WWTBAM Bored

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... chers.html

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/03/arme ... -o#comment

Apparently, they're upset that a federal court increased the sentences on a father and son who were illegally setting fires to manage plant life that accidentally spread to other federal land. The government charged them under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which carries a mandatory minimum of five years, but the judge disagreed. He sentenced them to three and thirteen months, plus damages. The Department of Justice didn't like that, so they appealed to the 9th Circuit court, who sided with them. So now they both have to go back to jail tomorrow, which I'm guessing this is mostly about. There have been no shots fired or reports of a standoff, so I think the "armed domestic terrorist" label is more a political tool than an accurate descriptor.

CarShark wrote:http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... chers.html

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/03/arme ... -o#comment

Apparently, they're upset that a federal court increased the sentences on a father and son who were illegally setting fires to manage plant life that accidentally spread to other federal land. The government charged them under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which carries a mandatory minimum of five years, but the judge disagreed. He sentenced them to three and thirteen months, plus damages. The Department of Justice didn't like that, so they appealed to the 9th Circuit court, who sided with them. So now they both have to go back to jail tomorrow, which I'm guessing this is mostly about. There have been no shots fired or reports of a standoff, so I think the "armed domestic terrorist" label is more a political tool than an accurate descriptor.

We'll see tomorrow.

CarShark wrote:http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... chers.html

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/03/arme ... -o#comment

Apparently, they're upset that a federal court increased the sentences on a father and son who were illegally setting fires to manage plant life that accidentally spread to other federal land. The government charged them under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which carries a mandatory minimum of five years, but the judge disagreed. He sentenced them to three and thirteen months, plus damages. The Department of Justice didn't like that, so they appealed to the 9th Circuit court, who sided with them. So now they both have to go back to jail tomorrow, which I'm guessing this is mostly about. There have been no shots fired or reports of a standoff, so I think the "armed domestic terrorist" label is more a political tool than an accurate descriptor.

Seems to me that this qualifies as armed resistance to the government. I wonder whether they acquired their weapons legally. --Bob

Sounds to me like a militia that is not "well regulated."

Mormons who don't trust the Federal government, I just can't understand it.

Not terrorism or terrorists. As much as BJ would like it to be, it is not.

BackInTex wrote:Not terrorism or terrorists. As much as BJ would like it to be, it is not.

Definition of terrorism: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

Please explain how this doesn't apply here.

Your definition plays into the government's hand as it is to broad. Under this definition former Attorney General Holder is a terrorist. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09 ... tc-office/

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Your definition plays into the government's hand as it is to broad. Under this definition former Attorney General Holder is a terrorist. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09 ... tc-office/

SSS wrote:
Definition of terrorism: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

Therefore...
Police are terrorists.
U.S. Marines are terrorists.
Mr. Henry, my 5th grade PE teacher is a terrorist.

BackInTex wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Your definition plays into the government's hand as it is to broad. Under this definition former Attorney General Holder is a terrorist. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09 ... tc-office/

SSS wrote:
Definition of terrorism: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

Therefore...
Police are terrorists.
U.S. Marines are terrorists.
Mr. Henry, my 5th grade PE teacher is a terrorist.

If these terrorists were black or Muslim you'd be singing a different tune.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Your definition plays into the government's hand as it is to broad. Under this definition former Attorney General Holder is a terrorist. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09 ... tc-office/

SSS wrote:
Definition of terrorism: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

Therefore...
Police are terrorists.
U.S. Marines are terrorists.
Mr. Henry, my 5th grade PE teacher is a terrorist.

If these terrorists were black or Muslim you'd be singing a different tune.

No I wouldn't. They are not intimidating or attacking the populace. They are not terrorizing or attacking civilians. They are not trying to accomplish their goals through terror, just simple and open force.

I'm not saying I agree with their goal or tactics. Its just that they are not terrorists.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: If these terrorists were black or Muslim you'd be singing a different tune.

No I wouldn't. They are not intimidating or attacking the populace. They are not terrorizing or attacking civilians. They are not trying to accomplish their goals through terror, just simple and open force.

I'm not saying I agree with their goal or tactics. Its just that they are not terrorists.

The populace feels threatened.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: If these terrorists were black or Muslim you'd be singing a different tune.

No I wouldn't. They are not intimidating or attacking the populace. They are not terrorizing or attacking civilians. They are not trying to accomplish their goals through terror, just simple and open force.

I'm not saying I agree with their goal or tactics. Its just that they are not terrorists.

The populace feels threatened.

What populace? The reporters? You? No one with any intelligence feels threatened by these folks. The haven't threatened any populace.

BackInTex wrote:What populace? The reporters? You? No one with any intelligence feels threatened by these folks. The haven't threatened any populace.

Why have guns if you're not prepared to use them? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:What populace? The reporters? You? No one with any intelligence feels threatened by these folks. The haven't threatened any populace.

Why have guns if you're not prepared to use them? --Bob

Are you calling Bob J a terrorist? He admits to having guns.

Eleanor Roosevelt was a terrorist?

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:What populace? The reporters? You? No one with any intelligence feels threatened by these folks. The haven't threatened any populace.

Why have guns if you're not prepared to use them? --Bob

City boy! They are surrounded by a national wildlife refuge. The key word is "wildlife" -- bears, wildcats, poisonous snakes, etc. Some dangerous critters don't listen to reason or stern warnings.

Ah, c'mon. Quit trying to ruin a perfectly good narrative.

I think the proper classification is Civil Disobedience. This is a sit-in. An armed one. Not something I particularly side with, especially since the supposed beneficiaries are against it. Perhaps some of them will move on to become Attorney Generals.

Laughable some are calling it terrorism. Sad that some who are intelligent are doing so also just to support the "progressive" narrative of gun control.

Bill Ayers. Now that is a real terrorist. Strange those calling for gun control here, and calling the Oregon protest terrorism, think and support political agendas and candidates the same as Bill Ayers. Like minds and all.

BackInTex wrote:I think the proper classification is Civil Disobedience. This is a sit-in. An armed one. Not something I particularly side with, especially since the supposed beneficiaries are against it. Perhaps some of them will move on to become Attorney Generals.

Laughable some are calling it terrorism. Sad that some who are intelligent are doing so also just to support the "progressive" narrative of gun control.

I agree that they aren't terrorists by any definition that leaves the word any specific meaning. If they commit a terrorist act, they will become terrorists.

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:What populace? The reporters? You? No one with any intelligence feels threatened by these folks. The haven't threatened any populace.

Why have guns if you're not prepared to use them? --Bob

City boy! They are surrounded by a national wildlife refuge. The key word is "wildlife" -- bears, wildcats, poisonous snakes, etc. Some dangerous critters don't listen to reason or stern warnings.

Really? Silly me. I thought the reason they brought guns was to be able to threaten armed resistance should authorities attempt to remove them. At least one of the locals (who otherwise appears to be sympathetic) certainly believes they are "threatening gun violence."

I've seen my share of sit-ins. I don't remember guns being any part of them. Not in possession of the participants, anyway. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:Bill Ayers. Now that is a real terrorist. Strange those calling for gun control here, and calling the Oregon protest terrorism, think and support political agendas and candidates the same as Bill Ayers. Like minds and all.

In the 2012 Presidential election, Barack Obama received 51% of the vote. That's a lot of like minds to Bill Ayers under your way of thinking.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Bill Ayers. Now that is a real terrorist. Strange those calling for gun control here, and calling the Oregon protest terrorism, think and support political agendas and candidates the same as Bill Ayers. Like minds and all.

In the 2012 Presidential election, Barack Obama received 51% of the vote. That's a lot of like minds to Bill Ayers under your way of thinking.

Yep, it is. Sad but true.