not 50 crimes.

In the case of the arsonists, the conviction was pending appeal, so they weren't actually tried twice for the same crime, they were retried by a higher court after appeals were granted.

Neither of those are even constitutional law, it's just 2 different scenarios within criminal law, and neither of them have anything to do with double jeopardy.

That depends on the felony and the state. In many states, convicted felons never lose the right to own firearms, some states they only do for certain crimes, others they can petition to have those rights restored.

Now kneel before the Empire!

FBI releases video of shooting (Audio in video on the article page)

(no audio)

So yeah, he nearly killed an FBI agent with his truck, then he got out, put his hands up, then reached into his jacket pocket not once but twice, acting as if he was going for a gun which they have confirmed was present in that pocket. Good shooting.

There are 4 people left in the lodge, armed, they want to go home but want to take their guns with them and not be arrested.

Yeah, that's pretty cut and dry. Unless a body cam or dashcam video surfaces that shows a very different story, the officers really didn't have much choice.

Then they shouldn't have gotten in a pissing match with the FBI.

I'm less concerned with the pissing match and more with the whole armed takeover of a government property.

Personally, I think they should just label them domestic terrorists and raid the place. You know, like they would if they weren't white. Not to bring race into this but if it were any other race, they'd likely be calling this domestic terrorism.

I would tell them to leave their weapons and go home.

I get the whole lenience mentality, and I don't necessarily disagree, but they have broken quite a few laws.

And the primary ringleaders are in custody (or dead). Just let them go so you can get them off the news, which is all they ever wanted in the first place.

I think that fifteen minutes of fame should come with a heafty price tag, myself. *** em.

I would probably cut the power, cut the water, cut off everything. Then wait them out.

And the mail service, and the bloody internet that's still on for some reason

I think they should blast Justin Beiber songs 24 hours a day until they take their own lives after 20 minutes.

Yeah that works, remember us liberals are all for cruel and unusual punishment!

It does not matter what people say about the video or about the militamen now. The fact is that the FBI and the US Government have made martyrs out of them regardless of where things go from here.

Yeah, they did none of that.

Now:


There's arguments for, but not treason. But I know the statement isn't made to be factual.

There's these things called cell phones, they can access the internet now too.

I imagine they wanted to maintain a line of communication with them at the least.

More typical progressive thinking.

Just because you understand someone's motives and actions doesn't mean you agree or support those same motives and actions. It only means your a wiser and more knowledgeable person then someone who either doesn't understand or refuse's to understand those things.

Personally I don't agree with the tactics Bundy used though I understand the why of how of them. The government's been really overstepping it's bounds since 9/11 and people are getting fed up with it.

-.-

Warrant =/= convicted felon.

Seriously, get over yourself.

I would like to point out that at least preliminary searches reveal no website that even begins to discuss the BLM "forcing" people to sell land that isn't basically a conservative-to-ultra-conservative blogs.

I would not cite ThinkProgress or the Huffington Post as a valid news source and I won't accept the right wing equivalents as valid news sources either.

I just can't find any credible sources that are willing to backup this assertion of people being forced to sell land, let alone willing to go into detail about the why and how. Are they employing eminent domain? And under what premise?

I'm not about to defend government actions I'm not clear on, but I'm also not about to rush to the defense of "poor ranchers being forced to sell" when I can find no evidence of this being the case. I do know, from personal experience however, that a lot of the conservative rural population doesn't really understand how their own subsidies and suppressed fees from the government constitute a form of welfare/entitlement tailored to them.

As for my reference to mining or foresting, etc., I was citing that as an example of why I would never support selling federal land to private entities or even turning it over to the states. Those things would inevitably happen if the Bundys and their ilk got their way.

Seriously. Again I say, I am looking into this situation, I simply don't see anything that isn't a strongly-opinionated conservative/sovereign citizen-type blog saying what's being said in defense of these ranchers.

Yet I still admit I understand how they perceive themselves as slighted. Generations of being taught to play the victim will do that.