• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nevada Ranch Armed Standoff - Everyone vs The Feds

Page 45 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ivwshane said:
You spewing the same shit over and over and over again doesn't change the facts! You cannot return something to someone for which it was never theirs. How hard is it for to fucking understand that!

Your head is buried in the sand just like the other idiot spatiallyaware.


Look out the proggies are coming!!
Click to expand...
Well - I did say you could TRY . . .
 
werepossum said:
Agreed.


There was no violence; ergo it's a peaceful display. This was people arming to stop the federal government from perceived tyranny. Without that right, we are property.

Of course, it remains to be seen if their cause is ultimately determined by society to be just or unjust. The mere fact of arming to stop perceived tyranny does not in and of itself make one right or wrong. But either way it's a far, far cry from blowing up a building full of innocents.
Click to expand...

I don't think the jury is still out on this and whether or not the actions of the BLM constitute "tyranny." Bundy's position is pretty clearly untenable, as demonstrated by the repeated court rulings against him. In light of that, I do not find it a peaceful or patriotic exercise for him to assemble an armed militia in an effort to scare the federal government out of enforcing the law, and I don't see it as philosophically different from the Oklahoma City bombing - where it differs (and it obviously does) is in degree. This is not patriotic protest, it is an ugly, lawless might-makes-right exercise that has more in common with the actions of a lynch mob than those of Gandhi or MLK. I consider this domestic terrorism.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
I don't think the jury is still out on this and whether or not the actions of the BLM constitute "tyranny." Bundy's position is pretty clearly untenable, as demonstrated by the repeated court rulings against him. In light of that, I do not find it a peaceful or patriotic exercise for him to assemble an armed militia in an effort to scare the federal government out of enforcing the law, and I don't see it as philosophically different from the Oklahoma City bombing - where it differs (and it obviously does) is in degree. This is not patriotic protest, it is an ugly, lawless might-makes-right exercise that has more in common with the actions of a lynch mob than those of Gandhi or MLK. I consider this domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...

That's a bit far. What terrorism? Who was terrorized? The protestors, armed or not, were very much on the defensive; terrorism is by definition an offensive act designed to achieve a political objective by economically disrupting and/or physically harming a population. That simply didn't occur here. As for "might makes right", that's the slogan of the federal government; often in spite of its own laws.

Personally I have zero problem with anything that make the federal government think twice when using force or the threat of force against its citizens. To me the government's actions are akin to a SWAT team serving a no-knock search warrant for a minor drug charge, and finding the house filled with armed civilians who point guns at them and tell them to leave.
 
Last edited:
irishScott said:
That's a bit far. What terrorism? Who was terrorized? The protestors, armed or not, were very much on the defensive; terrorism is by definition an offensive act designed to achieve a political objective by economically disrupting and/or physically harming a population. That simply didn't occur here.

Personally I have zero problem with anything that make the federal government think twice when using force or the threat of force against its citizens. To me the government's actions are akin to a SWAT team serving a no-knock search warrant for a minor drug charge, and finding the house filled with armed civilians who point guns at them and tell them to leave.
Click to expand...

The first definition I find on Google (dictionary.com) defines terrorism as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." That is precisely what occurred here. Bundy and his cronies illegally used an armed militia and the threat of loss of life to deter federal officers from doing their jobs in a manner totally consistent with the law.

As for your example, as far as I'm concerned any civilians who greet a uniformed SWAT team by pointing guns at them and telling them to leave are committing a serious crime, and a stupid one in that it's likely to get them killed. Moreover, this situation was far removed from a no-knock warrant served in the middle of the night - Bundy has been fighting this battle unsuccessfully in the courts for decades and knew this day would come. The BLM was acting openly, in uniform, and in broad daylight.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
The first definition I find on Google (dictionary.com) defines terrorism as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." That is precisely what occurred here. Bundy and his cronies illegally used an armed militia and the threat of loss of life to deter federal officers from doing their jobs in a manner totally consistent with the law.

As for your example, as far as I'm concerned any civilians who greet a uniformed SWAT team by pointing guns at them and telling them to leave are committing a serious crime, and a stupid one in that it's likely to get them killed. Moreover, this situation was far removed from a no-knock warrant served in the middle of the night - Bundy has been fighting this battle unsuccessfully in the courts for decades and knew this day would come. The BLM was acting openly, in uniform, and in broad daylight.
Click to expand...

Meh, I'm going off the definition my Ethics professor taught me. And if we're going to play semantics, your definition states "violence and threats". There was not violence, only threats. The use of threats alone to achieve political purposes is not terrorism.

My example was meant to analogize the overuse of force, however technically "legal" it might be. The ATF was operating in broad daylight and in uniform at WACO, and you'll note WACO & Ruby Ridge were openly cited as reasons for The BLM backing off. And actually if you believe you are about to be the victim of police brutality resulting in loss of life or serious injury you are (in every jurisdiction I'm aware of) legally allowed to respond with lethal force; whether that's advisable or not depends on the situation.

Bundy is an idiot and is clearly in the wrong, but I think this sets a helpful precedent for tempering law enforcement's use of force/seizure.

http://time.com/63528/the-armed-rebellion-on-a-nevada-cattle-ranch-could-be-just-the-start/

“There was no need to have a Ruby Ridge,” says Patrick Shea, a Utah lawyer and former national director of BLM, invoking the bloody 1992 siege at a remote Idaho cabin, which became a rallying cry for the far right. Shea praises BLM’s new director, Neil Kornze, for defusing the conflict and skirting the specter of violence. There are plenty of ways for the government to recoup the money Bundy owes, Shea says, from placing liens on his property to collecting proceeds when the cattle go to slaughter. When you have been waiting a generation to resolve a dispute, what’s another few weeks?
Click to expand...
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
lead.jpg

w2-ranch-a-20140414-870x602.jpg

Pictured: Peaceful display.
Click to expand...


It's the coward with his troll and run. Remember when you foolishly made the thread about gun rights supporters "intimidating" the gun control crowd and you were proven wrong. You didn't admit you were wrong and ran away.

Also there weren't any shots fired and nobody was killed so it was peaceful.

Stewox said:
Great find ...

Mainstream media busy at work only showing what they can twist.
Click to expand...

You're dealing with a leftist troll who is very selective about the sources he uses.
 
Incorruptible said:
Also there weren't any shots fired and nobody was killed so it was peaceful.
Click to expand...

It was extremely violent. It is tearing apart the fabric of society and causing others to support similar white supremacist militia type activities. The guy with the gun lying down on the interstate needs to be deported back to where he came from.

A lot of these militia types want to die as martyrs, similar to Islamic terrorists. They should be treated the same.
 
werepossum said:
Agreed.


There was no violence; ergo it's a peaceful display.
Click to expand...

I think your definition of violence is artificially narrow and selective. My guess is if a lot of armed someones came to your place of employment and pointed weapons at you over some perceived slight, encroachment, or violation of their rights, to the point you had to flee for fear of your safety you wouldn't be of the opinion that it was peaceful. Am I wrong?

Someone else said that this was a defensive action; that is inaccurate. If they had remained on his property and only threatened those who approached, you might be able to call that defensive but as they approached and threatened federal workers on federal lands that is pretty much the definition of aggressive behavior.

Also, in counter to the claim they were not violent, not every definition of violence requires harm to take place:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
 
irishScott said:
Bundy is an idiot and is clearly in the wrong, but I think this sets a helpful precedent for tempering law enforcement's use of force/seizure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they tried working with him:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch

In April 2012, court records indicate that a final administrative effort was made on the part of the BLM to resolve the alleged trespass on the tracts—including the federal lands traditionally used by the Bundy family and additional federal lands the Bundy family began using without permission on or around 2000. According to testimony, federal agents attempted to broker a deal involving the Clark County Sherriff that would allow cattle to be wrangled and transported to a sales market of the Bundy family’s choosing and allow the family to keep all proceeds. Court filings referenced Cliven Bundy’s assertion that any such action to round up cattle could lead to a “range war.”
Click to expand...





Incorruptible said:
It's the coward with his troll and run. Remember when you foolishly made the thread about gun rights supporters "intimidating" the gun control crowd and you were proven wrong. You didn't admit you were wrong and ran away.

Also there weren't any shots fired and nobody was killed so it was peaceful.
Click to expand...

Speaking as a gun owner and enthusiast, I consider anyone aiming a gun at me to be a violent act, and any responsible person should as well.

At very least he should have been arrested for brandishing a firearm. This is the kind of person who makes 2nd amendment supporters look bad.
 
MrPickins said:
Yeah, they tried working with him:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch









Speaking as a gun owner and enthusiast, I consider anyone aiming a gun at me to be a violent act, and any responsible person should as well.

At very least he should have been arrested for brandishing a firearm. This is the kind of person who makes 2nd amendment supporters look bad.
Click to expand...

Him pointing the gun at them was stupid and he should be arrested. He shouldn't be arrested just for brandishing it though.

Also the militia came AFTER the BLM decided to act like idiots sending in 200 armed agents and snipers. Pointing the gun at them was stupid but it doesn't excuse the BLM using a taser on them.
 
He's been breaking the law for many years and knows it and just being a media nutcase.

End of story.

The Government backed off, to avoid another Waco type thing.
 
MongGrel said:
He's been breaking the law for many years and knows it and just being a media nutcase.

End of story.

The Government backed off, to avoid another Waco type thing.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The last thing this country needs right now is another Waco followed by another Oklahoma City. A lot of kids died at Waco and in Oklahoma City.
 
Incorruptible said:
Him pointing the gun at them was stupid and he should be arrested. He shouldn't be arrested just for brandishing it though.
Click to expand...

NRS 202.320  Drawing deadly weapon in threatening manner.

1.  Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person having, carrying or procuring from another person any dirk, dirk-knife, sword, sword cane, pistol, gun or other deadly weapon, who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any of such deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense, or who in any manner unlawfully uses that weapon in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec320

It doesn't state the degree of misdemeanor, but it's likely to enough to be an arrestable offense.

Also the militia came AFTER the BLM decided to act like idiots sending in 200 armed agents and snipers. Pointing the gun at them was stupid but it doesn't excuse the BLM using a taser on them.
Click to expand...

In case you missed it earlier:

Bundy’s son (in a ball cap and white/blue plad shirt) then crashed his ATV into the path of a BLM truck forcing it to stop. This caused police to converge (including a nearby K9 unit) on the stopped vehicle and Bundy’s son failed to comply with their instruction to move the ATV. Bundy’s son then attempts to kick a K9 unit so the officers tased him (he is later seen with a bloody shirt from one of the prongs that was in his upper torso). When the officers then attempted to move the ATV themselves Bundy’s son reached for the ATV controls resulting in the Sherriff to tase him two more times.
Click to expand...

http://sheepdogusa.wordpress.com/20...ven-bundy-ranch-and-the-wolves-on-both-sides/
 
Incorruptible said:
It's the coward with his troll and run. Remember when you foolishly made the thread about gun rights supporters "intimidating" the gun control crowd and you were proven wrong. You didn't admit you were wrong and ran away.

Also there weren't any shots fired and nobody was killed so it was peaceful.



You're dealing with a leftist troll who is very selective about the sources he uses.
Click to expand...

Coward? Leftist troll? Just give me some women and children to hide behind in a shootout and I'll prove I'm just as brave a patriot as these guys are.
 
One of the interesting things I have noticed about how people have reacted to this is how people seem to selectively react to what Mr. Bundy is and what he represents in this situation. In particular, for most of this debate by the supporters of this action, Mr. Bundy has been treated as an individual, a private person standing up to the government. What is less often acknowledged is that in this he more of a business than a person, that is the dispute is over a practice of his business and the property taken therein. Neither Mr. Bundy's person nor his personal affects were ever under threat, only ever property related to his business. By extension then, the "patriots"(!) that came out to protect him, weren't really so much protecting him as protecting his business.

I was thinking about this a lot, actually, and I think this is why while I dislike the government and am generally a big fan of civil disobedience, I'm not supportive of what took place here. For the first time I can recall, a business effectively raised an army to defy a court order through the threat and force of arms. If he were to get away with this, it won't happen but supposing, what is to stop the next business from doing the same thing? This time the army showed up for ideological reasons but why they are there doesn't really matter, so much as what they are doing. If the next business pays a thousand armed individuals to keep police from seizing records for an investigation or from collecting evidence of misconduct it isn't all that much different than if those people had showed up because they believed in the business or believed in whatever cause the business claimed to be promoting.

This to me is the worrying precedent here because this isn't a situation in which we have a popular or populist movement defying tyranny but rather a business being able to use the force of arms to break the laws of a democratic society. That's why I'm not getting as excited about setting a benchmark for making the government back down because they did it with a defacto private army. Democracies are accountable to the voters, businesses are not.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
I want free land too!
Click to expand...

It belongs to their respective States.

Let's make a deal. Congress gets to decide this issue, but they can only require the Western States surrender as much percentage of land as the greatest amount the Feds own in the rest of the nation. Reality check for you, that'd be 13%. Not 86%! Let's play nice, Feds can have up to 15% of a State. No reason to settle for less.
 
Last edited:
Abraxas said:
According to said state's own constitution, no it doesn't and never will.
Click to expand...

A simple change of heart can remedy that. That's what Mr. Bundy's situation is. A watershed moment to make people stop and realize their States got screwed over. All they have to do is choose to seize the initiative and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

Stamp it on a political movement and our support will grow. Just another piece of the puzzle on how we campaign to take back this country from fascist Republicans and Democrats in DC. State's rights are civil rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top