The Kooks are Back

[kennith]

I have no idea what you just said.

1: I was interested in the FBI showing up and the getaway car shooting that may have happened.

I'm not currently interested in the personal plight of the other people involved. They are clearly foolish, and understanding the actions of a fool is a task best suited to another fool; or someone with fleeting interests who enjoys learning by asking questions while hiding preferred answers up their sleeve. That's your thing, not mine.

2: There is sufficient, obvious evidence of a threat to allow Federal assets jurisdiction and freedom to engage.

I'm not currently interested in whether or not that feels right. The way to evaluate morality in this context is incompatible with your method of learning. That doesn't mean you're stupid; it means the result of such analysis would not, to me, be worth the effort required to corral your posts.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[1920SF]

If one believes Weber (or Hobbes if you prefer) at the core of a state (nation) is the monopoly on violence, i.e. the legitimate use of force.

The occupation of a federal building, on federal land, and then threatening of federal employees challenged that monopoly.

Bad proposition on the part of the occupants.

The vehicle interdiction was an excellent way to isolate the key stakeholders of the group away from their prepared defense positions (I use that term loosely given the clown show that was involved), it also controlled media visibility and reduced the chance of reinforcement. I have no idea why someone would expect the FBI to cede authority to the local LE or the perpetrators to do what they wanted, that's like saying they deserved a fair chance which is absurd-once they decided to conduct an armed occupation they must have known a Federal response was possible and to be upset that it didn't come in the time, place, and way of their choosing is to illustrate why they were a brief but not serious threat to that monopoly.

Or; play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[D Chapman]

Ray has no clue as what's been posted in this thread.

 

[1920SF]

Ray has no clue as what's been posted in this thread.

Indeed, and you are the one that thinks its going to go to SCOTUS; no it won't. It will go in the dustbin of history-where it deserves to be.

 

[kennith]

Ray has no clue as what's been posted in this thread.

Well, he did just make the same point I was on about in my previous posts a couple of pages back. He just didn't use the simple language that I did.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[chris snell]

Indeed, and you are the one that thinks its going to go to SCOTUS; no it won't. It will go in the dustbin of history-where it deserves to be.

That's exactly it. All of the people who participated in the siege and most of the people who support them are operating under flawed interpretations of the Constitution. They justify their actions with "facts" that won't hold up in any federal court. You have chronically unemployed guys with high school educations who think they're legal scholars and carrying pocket Constitutions around as if their interpretation is what matters.

Dan, you're not seeing the forest for the trees here but I think the rest of us are. You are like the guy on ExPo who dumps forty grand of parts into his FJ Cruiser build and doesn't realize that it's a total turd and that he bought the wrong truck. You know I love my guns and my freedom and my constitutional rights but it only took me five minutes of browsing the first photos out of Malheur to know that these guys were total fucking losers. I could tell by their beer guts, their bad attitudes, the garbage in their trucks, their shitty AR builds, their 3XL 5.11 pants, their gay ass 3%er patches on their ACUs with the Mandarin collars all popped, of course. If this is the Second American Revolution, I want a refund.

 

[D Chapman]

That's exactly it. All of the people who participated in the siege and most of the people who support them are operating under flawed interpretations of the Constitution. They justify their actions with "facts" that won't hold up in any federal court. You have chronically unemployed guys with high school educations who think they're legal scholars and carrying pocket Constitutions around as if their interpretation is what matters.

The siege has very very little to do with it. All the siege did was to get us to talk about it, and it worked.

I read a statistic that said 99% of all federal court cases go in favor of the feds. So the odds are against all the ranchers involved, not just the Bundy/Hammonds.

But I'm confused on our statement that their "facts" will not hold up in court. Care to explain?

Dan, you're not seeing the forest for the trees here but I think the rest of us are. You are like the guy on ExPo who dumps forty grand of parts into his FJ Cruiser build and doesn't realize that it's a total turd and that he bought the wrong truck. You know I love my guns and my freedom and my constitutional rights but it only took me five minutes of browsing the first photos out of Malheur to know that these guys were total fucking losers. I could tell by their beer guts, their bad attitudes, the garbage in their trucks, their shitty AR builds, their 3XL 5.11 pants, their gay ass 3%er patches on their ACUs with the Mandarin collars all popped, of course. If this is the Second American Revolution, I want a refund.

I don't want to get off-topic here. However, if it were not for those fat beer drinking illiterate rednecks, you would not have an NRA to fight for the guns or gun rights you have. It's these people who support the NRA.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[D Chapman]

Indeed, and you are the one that thinks its going to go to SCOTUS; no it won't. It will go in the dustbin of history-where it deserves to be.

Perhaps.

 

[D Chapman]

Thought this was interesting.

In the court proceedings the US District Attorney claimed the Hammonds caused $1,100 in damages due to their fire in 2006. Now that the 9th Court has recalled the Hammonds to serve the remainder of their 5-year sentence in federal court, tax payers will be forced to cover the $600,000 tab to house and feed these inmates.

Over $600,000 to punish two people who caused $1,100 in damages. IMO, that's a bit retarded.

 

[D Chapman]

Justin Pidot, (former Justice Department environmental attorney) has come forward with comments.

"A prosecution would be an easy win for the government," said Pidot, who is now a professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law.

"There is simply no legal basis for the assertion that the federal government doesn't own and control these lands," Pidot said. "The issue strikes me as one of political will, rather than law."

However, it looks like Utah is going to be the first state to sue the federal government. Followed by Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada and Montana. The basis of the case will be "there is no support in judicial construction of the Property Clause for the contention that the federal government must either dispose of its lands or subordinate its objectives in managing those lands to the laws of the state in which those lands are located.".

Gonna be interesting.

 

[chris snell]

I don't want to get off-topic here. However, if it were not for those fat beer drinking illiterate rednecks, you would not have an NRA to fight for the guns or gun rights you have. It's these people who support the NRA.

Pot meet kettle.

LOL, you think these guys are supporting the NRA in any meaningful way? These guys can't even afford to fix the taillight on their 1984 Towne Cars. These guys are too broke to support the NRA.

The people supporting the NRA are guys with 10,000-acre Texas ranches and four generations of oil trust funds in the family. These guys will cut a $100,000 check at a NRA black tie dinner like it was nothing. Those guys in Oregon can barely pay rent on their $400/mo apartments.

 

[D Chapman]

"From all these years combined, 73% of all NRA funding comes from membership dues and individual contributions, 9% comes from advertising, and 5% comes from organizational donations."

 

[kennith]

You do realize that the big boys have memberships as well, right? It's also not just about direct income.

If it was, they'd have failed long ago.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[discostew]

73% from membership dues AND INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS. Now break down that 73% and how much of that is the $100,000 checks Chris is talking about.

 

[D Chapman]

Do you honestly think the NRA would survive without individual membership dues?

 

[discostew]

Do you think they could survive without individual contributions?

 

[D Chapman]

Federal law prohibits any individual giving more that $5k a year to the NRA. The average donation is $35.

 

[stu454]

I'm guessing that the contribution restrictions for the NRA ILA are different.

 

[kennith]

Federal law prohibits any individual giving more that $5k a year to the NRA. The average donation is $35.

:rofl: Yeah. Because that's how it's worked out at the events I've attended.

There are ways around it.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[D Chapman]

I can't prove you wrong because I don't collect the checks.

You can't prove me wrong because, well, you just can't or you would have already done so.

The NRA demographics are out there if anyone is really interested.

Lets get back on topic.