Guns, Cows, and the BLM

jdzappa wrote:

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.

The government wouldn't attack. It would be executing a valid court order.

By saying that the government would "attack" you are buying into the idea that Bundy and his supporters are some kind of patriots fighting the good fight against an oppressive and illegitimate power. They aren't. Bundy is a common thief and his supporters are all guilty of impeding law enforcement from doing the job we all pay them to do (and, apparently, child endangerment now).

Bundy has already reached martyr status thanks to right wing web sites and media. They have spent the past six years spreading fear and paranoia about the government--everything from FEMA death camps to Obama declaring himself dictator for life--to a very specific segment of the population who make the Tea Partiers seem like intelligent and reasonable folks. Bundy has become their rallying cry. They want a conflict.

And, no, it's not hyperbole to claim that what's happening in Nevada is like Somalia. There you have a weak central government who can't do anything because it doesn't have the power to stand up against local bands of armed men. The only difference is that in Somalia they're called warlords and in Nevada they call themselves militias. The end result is the same: if a government is too weak to enforce its laws then there really aren't any laws at all and that leaves everything up for grabs to whoever has the biggest stick.

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.

Seems like that boat sailed when we began drastically weakening the government's ability to keep military grade equipment out of the hands of civilians.

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.

Cool so MOVE was a justified example of what happens when you mess with the rule of law.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
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.

Cool so MOVE was a justified example of what happens when you mess with the rule of law.

I believe the use of force against MOVE was authorized. Dropping a Syrian style barrel bomb on a bunch of kids? Not so much. And had they shot at police officers or civilians, I would have had no problem with police snipers putting bullets in brain pans.

In order to make the two comparable, we would have to drop a JDAM on the Bundy ranch.

This thread keeps making me giggle when I read "Bundy ranch" as "Brady Bunch".

Also:

IMAGE(http://media1.break.com/breakstudios/2012/1/26/al%20bundy%20in%20cowboy%20hat%20married%20with%20children.jpg)

NormanTheIntern wrote:
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.

Cool so MOVE was a justified example of what happens when you mess with the rule of law.

Not really, but I guess you're trying. Sort of.

OG_slinger wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

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.

The government wouldn't attack. It would be executing a valid court order.

By saying that the government would "attack" you are buying into the idea that Bundy and his supporters are some kind of patriots fighting the good fight against an oppressive and illegitimate power. They aren't. Bundy is a common thief and his supporters are all guilty of impeding law enforcement from doing the job we all pay them to do (and, apparently, child endangerment now).

Bundy has already reached martyr status thanks to right wing web sites and media. They have spent the past six years spreading fear and paranoia about the government--everything from FEMA death camps to Obama declaring himself dictator for life--to a very specific segment of the population who make the Tea Partiers seem like intelligent and reasonable folks. Bundy has become their rallying cry. They want a conflict.

And, no, it's not hyperbole to claim that what's happening in Nevada is like Somalia. There you have a weak central government who can't do anything because it doesn't have the power to stand up against local bands of armed men. The only difference is that in Somalia they're called warlords and in Nevada they call themselves militias. The end result is the same: if a government is too weak to enforce its laws then there really aren't any laws at all and that leaves everything up for grabs to whoever has the biggest stick.

You're making some huge assumptions about me and a lot of conservatives who do not think Bundy is a hero. I don't particularly like how some of the conservative news media have handled things either, but even Glenn Beck is decrying how Bundy and his buddies have taken up arms. The absolute smartest thing for the Feds to have done at this juncture was to stand down and wait for a better time to get Bundy. LE does this all the time and I don't see waiting in this case as anything different than federal agents waiting to catch a mafia crime lord when he's alone with his mistress versus say risking a shootout at his kid's first communion.

As far as the Somalia comment goes, I know you're hardcore trolling but as a guy who spent my share of time peacekeeping in failed states like Somalia there's no comparison. Bundy may be a thief and giant prick but he doesn't go around raping, murdering and pillaging to his heart's content. We are a long way from a failed state, and from the government's reaction we are also not a police state yet thank God.

Paleocon wrote:
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.

I prefer my justice to be less bloodthirsty and vindictive. Using colorful/creative and eager phrasing when describing instances where killing might be justified just makes one come off as some sort of violence junkie.

Cool so MOVE was a justified example of what happens when you mess with the rule of law.

I believe the use of force against MOVE was authorized. Dropping a Syrian style barrel bomb on a bunch of kids? Not so much. And had they shot at police officers or civilians, I would have had no problem with police snipers putting bullets in brain pans.

But they did have a giant shoot out with the cops prior to the bombing. They were just "made an example of" like you said...

Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
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.

I prefer my justice to be less bloodthirsty and vindictive. Using colorful/creative and eager phrasing when describing instances where killing might be justified just makes one come off as some sort of violence junkie.

Call it bloodthirsty if you like, but I am sick and tired of entitled folks thinking they can use violence with impunity and then cry about the big bad gubmint when they reap the predictable result. I laughed my ass off when that asshat threw a punch at Senator John Glenn and got his ass kicked for it. I would have laughed even harder if the Capitol Police got there sooner and put a vicious wood shampoo on him for his efforts.

Paleocon wrote:

Call it bloodthirsty if you like, but I am sick and tired of entitled folks thinking they can use violence with impunity and then cry about the big bad gubmint when they reap the predictable result. I laughed my ass off when that asshat threw a punch at Senator John Glenn and got his ass kicked for it. I would have laughed even harder if the Capitol Police got there sooner and put a vicious wood shampoo on him for his efforts.

Yeah, but you go straight for the gory, graphic deaths and skip over the more appropriate and less fatal responses.

Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Call it bloodthirsty if you like, but I am sick and tired of entitled folks thinking they can use violence with impunity and then cry about the big bad gubmint when they reap the predictable result. I laughed my ass off when that asshat threw a punch at Senator John Glenn and got his ass kicked for it. I would have laughed even harder if the Capitol Police got there sooner and put a vicious wood shampoo on him for his efforts.

Yeah, but you go straight for the gory, graphic deaths and skip over the more appropriate and less fatal responses.

I'm more in the camp of using violence to teach people a lesson, instead of outright killing them. However, in a lot of instances where the far right is involved, I feel like we'd just be doing ourselves a favor by cleaning up the gene pool.

Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Call it bloodthirsty if you like, but I am sick and tired of entitled folks thinking they can use violence with impunity and then cry about the big bad gubmint when they reap the predictable result. I laughed my ass off when that asshat threw a punch at Senator John Glenn and got his ass kicked for it. I would have laughed even harder if the Capitol Police got there sooner and put a vicious wood shampoo on him for his efforts.

Yeah, but you go straight for the gory, graphic deaths and skip over the more appropriate and less fatal responses.

I am pretty sure I left in the proportionality. You jump the White House fence, I am laughing when you get mauled by a Malinois with a mouthful of titanium teeth or get your arm twisted into a balloon animal by my buddies at Secret Service. But if you point a tactical rifle at a federal agent, plant a bomb in a crowd, or shoot up a federal building with an AK, I have no problem with the "gubmint" giving you a case of terminal kinetic energy poisoning even if it does mean a visit from Sunshine Cleaning.

Paleo can you link the reference book you're sourcing your violence euphemisms from, this is great stuff.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Paleo can you link the reference book you're sourcing your violence euphemisms from, this is great stuff.

Sadly, no book. You'll just have to subscribe to my newsletter.

Paleocon wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Call it bloodthirsty if you like, but I am sick and tired of entitled folks thinking they can use violence with impunity and then cry about the big bad gubmint when they reap the predictable result. I laughed my ass off when that asshat threw a punch at Senator John Glenn and got his ass kicked for it. I would have laughed even harder if the Capitol Police got there sooner and put a vicious wood shampoo on him for his efforts.

Yeah, but you go straight for the gory, graphic deaths and skip over the more appropriate and less fatal responses.

I am pretty sure I left in the proportionality. You jump the White House fence, I am laughing when you get mauled by a Malinois with a mouthful of titanium teeth or get your arm twisted into a balloon animal by my buddies at Secret Service. But if you point a tactical rifle at a federal agent, plant a bomb in a crowd, or shoot up a federal building with an AK, I have no problem with the "gubmint" giving you a case of terminal kinetic energy poisoning even if it does mean a visit from Sunshine Cleaning.

As a last resort? Sure. But I'd rather have them subdue the person if they could do so safely. It's not that you think that killing is an appropriate response, I agree that it sometimes is. It's the way you describe how that killing should happen. It reads like you get giddy just thinking about it and makes you come across as someone who is just as eager for a confrontation as Bundy and the people that joined him are, with the primary difference being that you have a far more realistic idea of how that will play out.

Mr. Mack told radio host Ben Swann on Monday that he believes women should be “the first ones shot” in order to send the most effective message.
“I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die,” he said. “I would’ve gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”

Questions on whether Mr. Mack would be willing to sacrifice his wife and daughter for someone who is not white, rich, and conservative's right to break the law were left unanswered.

Seriously, how torn up can you be when these people are perfectly willing to sacrifice their kids? You want to talk about how barbaric it is that kids got caught in the violence in a different incident... this group is ready and WILLING to put their kids there. Yeah, I'm sure you'll be REALLY TORN UP about how you chose to sacrifice your child to make a political point for someone else so he could save money.

Like... I just don't... I clearly don't get it. How can you say this will make such a moving image to stir people to our side when the counterpoint to that is you brought them there willing to sacrifice other people's lives to make your point? That is by far the more repugnant thing as you're not even sacrificing your own life until you've run out of (I'm sure in this guy's mind) subservient female lives to sacrifice first.

“But the best ploy would be to have had women at the front,” he continued. “Because, one, I don’t think they would have shot them. And, two, if they had, it would have been the worst thing that we could have shown to the rest of the world, that these ruthless cowards hired by the federal government will do anything.”

IMAGE(http://replygif.net/i/101.gif)

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

Call it bloodthirsty if you like, but I am sick and tired of entitled folks thinking they can use violence with impunity and then cry about the big bad gubmint when they reap the predictable result. I laughed my ass off when that asshat threw a punch at Senator John Glenn and got his ass kicked for it. I would have laughed even harder if the Capitol Police got there sooner and put a vicious wood shampoo on him for his efforts.

Yeah, but you go straight for the gory, graphic deaths and skip over the more appropriate and less fatal responses.

I am pretty sure I left in the proportionality. You jump the White House fence, I am laughing when you get mauled by a Malinois with a mouthful of titanium teeth or get your arm twisted into a balloon animal by my buddies at Secret Service. But if you point a tactical rifle at a federal agent, plant a bomb in a crowd, or shoot up a federal building with an AK, I have no problem with the "gubmint" giving you a case of terminal kinetic energy poisoning even if it does mean a visit from Sunshine Cleaning.

As a last resort? Sure. But I'd rather have them subdue the person if they could do so safely. It's not that you think that killing is an appropriate response, I agree that it sometimes is. It's the way you describe how that killing should happen. It reads like you get giddy just thinking about it and makes you come across as someone who is just as eager for a confrontation as Bundy and the people that joined him are, with the primary difference being that you have a far more realistic idea of how that will play out.

This. So much this, I'm so glad Stengah can put into words what I'm feeling better than I can.

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

Call it bloodthirsty if you like, but I am sick and tired of entitled folks thinking they can use violence with impunity and then cry about the big bad gubmint when they reap the predictable result. I laughed my ass off when that asshat threw a punch at Senator John Glenn and got his ass kicked for it. I would have laughed even harder if the Capitol Police got there sooner and put a vicious wood shampoo on him for his efforts.

Yeah, but you go straight for the gory, graphic deaths and skip over the more appropriate and less fatal responses.

I am pretty sure I left in the proportionality. You jump the White House fence, I am laughing when you get mauled by a Malinois with a mouthful of titanium teeth or get your arm twisted into a balloon animal by my buddies at Secret Service. But if you point a tactical rifle at a federal agent, plant a bomb in a crowd, or shoot up a federal building with an AK, I have no problem with the "gubmint" giving you a case of terminal kinetic energy poisoning even if it does mean a visit from Sunshine Cleaning.

As a last resort? Sure. But I'd rather have them subdue the person if they could do so safely. It's not that you think that killing is an appropriate response, I agree that it sometimes is. It's the way you describe how that killing should happen. It reads like you get giddy just thinking about it and makes you come across as someone who is just as eager for a confrontation as Bundy and the people that joined him are, with the primary difference being that you have a far more realistic idea of how that will play out.

This. So much this, I'm so glad Stengah can put into words what I'm feeling better than I can.

Perhaps it is a bit of schadenfreude, but I don't see any great tragedy in violent dumbasses getting their righteous consequences.

The real question is whether the women and children want to be up front and act as bullet catchers. If they don't, wouldn't that be a hostage situation? And whether the children want to be there or not, simply saying that should qualify as child endangerment and his children should be taken away and given to homes where the won't be used as pawns in a chess match.

Nevin73 wrote:

The real question is whether the women and children want to be up front and act as bullet catchers. If they don't, wouldn't that be a hostage situation? And whether the children want to be there or not, simply saying that should qualify as child endangerment and his children should be taken away and given to homes where the won't be used as pawns in a chess match.

One would think, but next thing you know, we'll have conservative pundits proclaiming that the kids free expression rights are being taken away by not letting them be bullet catchers for their parents.

Paleocon wrote:

dumbasses getting their righteous consequences.

Again sounding remarkably like many of the people you are taking issue with.

I know I cut out the word violent but replace violent with the adjective that causes the rage for the other people and there you have it.

Does everything always have to be equally disturbing or remarkably similar sounding? I mean, if you guys honestly feel that way, then okay. I just wonder if the problem is that the conversation is about to lose anything but these two polar opposites. Put me in the "yes, people who want the government to violently enforce this order when there are more peaceful means of doing so are wrong, but they're not even close to being as wrong as the dumbasses" camp.

Put me in the camp of "These idiots are specifically angling to be dealt with violently by law enforcement, but are being truly reprehensible by sacrificing their wives and daughters (not sons though, weirdly) to try to get a PR win from it... all for some tightwad millionaire's right to break the law... which makes them stupid as well."

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Does everything always have to be equally disturbing or remarkably similar sounding? I mean, if you guys honestly feel that way, then okay. I just wonder if the problem is that the conversation is about to lose anything but these two polar opposites. Put me in the "yes, people who want the government to violently enforce this order when there are more peaceful means of doing so are wrong, but they're not even close to being as wrong as the dumbasses" camp.

I'm not really in either extreme camp. I'm just making an aside.

SixteenBlue wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Does everything always have to be equally disturbing or remarkably similar sounding? I mean, if you guys honestly feel that way, then okay. I just wonder if the problem is that the conversation is about to lose anything but these two polar opposites. Put me in the "yes, people who want the government to violently enforce this order when there are more peaceful means of doing so are wrong, but they're not even close to being as wrong as the dumbasses" camp.

I'm not really in either extreme camp. I'm just making an aside.

And I refuse to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.

edit: ack, maybe you're just addressing SixteenBlue's aside (gotta keep that one in mind when people start throwing around the phrase "devil's advocate), and not me.

jdzappa wrote:

You're making some huge assumptions about me and a lot of conservatives who do not think Bundy is a hero. I don't particularly like how some of the conservative news media have handled things either, but even Glenn Beck is decrying how Bundy and his buddies have taken up arms. The absolute smartest thing for the Feds to have done at this juncture was to stand down and wait for a better time to get Bundy. LE does this all the time and I don't see waiting in this case as anything different than federal agents waiting to catch a mafia crime lord when he's alone with his mistress versus say risking a shootout at his kid's first communion.

As far as the Somalia comment goes, I know you're hardcore trolling but as a guy who spent my share of time peacekeeping in failed states like Somalia there's no comparison. Bundy may be a thief and giant prick but he doesn't go around raping, murdering and pillaging to his heart's content. We are a long way from a failed state, and from the government's reaction we are also not a police state yet thank God.

I'm hoping that the majority of people take this kind of stance. These are the kinds of things that people on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree upon.

Paleocon wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Does everything always have to be equally disturbing or remarkably similar sounding? I mean, if you guys honestly feel that way, then okay. I just wonder if the problem is that the conversation is about to lose anything but these two polar opposites. Put me in the "yes, people who want the government to violently enforce this order when there are more peaceful means of doing so are wrong, but they're not even close to being as wrong as the dumbasses" camp.

I'm not really in either extreme camp. I'm just making an aside.

And I refuse to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.

Huge difference between calling these guys out for being wrong and supporting them going to jail - which is something that many conservatives also feel right now - and gleefully talking about "cleansing the gene pool" and "splattering brain pans."

Let's say LAPD went into a gang situation half-cocked and killed a bunch of kids. Would it be cool if say Nomad or Norman or me said something like "well I guess that's what you get for living in the hood. Glad to see the po po clean up the gene pool though?" Not only would we thoroughly lashed for being sociopathic racist a-holes, but we'd probably be insta-banned.

jdzappa wrote:

You're making some huge assumptions about me and a lot of conservatives who do not think Bundy is a hero. I don't particularly like how some of the conservative news media have handled things either, but even Glenn Beck is decrying how Bundy and his buddies have taken up arms.

I made an assumption about you because you specifically portrayed federal law enforcement doing their job of enforcing the laws as "the government attacks." If you don't want me to think you're sympathetic with Bundy, then don't use that kind of language.

And it's an understatement with how poorly the conservative media has handled it. I'm not talking about FOX News (though Sean Hannity sure has rushed to fellate Bundy ever chance he gets), I'm talking about the dozens of crazy conservative "alternative" media and web sites that have been preaching doom and gloom ever since Obama took office. Those groups have been talking about the Bundy Ranch in apocalyptic terms (while throwing folks like Glenn Beck under the bus).

jdzappa wrote:

The absolute smartest thing for the Feds to have done at this juncture was to stand down and wait for a better time to get Bundy. LE does this all the time and I don't see waiting in this case as anything different than federal agents waiting to catch a mafia crime lord when he's alone with his mistress versus say risking a shootout at his kid's first communion.

There are now some 600 Bundy sympathizers on site, including dozens of armed members of the self-proclaimed "Bundy security detail." Do you really think the feds are going to catch Bundy when he goes to pick up his mail in town or get a gallon of milk at the store?

The longer this goes on, the more crazies are going to arrive in Nevada with their AR-15 and their dream of sticking it to Uncle Sam. The longer this goes on, the more conservative media are going to build this up as the defining conflict between true patriots like themselves and the evil, tyrannical government. Narratives like that don't lead to peaceful outcomes. It leads to people trying to martyr themselves or, more likely, trying to goad a reaction from the feds that feeds their existing delusion.

jdzappa wrote:

As far as the Somalia comment goes, I know you're hardcore trolling but as a guy who spent my share of time peacekeeping in failed states like Somalia there's no comparison. Bundy may be a thief and giant prick but he doesn't go around raping, murdering and pillaging to his heart's content. We are a long way from a failed state, and from the government's reaction we are also not a police state yet thank God.

Warlords typically don't go around raping, murdering, and pillaging to their hearts content. They function as the only source of reasonable security and order in an otherwise chaotic area (the chaos stemming from the complete inability of the central government to do anything). Right now we have Bundy, backed by his "security detail," functioning as a warlord in Nevada because the federal government won't enforce its own laws and court rulings.

I don't want to see people get killed, but I really don't want to see Bundy become a rallying cry for every dumb ass white guy with a gun who has a bone to pick with the government.