Militias in action

#2
#2
I don't know much about the specifics here, who's right, who's wrong, but the "God told me..." component in situations involving guns often doesn't end well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#5
#5
Cliven Bundys sons are leading the group. One has put up a FB video asking for help from other Militas. This will not end well for those goobers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Absolute morons.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But they do have a valid point of contention about the government getting out of control.

Militia takes over wildlife refuge HQ after peaceful Burns protest | News - Home

The militia groups traveled to Burns to show their support for father-and-son ranchers after a judge ruled they served too little time for setting fires that spread to government lands they leased to graze cattle.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each, as arson on federal land carries a mandatory minimum five-year prison term.

A prescribed burn in 2001 got out of hand, burning 127 acres.
Click to expand...

It's absolute BS how they have to go back to prison to serve more time just because some fumblenutz lawyer in DC wanted to make minimum jail times for certain crimes. They did time already, but that wasn't good enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9
#9
Obviously a false flag being perpetrated by 9/11 truthers and birthers whose strings are being pulled by the gay jewish muslim transgender northern Italian marionettest mafia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#12
#12
As GV pointed out, the 2 ranchers are getting railroaded. This is another case in which people have to stand up to the government to remind them who is in charge. I don't think these militias are idiots. There's a good chance they will wind up dead for this and I'm sure they are aware of that. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers had foreseen and expected us to do if we wanted to stay free, except too many of us are scared to stand up for what's right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#14
#14
davethevol said:
As GV pointed out, the 2 ranchers are getting railroaded. This is another case in which people have to stand up to the government to remind them who is in charge. I don't think these militias are idiots. There's a good chance they will wind up dead for this and I'm sure they are aware of that. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers had foreseen and expected us to do if we wanted to stay free, except too many of us are scared to stand up for what's right.
Click to expand...


Railroaded? They were indicted, tried, convicted. The son of one of them testified how he had him set fires to cover up their crimes.

They may not like eminent domain. This is not the way to deal with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#15
#15
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
But, the law is the law, right?
Click to expand...

It's a wee bit early for that nonsense. And I don't expect you to take the government's side here so why are you being insufferable this morning?

The simple fact is they served time for the original arson charge and were moving on with their lives. Yet some judge decided the length wasn't in accordance with a BS federal law and sends them back. It's also implied in almost every article they started the controlled burn on their property and it jumped to the BLM land.

I don't think seizing a federal building and holding it is the answer, but the brass tacks of the case are as ignorant as they can come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
Railroaded? They were indicted, tried, convicted. The son of one of them testified how he had him set fires to cover up their crimes.

They may not like eminent domain. This is not the way to deal with that.
Click to expand...

They already served their time and paid their fines. Now someone in Washington claims they are terrorists and must serve additional time. You make me sick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#18
#18
Grand Vol said:
It's a wee bit early for that nonsense. And I don't expect you to take the government's side here so why are you being insufferable this morning?

The simple fact is they served time for the original arson charge and were moving on with their lives. Yet some judge decided the length wasn't in accordance with a BS federal law and sends them back. It's also implied in almost every article they started the controlled burn on their property and it jumped to the BLM land.

I don't think seizing a federal building and holding it is the answer, but the brass tacks of the case are as ignorant as they can come.
Click to expand...

I'm not taking the governments side. I just see using force as the wrong move, it's no better than what the government does.

I'll admit to being facetious about "the law is the law" lol
 
#19
#19
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'm not taking the governments side. I just see using force as the wrong move, it's no better than what the government does.

I'll admit to being facetious about "the law is the law" lol
Click to expand...

Force is the only thing that will get the attention of the government. That's why they backed down at the Bundy Ranch. The People have not forgotten what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
Railroaded? They were indicted, tried, convicted.
Click to expand...

Yes, they certainly were indicted, tried and convicted. And served their time.

But that's not good enough for someone so they have to invoke a BS law about terrorism to put them back in?

How does this not violate the 8th Amendment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#21
#21
davethevol said:
Force is the only thing that will get the attention of the government. That's why they backed down at the Bundy Ranch. The People have not forgotten what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, there are better things to die for than some old geezers ranch.

Also, they should respond to violence with violence. By taking the building they are the aggressors.
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'm not taking the governments side. I just see using force as the wrong move, it's no better than what the government does.
Click to expand...

I think "force" is a stretch. Had they seized a building and were holding hostages, the conditions would certainly be different. But the building is not being used right now, everyone there is there by choice and nobody is getting hurt.

So in your An-Cap world, there is no victim at this time save the two going back to prison. Victims of a BS judgment that says they have to go back for more time because someone didn't do it the first time. And was there another trial to add this additional time after they had already been tried, convicted and sentenced?

No, there was not. So not only do we have a violation of the 8th Amendment, we also have a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments since no Due Process was used for this additional time. And it should have been done during the original trial.

Now I'll be more than happy to redact those statements if it's shown there was another trial that added more time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#23
#23
Where are you getting that they served a sentence already, and now have been sentenced to more for the same crime?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
Grand Vol said:
I think "force" is a stretch. Had they seized a building and were holding hostages, the conditions would certainly be different. But the building is not being used right now, everyone there is there by choice and nobody is getting hurt.

So in your An-Cap world, there is no victim at this time save the two going back to prison. Victims of a BS judgment that says they have to go back for more time because someone didn't do it the first time. And was there another trial to add this additional time after they had already been tried, convicted and sentenced?

No, there was not. So not only do we have a violation of the 8th Amendment, we also have a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments since no Due Process was used for this additional time. And it should have been done during the original trial.

Now I'll be more than happy to redact those statements if it's shown there was another trial that added more time.
Click to expand...

I don't care about their trial, I care about their supporters occupying property, while using arms to do so. It sets a very bad precedent, for the supposed Liberty movement.
People go to jail every day for bs reasons, I don't see armed people in the streets protesting then.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top