Guns, Cows, and the BLM

plavonica wrote:

Why isn't this guy behind bars yet?

He's white. Had he been black or brown the right would be screaming for his 47%er head.

OG_slinger wrote:
plavonica wrote:

Why isn't this guy behind bars yet?

He's white. Had he been black or brown the right would be screaming for his 47%er head.

If he were poor and black, they wouldn't bother with the whole bars thing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...

You can bet he's in the top 5%, OG. You don't run that much cattle without a lot of money flying around. Here's some more background on the situation. There's some interesting stuff there - bombs and the like. This is just the latest outbreak of the issue.

(For anyone who is wondering, the private cost of grazing cattle on rented land is $10-$29 per animal per month; the BLM charges about $1.35. States charge from $1.69 to about $100. This from here.)

If he requires rented land to graze his cattle, either he's just stealing from the government, or living beyond his means, if he doesn't pay. Either way, it's not good.

He's white. Had he been black or brown the right would be screaming for his 47%er head.

I hadn't initially realized it, but yes, that's a great example of rich white male privilege, on multiple fronts. Among the very smallest of examples, in a list as long as my arm: a weapon like that costs a hell of a lot of money.

Malor wrote:
Wasn't all that gearing up the police like the military and acquiring heavily armored multi-terrain vehicles supposed to prevent this sort of thing?

No, see, that's only for use against against civilians, not people with real weapons.

The sh*tty AK in that photo of the guy on the bridge wouldn't be worth a damn against an MRAP. The guy didn't have chem gear that I saw plus he was out in the wide open. BLM didn't want a massacre despite how much the ranchanistas seemed to want to be wiped out.

Eventually, you will see a full commitment to drones (ground and air) as well as remote weapon stations for armored vehicles.

Eventually, you will see a full commitment to drones (ground and air) as well as remote weapon stations for armored vehicles.

If it gets to that point, that's a colossal policy failure. Deploying military vehicles against your own citizens is abhorrent, short of dire, absolute emergency.

Malor wrote:

If it gets to that point, that's a colossal policy failure. Deploying military vehicles against your own citizens is abhorrent, short of dire, absolute emergency.

So is letting a group of people who are clearly in the wrong flaunt the rule of law purely because they have a lot of guns and have threatened to use them.

Either the law applies to Bundy and the government has the full authority to use whatever force is required to get him to comply or it doesn't and we all might as well live in Somalia.

Violence, as Asimov said, is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Sending in the military against its own people, short of utmost emergency, is one of the deepest possible failures for any government. It doesn't matter if they're "asking for it", that's just an excuse to justify abhorrent behavior.

Malor wrote:

Violence, as Asimov said, is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Sending in the military against its own people, short of utmost emergency, is one of the deepest possible failures for any government. It doesn't matter if they're "asking for it", that's just an excuse to justify abhorrent behavior.

Who said anything about sending in the military? This is a federal law enforcement issue.

Either Bundy willfully comply with the law and multiple court rulings or he'll be made to comply with the law and multiple court rulings. There is no he's "asking for it." This is simply where the rubber meets the road in a society that follows the rule of law. And if a law cannot (or will not) be enforced then it really doesn't exist (and the same thing could be said about the government who made the law).

OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

Violence, as Asimov said, is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Sending in the military against its own people, short of utmost emergency, is one of the deepest possible failures for any government. It doesn't matter if they're "asking for it", that's just an excuse to justify abhorrent behavior.

Who said anything about sending in the military? This is a federal law enforcement issue.

Either Bundy willfully comply with the law and multiple court rulings or he'll be made to comply with the law and multiple court rulings. There is no he's "asking for it." This is simply where the rubber meets the road in a society that follows the rule of law. And if a law cannot (or will not) be enforced then it really doesn't exist (and the same thing could be said about the government who made the law).

This. The law exists for a reason. You enforce it. If yahoos want to open fire on government workers for doing their jobs, they pay the consequences. If that means a "militia" goes stupid and gets wiped out, so be it.

You do not give ground to these people - now they have a victory to rally around, and carte blanche to start ignoring laws they don't like because they don't like the person we elected president. You do not lend creedence to insane beliefs.

Malor wrote:

Violence, as Asimov said, is the last refuge of the incompetent.

And scoundrels bank on the knowledge that their victims will be forced to act civil in the face of repeated offense.

Malor wrote:

Violence, as Asimov said, is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Sending in the military against its own people, short of utmost emergency, is one of the deepest possible failures for any government. It doesn't matter if they're "asking for it", that's just an excuse to justify abhorrent behavior.

So every time a police officer shoots a criminal in the line of duty they are just incompetent? I guess that doesn't make sense to me.

farley3k wrote:
Malor wrote:

Violence, as Asimov said, is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Sending in the military against its own people, short of utmost emergency, is one of the deepest possible failures for any government. It doesn't matter if they're "asking for it", that's just an excuse to justify abhorrent behavior.

So every time a police officer shoots a criminal in the line of duty they are just incompetent? I guess that doesn't make sense to me.

Pretty much this.

I have numerous friends in law enforcement and the idea that setting a dog on a White House fence jumper or putting a 7.62 round in the brainpan of someone dumb enough to pepper the front of the Presidential Palace with an AK is somehow an example of incompetence is, frankly, a little alien to me.

Perhaps I just don't speak Libertarian.

Note that we were talking about military vehicles. If you're setting your military, or your police armed like military, against your own citizens, YOU have the problem, not the citizens.

Xeknos wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

Violence, as Asimov said, is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Sending in the military against its own people, short of utmost emergency, is one of the deepest possible failures for any government. It doesn't matter if they're "asking for it", that's just an excuse to justify abhorrent behavior.

Who said anything about sending in the military? This is a federal law enforcement issue.

Either Bundy willfully comply with the law and multiple court rulings or he'll be made to comply with the law and multiple court rulings. There is no he's "asking for it." This is simply where the rubber meets the road in a society that follows the rule of law. And if a law cannot (or will not) be enforced then it really doesn't exist (and the same thing could be said about the government who made the law).

This. The law exists for a reason. You enforce it. If yahoos want to open fire on government workers for doing their jobs, they pay the consequences. If that means a "militia" goes stupid and gets wiped out, so be it.

You do not give ground to these people - now they have a victory to rally around, and carte blanche to start ignoring laws they don't like because they don't like the person we elected president. You do not lend creedence to insane beliefs.

Indeed. I was speculating on the quality of military technology that will become available to police units as a result of this fiasco.

One of the most insane claims I've seen recently is that the US Army's decision to remove AH 64's from National Guard arsenals was a plot to take away the state's ability to fight the regular Army.

This is preposterous for several reasons:
1. The equipment is property of the federal government "on loan" to a state command.

2. Federal military authority always supercedes state authority when it comes management of equipment. This includes stores of ammunition, fuel, replacement parts, and maintenance equipment.

3. The AH 64 is tactically ill equipped to "defend" anything. It is a Cold War offense airframe designed for tank busting. Small arms regularly bring them down... to say nothing of an AIM 9.

4. The belief that a given National Guard state command would openly support a local insurrection against the US Army is nuts.

So how does this relate? The mental gymnastics required to support these conspiracy theories is the of the same caliber required to steal off property and say it was yours all along.

Edit: And then claim victory after stating you were ready to use human shields.

Xeknos wrote:

This. The law exists for a reason. You enforce it. If yahoos want to open fire on government workers for doing their jobs, they pay the consequences. If that means a "militia" goes stupid and gets wiped out, so be it.

You do not give ground to these people - now they have a victory to rally around, and carte blanche to start ignoring laws they don't like because they don't like the person we elected president. You do not lend creedence to insane beliefs.

Right there with you, Xeknos

Malor wrote:

Note that we were talking about military vehicles. If you're setting your military, or your police armed like military, against your own citizens, YOU have the problem, not the citizens.

I think it depends. In any other context - say, during a peaceful demonstration - you would be correct.

But try pointing a loaded weapon at a law enforcement officer, without provocation, and something will happen - you very likely won't like the result. Law enforcement is intended to keep the peace, and idiots running around with weapons playing army are an unstable element.

Well, he said he's not a citizen...

Malor, I am responding from a tactical perspective. I am not talking about the political or strategic aspects.

It makes tactical sense to respond in such a manner. The violent rhetoric espoused by those groups can't and shouldn't be ignored. They have gone beyond speech and engaged in concrete, specific acts of violence.

You engage an enemy from a position of strength. Rules of engagement will be drafted, plans formulated, and then assests allocated.

Malor wrote:

Note that we were talking about military vehicles. If you're setting your military, or your police armed like military, against your own citizens, YOU have the problem, not the citizens.

I don't disagree with the worry about the militarization of the local police but these were not just a few folks armed with their hunting rifles and maybe a handgun or two.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Well, he said he's not a citizen...

Precisely. The moment they decided to arm themselves and oppose the government with firearms, they became insurgents -- not "civilians".

And that dumbass that shot up the front of the White House while my buddy was walking the yard? Yeah, the world would be a much better place if a sniper had splattered his head all over Lafayette Park.

Paleocon wrote:

Yeah, the world would be a much better place if a sniper had splattered his head all over Lafayette Park.

Disturbing.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah, the world would be a much better place if a sniper had splattered his head all over Lafayette Park.

Disturbing.

What I find disturbing is the near epidemic of entitled, gun toting "individualists" who think they can sponge off the largesse of the people and threaten folks with deadly weapons with impunity. The world would be a better place without them and some example setting would be a great place to start.

Paleocon wrote:

What I find disturbing is the near epidemic of entitled, gun toting "individualists" who think they can sponge off the largesse of the people and threaten folks with deadly weapons with impunity. The world would be a better place without them and some example setting would be a great place to start.

I agree with that feeling about the epidemic of ...etc...but I don't think killing them will really work. It just seems like it would feed into their paranoia about government overreach and make them more likely to hurt innocent people.

Right wing terrorism is already worse than Al Quaeda-related in the US, with 34 deaths since 9/11 compared to 21 for the Jihadists. (Left wing extremists have not been tied to any fatalities in the time period.)

Paleocon wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah, the world would be a much better place if a sniper had splattered his head all over Lafayette Park.

Disturbing.

What I find disturbing is the near epidemic of entitled, gun toting "individualists" who think they can sponge off the largesse of the people and threaten folks with deadly weapons with impunity. The world would be a better place without them and some example setting would be a great place to start.

I find both their attitude and the attitude that death is the most appropriate way to address the problems they cause to be disturbing.

Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah, the world would be a much better place if a sniper had splattered his head all over Lafayette Park.

Disturbing.

What I find disturbing is the near epidemic of entitled, gun toting "individualists" who think they can sponge off the largesse of the people and threaten folks with deadly weapons with impunity. The world would be a better place without them and some example setting would be a great place to start.

I find both their attitude and the attitude that death is the most appropriate way to address the problems they cause to be disturbing.

This. I have a hard time seeing a clear difference between "threaten folds with deadly weapons with impunity" and "the world would be a better place if --graphic description of their murder--."

Robear wrote:

Right wing terrorism is already worse than Al Quaeda-related in the US, with 34 deaths since 9/11 compared to 21 for the Jihadists. (Left wing extremists have not been tied to any fatalities in the time period.)

One of these days, I will remember not to read the comments and be deeply depressed by them.

OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

If it gets to that point, that's a colossal policy failure. Deploying military vehicles against your own citizens is abhorrent, short of dire, absolute emergency.

So is letting a group of people who are clearly in the wrong flaunt the rule of law purely because they have a lot of guns and have threatened to use them.

Either the law applies to Bundy and the government has the full authority to use whatever force is required to get him to comply or it doesn't and we all might as well live in Somalia.

We have no idea what plans the government currently has to eventually get Bundy, but for the time being I support the current stand-off approach. Some of Bundy's supporters have brought their families with them and have threatened to use said families as shields if the govt attacks. A full-on military assault would be a major tragedy. Worse yet, a guy who even Glenn Beck thinks is going off the deep end would become a martyr.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...

Finally, comparing any situation in current America to Somalia is nothing but hyperbole.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah, the world would be a much better place if a sniper had splattered his head all over Lafayette Park.

Disturbing.

What I find disturbing is the near epidemic of entitled, gun toting "individualists" who think they can sponge off the largesse of the people and threaten folks with deadly weapons with impunity. The world would be a better place without them and some example setting would be a great place to start.

I find both their attitude and the attitude that death is the most appropriate way to address the problems they cause to be disturbing.

This. I have a hard time seeing a clear difference between "threaten folds with deadly weapons with impunity" and "the world would be a better place if --graphic description of their murder--."

It is hardly "murder" if they are killed while perpetrating an unambiguous violent act with the intent of killing or otherwise harming others.

Had someone shot Tim McVeigh in the face before he could pull the trigger on the bomb that killed 168 people (including 19 children), the world would be a better place for it.