Forums / Discussion / General

Some 150 men had occupy a federal building in Oregon Hastag News Source

This men's are far-winged extrimist who is lead by This Guy in the video
CNN call this is an armed protest

While other call it a Militia or even an act of terrorism.

What do you guys think?

150 men armed with assault rifles break into a federal building and is willing to use violence if they claim provocation.
>Armed Protest

Well we're kicking off 2016 just right, aren't we?

Funny, all those extremists were like "gay marriage will lead to people overthrowing the government".
Now something even slightly resembling said "overthrow" happens, and why? An arson case.
Also, how is using force to occupy a federal building going to help anyone do anything remotely constructive? I just… I just don't understand. If anything, this reminds me more of a five year old taking their dad's car keys "hostage" until they get that thing that they wanted.

Three Days? Well, it was better than 2014.

yeah bro FUCK 2016 this shit that everyone is going to care about for probably a good week tops is a clear indicator that 2016 is horrible where's 2017 maybe next year I'll actually do things with my life and it'll be better then this godawful year

Yea, we get it, 2016 just started and something bad happened. Did you think 2016 was the year of world peace?

I don't fully understand what they are even protesting.

we just fukkin STARTED u crybaby

Honestly, this is just a stupid, vapid act done by a bunch of stupid, vapid people. Sure, there might be something wrong with the government taking their land, but this is just unnecessary.

Guys stop derailing. This isn't about 2016, it's about the fact that a group of 150 right-winged american with assault rifle occupy a federal building and most news media aren't taking this seriously.

Basically two Oregon ranchers set some fires on government-owned land. They claimed they did it to prevent invasive plants from coming onto their property. They were arrested for arson, and served some time in jail. When they were released, a state judge decided they should be rearrested and serve a longer sentence, as he felt the federal sentence was too lenient.

After this, Cliven Bundy's three sons rallied an Oregon anti-government militia to occupy a government building in a wildlife reserve, and say they intend to stay there as long as is necessary, in defense of the ranchers.

Least, that's what I got out of all this.

Government-owned land that they were leasing from the BLM.* It's a fairly important factor. The second incident of "arson" was a backfire they started in response to a wildfire started by lightning, they were trying to save their winter feed. The judge who resentenced them did so on the basis that they're "ecoterrorists" who intentionally set fire to federal land… which they did but not as arson, they were doing exactly what the BLM's own land managers do to protect their livelihood, hence the originally reduced sentence.

Wait a second? Can a judge really rearrest someone for a crime after they already served their sentence just because he thought it was too lenient? Doesn't that violate Double Jeopardy? I mean, you can't punish a person twice for the same crime, nor increase their sentence once the sentence is already being served. This seems highly unconstitutional and highly worrying that a judge took it upon themselves to increase a sentence because of personal feelings.

I'm hunkering down before the arguments shift to gun control.

Looking into this a bit, a few notes:

- The dude who was interviewed by CNN gave me a Sovereign Citizen vibe. Was talking vaguely about "people owning the land" and "our constitutional rights" instead of addressing the question of what they want to leave the area. It wouldn't surprise if this would escalate especially considering Bundy's dad.
- The issue seems to stem from conflict between government owned wildlife preserves and farmland. What's frustrating to me is I feel almost as if he had made his point when the first two guys were convicted an agreement could have been reached, but whatever. I also find it pretty frustrating that the people involved think the gvmnt. is just "building fancy parks" because that's not the point, and it's also why they got charged with arson, but whatever.

tl;dr A legitimate issue is here of the people vs the state but leave it to people who are clearly uneducated on American government and who warp the Constitution to mean "me first" to completely obfuscate this issue.

I'd hardly call it an attack or act of terrorism, though if I recall carrying firearms on public federal grounds is illegal. Though I'm fairly certain that may vary county-to-county.

They were originally sentenced under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which is a 5 year minimum sentence. The original judge didn't assign the minimum because he didn't feel they were terrorists. The BLM appealed that decision and now they're being forced to go back and serve the minimum.

The Hammonds are the only ranch left in the area who refuse to sell out to the BLM, who tried to buy out the whole area to make it a wildlife refuge. The water and grazing land they'd been using for decades was now federally regulated, etc etc. It's a mess. So they go to court, the BLM lawyer gets 6 days to present evidence/etc. The Hammonds attorney got 1.

So now the Bundy kids (a similar story of the BLM attempting to buy out an area and force those who won't off it by restricting their access) are holing up in the wildlife refuge building that controls the refuge at the center of this argument. It was empty for the holiday, there are no hostages etc, they're not destroying anything, they're just occupying. Media won't cover a lawful peaceful protest featuring citizens of the State taking a stand against the federal government, as is their Constitutional right. Don't want anyone else getting the idea that they have power.

Break into a federal building, albeit a small one in the middle of nowhere.
>Lawful

Being armed with assault rifles and stating publicly you're willing to kill people.
>Peaceful

What does BLM stand for in this case? All I can think of is "Black Lives Matter" and U'm not quite sure that fits. Thank you in advance for helping me with my ignorance.

Bureau of Land Management

Occupying is a legitimate form of protest. It's a public building. You notice nobody has tried to evacuate them? It's the same reason nobody could move Black Lives Matters from public college administrators offices. They're also all ex military and have the right to be armed, especially in a public building where they have no right to enforce gun free zones. There are no laws being broken, thus lawful. They stated they'll use their rights to defend themselves if anyone tries to forcibly remove them and infringe upon their first amendment protest rights. Also a lawful statement. The police know these rights and have responded by saying they intend to resolve the issue peacefully.

BLM = Bureau of Land Management.

Bad comparison, those protesters didn't BREAK INTO those offices. The wildlife refuge is public property, yes, but you still can't just walk in whenever you like when no one's there let alone break in. Secondly, they can try to claim self-defense all they want, but admitting that you're WILLING to kill people over this throws any pretext of a peaceful protest out the window and teeters towards outright terrorism.

That's what occupying means bruh. You enter and occupy a public building without permission. They specifically waited until it was closed because otherwise it would be an active invasion and hostage situation and they'd be taken out by the police. These people know EXACTLY what they're doing, rest assured.

All they did was make a public statement reinforcing their right to protest and their willingness to defend that right. Speech isn't illegal. Acting on it would surely bring us into a grey area but, as we can see, the police are aware of the legality of this event and are doing exactly what the law says they must, which is peaceful negotiation atm.

This is what it looks like when people who understand the Constitution stand up for state rights. The local and state police are probably on their side tbh.

A couple of generalized insights from someone who has worked for a federal land agency.

-The Bureau of Land Management is an agency that manages land owned by the United States' Federal government. It permits leases,, and regulates activities such as mining, drilling, and grazing on some federal public lands. It has a different mission than the National Park Service, the US Forest Service, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

-Across all agencies, Federal land management in the US is a mess and has been for over a century. The US government has not enforced regulations consistently, and in some cases not at all. This is not always the fault of the government, since the regulations are often poorly worded and open to legal interpretation. Different administrations enact different policies, making consistent management impossible. Furthermore, these agencies lack the manpower and efficiency to consistently enforce regulations in some of the most remote locations in the country. As a result, multiple generations of some families have been allowed to engage in activities that were not legally permitted, or used the land without following regulation. For example, some ranchers have been tacitly allowed to graze in areas without permission for decades. Complicating the issue is the fact that some people, by being present on certain lands before it was owned by the government, had some rights grandfathered to them. These rights are not always transferable to descendants, which is something descendants tend to get upset about.

-In recent decades, the Federal government has started to increase both the number of regulations and the enforcement of those regulations on federal lands. This has, understandably, upset people whose families have been using the same land in the same way for decades. Under recent administrations, particularly the Obama administration, use of (and in some cases access to) federal lands has been much more controlled.

Now this may not sound like a big deal, but look up a map of federal lands owned up the United States and you'll find that in some Western states, such as Utah, the US government actually owns over half the land. There is a huge amount of tension between residents, state governments, and the federal agencies over how to use these lands. We're talking about millions of acres of land and billions of dollars in potential mineral and grazing rights in states without much economic development.

In addition, you have the added headache of family identity. Many of these people have grown up as ranchers and miners, and feel like their way of life and their heritage is being stolen from them. They aren't exactly right, since some of them have been criminally using the land, but they aren't exactly wrong either since they have been allowed to use the land for multiple generations.

It's a big mess we've inherited from past generations, and a mess on which both sides are kind of right both sides are kind of wrong. As the agencies have tried to clean the messes up, it's led to a lot of tough decisions and hard feelings. I've seen first-hand how emotional the arguments get, and it always because all parties involved truly do love the land in dispute. It's extremely hard for people not directly involved in the legal battles to understand, but the fight is more than about being able to graze cattle or drive a truck on a beach. It's about big, fundamental issues like freedom and family.

What I recommend is to not stereotype the sides in these types of cases. Often, the "kooks" opposing the government are kooks, but they also just as often have legitimate grievances about how the federal government has treated them. At the same time, the government is often right in the larger sense that the people shouldn't be doing whatever they've been doing. And often the people who get yelled at for the government policies aren't responsible for the policies, they're almost always seasonal employees who love the outdoors and don't have a say in the matter.

That being said, while I don't know enough about this case to be sure what happened I am not defending taking over a building at gunpoint, so please don't take what I've said as being for or against anyone in this case.

Where have they stated that they are willing to kill people? Just toting a gun doesn't imply intent to kill.

Speech isn't illegal, but breaking and entering is, no matter how you try to spin it.

To Wisehowl: From the CNN article provided by Sgt. Green:

"We will be here as long as it takes," Bundy said. "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."

To Mangy Black Sheep : " Meaning they’re willing to open fire if they feel provoked. ", damn, and here I thought it meant " we would retaliate if force is used against us ", I didn"t see any part about " feeling provoked ".

Trespassing is as well.

Again speaking in general terms because I am not familiar enough with the details of this particular case, the fact that it is federal land doesn't mean you automatically have a right to assemble there.

In absolute terms, I think it should, but it doesn't work out that way and probably can't. Otherwise, people could squat on federal lands or occupy them in ways that cause damage. Access to nearly all federal lands is regulated, and if you want to demonstrate or protest there is a legal process for doing so. You're not supposed to be able take over public space in municipalities either without obtaining a permit, which is one of my issues with #blacklivesmatter protesters who often don't have permits to demonstrate.

Be honest, would that much for a group unhinged as this to act violently, but that's besides the point. The point is that this is not a "peaceful protest".

A bit of clarification. The building they're occupying isn't a "federal building" in the sense that most might think. That is, an office building that houses federal agencies. They're occupying the rural headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Has anyone been killed yet? Has anyone been harmed yet? Has anyone been detained against their will yet? Has anyone been verbally assaulted yet?

None of these from what I'm seeing have occurred. Which makes me wonder, how is this protest considered "not peaceful" if nothing violent occurs? Of the numerous protests that have gone on last year alone, this one seems remarkably civil as of now.

They're not unhinged just because they're armed. If they didn't have guns with them, the police would have removed them already and they would have accomplished nothing

I've worked in about a dozen buildings like this one. Under law it is a federal building, with all the same rules and regulations. I'd bet a hundred dollars there is a small visitor center with 3-4 exhibits and about a half dozen offices. I'd also bet that the half dozen offices are the only ones in the refuge, which is 187,000 acres.

It's also operated by the US Fish and WIldlife Service, and not the BLM.

Has anyone been killed yet? Has anyone been harmed yet? Has anyone been detained against their will yet? Has anyone been verbally assaulted yet?

Irrelevant, unless you believe fortifying a building you broke into while armed to the teeth and stating your intent to use violence in response to provocation is peaceful. Then by all means, believe it.

Now where the hell did it say they were fortifying the building, or what do you have to back up the "armed to the teeth" statement? You've been complaining about others spinning it while you've been spinning just as much.

Here is the occupiers' side of the story.

A guy in the area says it's closer to 15 people than 150 and they're not letting journalists onto the property.

@Mangy Black Sheep :
You were the one to put the quote, that says " if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves ". Maybe you don't see the difference between provocation and " force " here in the quote YOU provided, and then it's completly okay, but they are not saying they'll use violence in response to (peaceful) provocation. I'll paraphrase for your comprehension : " we would use force is force was used on us ". That's it. No mention of provocation.
But then again, maybe you really don't understand the quote you provided, and I'm being too adversarial.

Oregon ranchers at center of protest expected to report to prison.

But would you say it's truly necessary?

Sure man they can protest legally for all I care, but arming yourselves with assault rifles and stating you are willing to use them if necessary isn't exactly helping your cause cus that's what people are gonna focus on.

It's obviously necessary, they're going up against the feds. Public perception doesn't make a difference here. It obviously wont become a legitimate revolution, but that's the mindset, those are the rights they're invoking, those are the rules the "militia" and "government" characters involved are playing by.

Everyone seems aghast that the police don't just go in and shoot them up because they're obviously terrorists or criminals or whatever, some people are even saying they're being lenient just because the ranchers are white. That's how many people don't understand their own Constitutional rights. This isn't a bunch of dumbass radicals making moves on the fly, this is a carefully choreographed dance between state rights and federal mismanagement.

"Willing to use them if necessary" isn't what they said. They said they'd respond to force with force. If the feds don't start shooting, neither will they. The fact that they're armed is the only reason the feds are willing to negotiate in the first place. Ya'll literally looking at the reason the 2nd Amendment exists.

Yeah the whole "why aren't they terrorists" thing is bothering me too. It's like people don't have any knowledge of what revolts are actually like in the United States. The first time I heard of this I thought this was some sort of rebellion occurring at the building as a statement against the country. I understand it's fun for the media to play the "but he's WHIIIITE" card constantly but here it legitimately doesn't make sense.

Ultimately I think the difference here is that despite these guys being extremists they're not doing something "against the state" because they want to make the country a better place (as opposed to common US terrorists like ecoterrorists or sovereign cits who basically want to overthrow it). Same with the #BLM activists (which for some reason are constantly being compared to these guys????) but the problem is how they're going about it. As previously stated in this thread these issues are coming up because of legitimate problems with infrastructure but this won't fix anything.

I'd say those people hoping for the feds to kill them all are cheering for another waco siege/massacre to occur, but I doubt most of them even know what waco is.

It’s obviously necessary, they’re going up against the feds.

Or they could just occupy the building without guns? That would do a lot to not make them look batshit insane.

That would also get their asses kicked out by the feds in ten minutes and accomplish nothing

That would also get their asses kicked out by the feds in ten minutes and accomplish nothing

If they have the right to do what they're doing, as they claim, then the feds shouldn't be allowed to move them. If they don't, then they wouldn't have any moral right to defend their occupation of the building with firearms. Tum te tum.

Right =/= permission (I have the right to own a gun, I don't have permission to walk around with it out in the open in public). Again, the definition of occupation is entering and remaining in a building without permission. Should they want to, the feds could justifiably remove them, just as the police could justifiably remove the Black Lives Matters protesters holed up in school offices. #BLM deflects this with pop culture. Is it worth the hassle that would come from a bunch of white cops forcibly removing a bunch of dumbass black kids and their white guilt shills from one office? Or is it easier to wait it out? The Bundy group deflects this with guns. Is it worth it to start a firefight, injure/kill people, destroy the property, etc? Or is it easier to try peacefully negotiating first? If they didn't have the guns it wouldn't be a question, they'd simply be removed.

We're talking about a protest that started because of someones fifth amendment rights being taken away and general abuses of power from the BLM to force people to sell their land (land rights which have been under attack in Oregon for quite some time mind you), I don't think people who would be so strongly against what they are doing will be so willing to do things the Governments way, especially since they've just clearly shown they don't care about the rights of the people anyhow.

What you're suggesting is that they get a permit to protest that requires them to picket outside, for a set amount of time, and make sure they allow the place to continue to function so the protest can just be ignored after the week on the news is over and continue to do the shit they've been doing?

Given the amount of shady shit that's been going down, with the restriction of water rights to the lop-sided time given to the lawyers, it's pretty clear that if they had even gotten the protest permit in the first place, it would be clear that it would be sided towards the state also, hence why they are doing things this way.

This isn't even about the Father and son being arrested twice so much as years of land disputes and the government agencies coercing people into selling their families land, most of the time at 5% of what it's actually worth.

I know people still have these shootings and terrorist attacks fresh in their minds when they look at this, but if you are protesting against a government that's abusing it's power and ignoring your rights, you sure as hell don't do it on their schedule.

Right =/= permission (I have the right to own a gun, I don’t have permission to walk around with it out in the open in public). Again, the definition of occupation is entering and remaining in a building without permission. Should they want to, the feds could justifiably remove them, just as the police could justifiably remove the Black Lives Matters protesters holed up in school offices.

If that's the distinction you're making, then what the protestors are doing isn't something they have any right to be backing up with force.

What you’re suggesting is that they get a permit to protest that requires them to picket outside, for a set amount of time, and make sure they allow the place to continue to function so the protest can just be ignored after the week on the news is over and continue to do the shit they’ve been doing?

What I would recommend is that they occupy the building like they're doing but without guns. It still forces the building to shut down, and also means there's no chance of any violent escalations occurring. This is what people sometimes call "Civil Disobedience."

The alternative, bringing guns, means that there's a significant likelyhood that the protestors will "have" to shoot police offers to defend themselves if the government decides to evict them, and also makes their cause untenable to bystanders who might otherwise support them. Such as myself.

What I would recommend is that they occupy the building like they’re doing but without guns.

So you want them to get immediately forced out by police in ten minutes without accomplishing anything.

and also makes their cause untenable to bystanders who might otherwise support them. Such as myself.

Only to those who think their rights are not worth fighting for

So you want them to get immediately forced out by police in ten minutes without accomplishing anything.

10 minutes? Unlikely. Keep in mind that even with guns, they could only stay in the building for as long as they had food and drink- 1-2 days? + More time for however many water bottles they brought.

Only to those who think their rights are not worth fighting for

The way in which they are fought for is also very important. Someone breaking into the senate and shooting all the democratic senators working on a gun regulation bill would be doing a good job of defending his right to arms, but that still would not make his actions moral or reasonable.

In this case, I have a hard time sympathizing with people who felt that it was necessary to make an armed protest knowing the chances that they would get into a firefight with innocent police officers was significant.

{ If that’s the distinction you’re making, then what the protestors are doing isn’t something they have any right to be backing up with force. }

Yes, they do. Civilians have the right to stand up to the federal government when it oversteps their authority. These people want the land turned over to the State, not themselves. The authorities are aware of this right. They have three options. Ignore this right and start a lethal firefight. Ignore the militia and let them sit in the building for however many years they're willing to sit in it. Mediate peaceful negotiation so the situation can be diffused, be it the militia giving up, the feds turning over the land, or some compromise. The presence of weapons forces the third option. They've deterred their rights being ignored and they've deterred the possibility for their argument to be ignored.

{ means that there’s a significant likelyhood that the protestors will “have” to shoot police offers to defend themselves if the government decides to evict them }

It's not defense if you're the aggressor bruh, every move they've made has specifically been taken to force this exact scenario. If they shoot first, the feds will swarm the place and they're all dead. The feds wont shoot first because they're not retarded. Both sides are perfectly willing to negotiate, which is all they ever intended.

{ also makes their cause untenable to bystanders who might otherwise support them }

They don't want/need your support. The public isn't voting on this, and the general public has no idea what it means to be a rancher/etc in the West where the federal government is declaring large swathes of land Reservations despite there being 0 Indians on the land, among other examples. The general public should, however, note how much more expensive beef has become over the past few years…

…but that's another thread.