# LaVoy Finicum murdered



## Maine-Marine

yes I said murdered. 

The federal government will not enforce immigration laws but they are willing to enforce trespass laws.

They will not send illegals home but they will kill US citizens

We need a new government, one that is for the people and by the people

What must happen for there to be a movement to stand up and take back what has been taken inch by inch over the last 100 years...


----------



## Prepper News

Maine-Marine said:


> yes I said murdered.
> 
> The federal government will not enforce immigration laws but they are willing to enforce trespass laws.
> 
> They will not send illegals home but they will kill US citizens
> 
> We need a new government, one that is for the people and by the people
> 
> What must happen for there to be a movement to stand up and take back what has been taken inch by inch over the last 100 years...


In addition, Pete Santilli and Ammon Bundy both arrested along with several others.

Ammon Bundy arrested in Oregon and militia member is shot dead | Daily Mail Online

Checkpoints setup...

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-sets-checkpoints-around-oregon-refuge-deadly-confrontation-140355598.html


----------



## Maine-Marine

I wonder what the charge was... or will be

AND - was it worth a life

in my mind they could have left them alone and let them slowly head home... no harm no foul no need for action


----------



## Maine-Marine

conspiracy to impede federal officers..... what the heck is that


----------



## Kauboy

All we have are witness' statements, but from what I heard, the man was cooperating and had his hands up when he was shot.

Not that I'm one to sympathize with an armed protest and "squatting" of property, but what were these idiots thinking when they transported BOTH group leaders AND one of the most outspoken members of this group IN THE SAME VEHICLE!
Who else here can spell "tactical mistake"?

With the Bundy's arrested, and "the voice" dead, the rest will disperse within a week.


----------



## Camel923

Ask the survivors of Ruby Ridge or the Branch Davidians about Federal force. Mamie Marine is correct. The US government sanctions murder to achieve its aims. Look at the abortion issue or how police or military are treated. If your not in the club, you do not matter.


----------



## sideKahr

"And I hope you learned your lesson." - The Powers That Be


----------



## Urinal Cake

Maine-Marine said:


> I wonder what the charge was... or will be
> 
> AND - was it worth a life
> 
> in my mind they could have left them alone and let them slowly head home... no harm no foul no need for action


The Jack boots couldn't wait for a reason to shoot....


----------



## Maine-Marine

Kauboy said:


> All we have are witness' statements, but from what I heard, the man was cooperating and had his hands up when he was shot.
> 
> Not that I'm one to sympathize with an armed protest and "squatting" of property, but what were these idiots thinking when they transported BOTH group leaders AND one of the most outspoken members of this group IN THE SAME VEHICLE!
> Who else here can spell "tactical mistake"?
> 
> With the Bundy's arrested, and "the voice" dead, the rest will disperse within a week.


If I am concealed carry or open carry legally.... why do you make a note that I am "ARMED PROTEST"

think about it... people are so TRAINED that they some how think that protesters with guns are SPECIAL or WORSE.... these guys were peaceful.... the unarmed ferguson protesters were the ones that destroyed millions of dollars worth of property


----------



## Kauboy

Maine-Marine said:


> If I am concealed carry or open carry legally.... why do you make a note that I am "ARMED PROTEST"
> 
> think about it... people are so TRAINED that they some how think that protesters with guns are SPECIAL or WORSE.... these guys were peaceful.... the unarmed ferguson protesters were the ones that destroyed millions of dollars worth of property


They said they are protesting, and they brought their weapons. If you're just walking down the street, you're not protesting. The difference, and resultant description, should be obvious.
They were also squatting on land they did not own.
What defense do they offer for that?


----------



## Maine-Marine

Kauboy said:


> They said they are protesting, and they brought their weapons. If you're just walking down the street, you're not protesting. The difference, and resultant description, should be obvious.
> They were also squatting on land they did not own.
> What defense do they offer for that?


well - we all own federal land... they were on land that we own.

the news is that the feds shot him while is hands were up.... I believe it

ruby ridge started over a illegal shotgun that the feds sold to the guy and because one of the agents shot a dog...

these guys are not hurting anybody/... let them stay until they get tired


----------



## Sasquatch

Kauboy said:


> All we have are witness' statements, but from what I heard, the man was cooperating and had his hands up when he was shot.
> 
> Not that I'm one to sympathize with an armed protest and "squatting" of property, but what were these idiots thinking when they transported BOTH group leaders AND one of the most outspoken members of this group IN THE SAME VEHICLE!
> Who else here can spell "tactical mistake"?
> 
> With the Bundy's arrested, and "the voice" dead, the rest will disperse within a week.


Yes, pretty stupid move.

My cynical side also believes they decided if they shoot and kill one that will intimidate most of the rest.


----------



## mcangus

Kauboy said:


> All we have are witness' statements, but from what I heard, the man was cooperating and had his hands up when he was shot.
> 
> Not that I'm one to sympathize with an armed protest and "squatting" of property, but what were these idiots thinking when they transported BOTH group leaders AND one of the most outspoken members of this group IN THE SAME VEHICLE!
> Who else here can spell "tactical mistake"?
> 
> With the Bundy's arrested, and "the voice" dead, the rest will disperse within a week.


Yeah politics aside, this was a tactically silly move. Placing so many assets in the same convey, seems like it may have been even the exact vehicle. Minimal escort and announcing your travel plan, I believe everyone knew where they were going and what time(some meeting held at a nearby town).

I think this situation is now ended. Those left at the wildlife building will eventually give in, I think time is on the side of the Feds, they aren't in a real rush. The leaders are arrested, figurehead/spokesperson dead. It is done. Agree?


----------



## Mad Trapper

Kauboy said:


> They said they are protesting, and they brought their weapons. If you're just walking down the street, you're not protesting. The difference, and resultant description, should be obvious.
> They were also squatting on land they did not own.
> What defense do they offer for that?


I don't approve of the way they chose to make their point, but they are head and shoulders more civilized, than the feral rabid animals that were running loose, robbing stealing looting and burning, with Barry's approval, in Ferguson and Baltimore.


----------



## Kauboy

Maine-Marine said:


> well - we all own federal land... they were on land that we own.
> 
> the news is that the feds shot him while is hands were up.... I believe it
> 
> ruby ridge started over a illegal shotgun that the feds sold to the guy and because one of the agents shot a dog...
> 
> these guys are not hurting anybody/... let them stay until they get tired


If *we* own it, I disapprove of their use of our land.
The truth is, they are in violation of federal law.
Did their actions merit a man being killed? From initial reports, no.
That does not excuse them.
What they're doing is accomplishing nothing.
As each one leaves, they should be arrested.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Kauboy said:


> As each one leaves, they should be arrested.


and charged with what and how long should they get in prison????


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper

Maine-Marine said:


> and charged with what and how long should they get in prison????


Charge them with Pissing in Obama's Soup and send them to Gitmo and waterboard them for a few years. Seems to be the thing the feds like to do best.

This is why every officer should be REQUIRED to wear a video device, and all of those recording made public. Always, ever. That way there would be NO doubt in anybody's mind what went down.


----------



## Camel923

I would consider volunteering to piss in the 12th Imam's soup if I knew he would eat it.


----------



## Kauboy

Maine-Marine said:


> and charged with what and how long should they get in prison????


Do I look like Loretta Lynch?
*checks mirror*
Nope, not even close. (thank the Lord)
She's paid to know the code. She gets to press charges.
A court will decide their sentence.

You are familiar with how the legal system works, right?


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

They could have done the same thing at Waco, what was the rush, but then they wouldn't have been able to burn to death 26 children.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Kauboy said:


> Do I look like Loretta Lynch?
> *checks mirror*
> Nope, not even close. (thank the Lord)
> She's paid to know the code. She gets to press charges.
> A court will decide their sentence.
> 
> You are familiar with how the legal system works, right?


Yes I'm familiar, it all depends on who you know in big gooberment.

Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you a king - B. Dylan

P.S. if she-beast Lynch knows the code, and enforced it, a lot of Feds would be indicted and on their way to the crowbar hotel. A man named Holder comes to mind......


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

Kauboy said:


> Do I look like Loretta Lynch?
> *checks mirror*
> Nope, not even close. (thank the Lord)
> She's paid to know the code. She gets to press charges.
> A court will decide their sentence.
> 
> You are familiar with how the legal system works, right?


Clinton and the illegal E-Mails show just how the system doesn't work. There are many things that show there are two justice systems in the US operating now.


----------



## Operator6

I'm willing to bet the law officer that shot him is retired military. 


Thank you for your service.

Of course the witnesses are going to say he was cooperating, they are part of the group that was being arrested.


----------



## Mad Trapper

I want to see the body cam tapes.


----------



## Kauboy

Mad Trapper said:


> P.S. if she-beast Lynch knows the code, *and enforced it*...


And there's the rub.
Amazing that one person get's to decide such things, or ignore them altogether, isn't it?


----------



## Mad Trapper

Kauboy said:


> And there's the rub.
> Amazing that one person get's to decide such things, or ignore them altogether, isn't it?


Yes, we have the lawless enforcing the laws.


----------



## Camel923

Death is a risk you assume when you defy the Federal leviathan. They have been putting down discontent with force for a long time. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were two of the earliest. Draft riots during the civil and Vietnam wars. Move in Philadelphia was bombed. A number of sides to all of this. Some unavoidable, others avoidable.


----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> conspiracy to impede federal officers..... what the heck is that


Here in the commonwealth it would have been obstruction of justice.

Why not let this play out and not rush to conclusions.


----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> and charged with what and how long should they get in prison????


Hey bebop. If a warrant has been issued for an individual's arrest where and when it get's served is at the serving agency's discression. they go from arrest to before a magistrate or other judicial officer and he or she sets the terms and conditions (Personal Recognicance, unsecured bond or secured or no bond) and then on thru the legal process. First step at state level is an arraignment (are you going to hire your own or havea court appointed shyster) and then a trial or preliminary hearing date is set. No one goes from arrest to jail (bail skips excepted)


----------



## Operator6

I was told I have a bad attitude on another thread for exercising my 1st amendment rights.....

But these guys can take over a federal building carrying firearms and they're being made into martyrs.

Make up your minds. 

Bottom line is these guys broke the law, we all know that for a fact. 

The police stopped them to take the men into custody. 

During the arrest one of the guys being arrested was killed and another shot. 

I wasn't there and no one on the forum was......

No other case matters but this one, so comparing other instances like Waco etc. is irrelevant.

Law enforcement has family too and they intend to go home to them, the ranchers made their choice and they will have to live and die with it.


----------



## Medic33

the law is the law and it applies to everyone regardless of station or it is not a law.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide

Operator6 said:


> I was told I have a bad attitude on another thread for exercising my 1st amendment rights.....
> 
> But these guys can take over a federal building carrying firearms and they're being made into martyrs.
> 
> Make up your minds.
> 
> Bottom line is these guys broke the law, we all know that for a fact.
> 
> The police stopped them to take the men into custody.
> 
> During the arrest one of the guys being arrested was killed and another shot.
> 
> I wasn't there and no one on the forum was......
> 
> No other case matters but this one, so comparing other instances like Waco etc. is irrelevant.
> 
> Law enforcement has family too and they intend to go home to them, the ranchers made their choice and they will have to live and die with it.


Agree with you 100% on this.

I don't know what they or everybody else expected but when you mess with the bull sometimes you get the horns. I'm all for the right of peaceful protest but an armed group seizing property that isn't theirs isn't a protest, its a criminal act. I think law enforcement has shown incredible restraint on all levels, until recently they didn't even have a perimeter set up.


----------



## csi-tech

I formulated an opinion on Ruby Ridge and Waco after a great deal of time reading arrest and search warrants, reading documents and researching both sides. One day I will have an opinion on this.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> I was told I have a bad attitude on another thread for exercising my 1st amendment rights.....
> 
> But these guys can take over a federal building carrying firearms and they're being made into martyrs.
> 
> Make up your minds.
> 
> Bottom line is these guys broke the law, we all know that for a fact.
> 
> The police stopped them to take the men into custody.
> 
> During the arrest one of the guys being arrested was killed and another shot.
> 
> I wasn't there and no one on the forum was......
> 
> No other case matters but this one, so comparing other instances like Waco etc. is irrelevant.
> 
> Law enforcement has family too and they intend to go home to them, the ranchers made their choice and they will have to live and die with it.


The federal ownership of the area in question is blatantly unconstitutional. So the laws that were broker are void since they would be being applied to an unconstitutional federal occupation of land in the state of Oregon. So the officers are enforcing unconstitutional laws against citizens protesting unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.

Law enforcement personnel know how dangerous their job is before they took it, claiming they have more of a right to go home than anyone else they encounter during their duties is borderline preposterous. The whole situation is another example of why we need to put the Feds back into the box the constitution made for it to reside.

Federal Land Ownership: Is It Constitutional? | Tenth Amendment Center


----------



## Maine-Marine

Here is my opinion... much thought should be given to an action that could very well take a mans life... A man's life is worth a great deal..not only to himself but to others.

locking a man in a cell for 5 years for a fire on government land that got out of control and killing a man for trespassing on federal land where nobody is getting hurt, selling a man an illegal shotgun and then raiding his compound, 

here is my question
who was president during ruby ridge
who was president during waco
who was president during this 

Frankly, if I was a federal law enforcement officer I would be ashamed... they can not get a case on Mrs Clinton but they can kill a rancher...
they can not round up illegal aliens but they can surround a farm for weeks


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> The federal ownership of the area in question is blatantly unconstitutional. So the laws that were broker are void since they would be being applied to an unconstitutional federal occupation of land in the state of Oregon. So the officers are enforcing unconstitutional laws against citizens protesting unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.
> 
> Law enforcement personnel know how dangerous their job is before they took it, claiming they have more of a right to go home than anyone else they encounter during their duties is borderline preposterous. The whole situation is another example of why we need to put the Feds back into the box the constitution made for it to reside.
> 
> Federal Land Ownership: Is It Constitutional? | Tenth Amendment Center


So it's your contention that the federal government can't legally have a building in Oregon ?

That is a federal facility that they are occupying. Until a court rules otherwise , that's the law.

The law enforcement officers had a warrant. I wasn't on scene,were you?


----------



## bigwheel

Maine-Marine said:


> yes I said murdered.
> 
> The federal government will not enforce immigration laws but they are willing to enforce trespass laws.
> 
> They will not send illegals home but they will kill US citizens
> 
> We need a new government, one that is for the people and by the people
> 
> What must happen for there to be a movement to stand up and take back what has been taken inch by inch over the last 100 years...


I tried to tell them to shut and go home..but do anybody ever listen to me? No. Prayers of comfort headed up for the family and friends of the dearly deceased person.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> So it's your contention that the federal government can't legally have a building in Oregon ?
> 
> That is a federal facility that they are occupying.


The federal facility is unconstitutional. The Feds have no constitutional authority to own the land it is on in Oregon.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> The federal facility is unconstitutional. The Feds have no constitutional authority to own the land it is on in Oregon.


The court and I personally disagree but your welcome to your opinion. I can tell you this and it's been proven.......a few guys with guns sitting in that federal building isn't a very bright idea.

Our courts have a purpose and these few guys chose not to use the court.


----------



## Maine-Marine

My wife's family owns sections and sections and sections of cattle and horse land in Montana. Her dad still owns part of the cattle operations and I imagine we will own that part of it some day

the federal gov owns 16 million acres and lease out about 8 million acres as range... the scary thing is who and how is the price set and what if they decide to back date cost or to stop grazing in order to protect the endangered wild red eye hildabest... if you think that there are federal people who care about farmers setting prices and making rules.. you are mislead.... 

frankly, IMHO the federal gov should own the land around DC and that is it.. all other land should be state owned.. and the fed should not be spending money to purchase more

any way a man is dead...he will be missed...


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> The court and I personally disagree but your welcome to your opinion. I can tell you this and it's been proven.......a few guys with guns sitting in that federal building isn't a very bright idea.
> 
> Our courts have a purpose and these few guys chose not to use the court.


The constitution allows redress of the government (read that as peaceful protests), I don't remember any of the people occupying Wall Street or the state capital of Wisconsin being killed because of it. I suppose the State's restraint is because they realize they are be holding to the people.

The federal government seems to think it can kill citizens with impunity and do anything they choose regardless of the Constitutional limitations that were placed upon it.

All federal lands/ property that are not in the District of Columbia, that are not used for forts bases or docks need to be returned to the states or sold to pay down the national debt.

There have been a lot of decisions from the courts over the last couple of decades that prove the courts have been compromised by politics, therefor they may not be seen as a trustworthy or an avenue of redress by certain segments of the population.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> The constitution allows redress of the government (read that as peaceful protests), I don't remember any of the people occupying Wall Street or the state capital of Wisconsin being killed because of it. I suppose the State's restraint is because they realize they are be holding to the people.
> 
> The federal government seems to think it can kill citizens with impunity and do anything they choose regardless of the Constitutional limitations that were placed upon it.
> 
> All federal lands/ property that are not in the District of Columbia, that are not used for forts bases or docks need to be returned to the states or sold to pay down the national debt.
> 
> There have been a lot of decisions from the courts over the last couple of decades that prove the courts have been compromised by politics, therefor they may not be seen as a trustworthy or an avenue of redress by certain segments of the population.


The Oregon State Police in conjunction with the FBI made the stop on the vehicle with warrants.

Other instances of occupation have no bearing on this case, we could connect all cases in some manner if we wanted to justify a particular situation.

The justice system is not perfect but that's all we have. I assure you that armed occupation isn't a valid avenue to change a courts opinion but it's a damn good way to get yourself killed or find yourself sitting in federal prison.


----------



## Maine-Marine

I want to see the car he was in... I hear they fired over 100 times at it...


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> The Oregon State Police in conjunction with the FBI made the stop on the vehicle with warrants.
> 
> Other instances of occupation have no bearing on this case, we could connect all cases in some manner if we wanted to justify a particular situation.
> 
> The justice system is not perfect but that's all we have. I assure you that armed occupation isn't a valid avenue to change a courts opinion but it's a damn good way to get yourself killed or find yourself sitting in federal prison.


Perhaps but, it doesn't make the laws that were being enforced any less unconstitutional. How can the be a crime when the law is unconstitutional to begin with? The police were acting on warrants gained to enforce unconstitutional laws. Therefore the warrants were not worth the paper they were written on and the officers were enforcing laws that do not hold the weight of law.

Whether they were armed or not has no bearing on the validity of the protest, they were peaceful protests and they were legally open carrying arms while doing it.

I certainly hope the families of those who were harmed are awarded millions of dollars from the civil suit they are going to file. Hopefully all those who were involved in enforcing the unconstitutional warrant lose their careers and their livelyhood for not upholding the constitution as they are sworn to do so.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Operator6 said:


> I assure you that armed occupation isn't a valid avenue to change............


your one of the sheep....


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Perhaps but, it doesn't make the laws that were being enforced any less unconstitutional. How can the be a crime when the law is unconstitutional to begin with? The police were acting on warrants gained to enforce unconstitutional laws. Therefore the warrants were not worth the paper they were written on and the officers were enforcing laws that do not hold the weight of law.
> 
> I certainly hope the families of those who were harmed are awarded millions of dollars from the civil suit they are going to file. Hopefully all those who were involved in enforcing the unconstitutional warrant lose their careers and their livelyhood for not upholding the constitution as they are sworn to do so.


Like I said, you're welcome to your opinion but as it stands now the court and I personally difsagree with you. 


Maine-Marine said:


> your one of the sheep....


No, I'm no sheep and I'm no fool either. If you're so sympathetic then why aren't you there with them ? I'm sure they need support.

Edit: For the record, Maine marine has resorted name calling, yet again.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> Like I said, you're welcome to your opinion but as it stands now the court and I personally difsagree with you.
> 
> No, I'm no sheep and I'm no fool either. If you're so sympathetic then why aren't you there with them ? I'm sure they need support.


Well I agree that the corrupt system may agree with you, but the constitution is clearly on my side of the issue and I will take that over any corrupt government system any day of the week.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Operator6 said:


> No, I'm no sheep and I'm no fool either.


make no mistake..you are one of the sheep... you have bankers hands and you are soft... you should have spent a little time in the military when you were younger... but no worries.. if you go down to the local pawn shop you can pick up a few medals and a SEAL ball cap - INSTANT hero...

g


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Well I agree that the corrupt system may agree with you, but the constitution is clearly on my side of the issue and I will take that over any corrupt government system any day of the week.


Ok, so file a case in federal court. Do you plan to ?


----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> make no mistake..you are one of the sheep... you have bankers hands and you are soft... you should have spent a little time in the military when you were younger... but no worries.. if you go down to the local pawn shop you can pick up a few medals and a SEAL ball cap - INSTANT hero...
> 
> g


It's ok, I realize you can't have a civil debate. I contribute that to a lack of education. Which ironically from listening to Finicum he also suffered from.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> Ok, so file a case in federal court. Do you plan to ?


Why would I file a case in court? It would be a waste of time and money. I have no standing ( according to the court). If I was harmed by the unconstitutional occupation of the land like the ranchers, then I would have standing to file. However I do not have a claim according to the court.


----------



## Maine-Marine

dsdmmat said:


> The constitution allows redress of the government (read that as peaceful protests), I don't remember any of the people occupying Wall Street or the state capital of Wisconsin being killed because of it. I suppose the State's restraint is because they realize they are be holding to the people.


yes and the fact in wisconsin there was a republican governor



dsdmmat said:


> The federal government seems to think it can kill citizens with impunity and do anything they choose regardless of the Constitutional limitations that were placed upon it.


yep



dsdmmat said:


> All federal lands/ property that are not in the District of Columbia, that are not used for forts bases or docks need to be returned to the states or sold to pay down the national debt.


before the end of Feb 2016



dsdmmat said:


> There have been a lot of decisions from the courts over the last couple of decades that prove the courts have been compromised by politics, therefor they may not be seen as a trustworthy or an avenue of redress by certain segments of the population.


Heck yes


----------



## Maine-Marine

Operator6 said:


> It's ok, I realize you can't have a civil debate. I contribute that to a lack of education. Which ironically from listening to Finicum he also suffered from.


they say a picture is worth a 1,00 words...


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Why would I file a case in court? It would be a waste of time and money. I have no standing ( according to the court). If I was harmed by the unconstitutional occupation of the land like the ranchers, then I would have standing to file. However I do not have a claim according to the court.


In your state, im sure the federal gov has buildings on land you consider unconstitutional. If you pay tax in your state and its state land, you are being denied the right of use.

Sure you'd lose and it's a waste.......just like arming yourself and occupying a federal building.


----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> they say a picture is worth a 1,00 words...
> 
> View attachment 14568


I guess that's your way of taking your ball and going home. Lol !


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> In your state, im sure the federal gov has buildings on land you consider unconstitutional. If you pay tax in your state and its state land, you are being denied the right of use.
> 
> Sure you'd lose and it's a waste.......just like arming yourself and occupying a federal building.


Nope that is not enough to claim standing it would be dismissed right away. Now if the Feds grabbed the land right next to my house and the BLM built a helipad on it solely for use by the BLM helicopter, I could claim I was harmed by the noise. I would probably win damages enough to force the BLM to buy my house or they could try to eminent domain my house, either way they would pay for my house and force me to move. 
BTW:
All your post did was reinforce my assertion that the court system is not an avenue of redress to certain segments of the population.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Operator6 said:


> I guess that's your way of taking your ball and going home. Lol !


well at least I have balls


----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> . you should have spent a little time in the military when you were younger..g


You mean the same military our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT runs ?? :joyous:


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Nope that is not enough to claim standing it would be dismissed right away. Now if the Feds grabbed the land right next to my house and the BLM built a helipad on it solely for use by the BLM helicopter, I could claim I was harmed by the noise. I would probably win damages enough to force the BLM to buy my house or they could try to eminent domain my house, either way they would pay for my house and force me to move.
> BTW:
> All your post did was reinforce my assertion that the court system is not an avenue of redress to certain segments of the population.


So if you are not affected, you can't file a case. Why not let the ones affected file the case then ?

Oh yeah, they didn't want to. I guess that's they're right.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> So if you are not affected, you can't file a case. Why not let the ones affected file the case then ?
> 
> Oh yeah, they didn't want to. I guess that's they're right.


Yep that is correct, It is their right to redress the government with a peaceful protest.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Yep that is correct, It is their right to redress the government with a peaceful protest.


An armed occupation of a federal building isn't peaceful.

That's like saying armed robbery is peaceful if the guy doesn't shoot you.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Operator6 said:


> An armed occupation of a federal building isn't peaceful.
> 
> That's like saying armed robbery is peaceful if the guy doesn't shoot you.


are you saying that before you can protest you must give up your right to bear arms


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> An armed occupation of a federal building isn't peaceful.
> 
> That's like saying armed robbery is peaceful if the guy doesn't shoot you.


Sorry armed robbery is an act of violence. Try comparing apples to apples. 
They were legally open carrying arms, they met with law enforcement officers at the site several times nobody was hurt nobody was threatened. It was a peaceful protest. 
Question:
Do you believe, If you are legally carrying a weapon are you not being peaceful?


----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> are you saying that before you can protest you must give up your right to bear arms


It's illegal to have a firearm in a federal building. And no the law is not unconstitutional.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Sorry armed robbery is an act of violence. Try comparing apples to apples.
> They were legally open carrying arms, they met with law enforcement officers at the site several times nobody was hurt nobody was threatened. It was a peaceful protest.
> Question:
> Do you believe, If you are legally carrying a weapon are you not being peaceful?


How did they gain entry into the federal building with their guns ?


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> How did they gain entry into the federal building with their guns ?


It was an unoccupied building not very hard to gain entry. I would imagine the just walked right through the door. It is not like they stormed the capitol building.


----------



## Operator6

Did anyone have guns in the capital building ? 

Not very hard to gain entry ???? Lol !!!!! I love that! 

They entered without permission.


----------



## Operator6

I've read reports that Mr Finicum charged the police. 

I wasn't there though.........but then again I'm not an idiot.


I guess if it turns out to be true, you guys could say that Mr Finicum had done nothing wrong and if Mr Finicum wanted to go jogging and head in the direction of the police then it's his right.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> Did anyone have guns in the capital building ?
> 
> Not very hard to gain entry ???? Lol !!!!! I love that!
> 
> They entered without permission.


 entering an unoccupied building without permission is not a violent crime. Trespassing is not a violent crime. Therefore it is still peaceful protest.

I contend as do they the federal building and the federal ownership of the land it is on is unconstitutional therefore entering the building or occupying the land is no crime at all. I am sure the corrupt legal/court system will charge and convict them of some obscure crime that does not open the question of the constitutionality of the federal land ownership to the jury.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> I've read reports that Mr Finicum charged the police.
> 
> I wasn't there though.........but then again I'm not an idiot.


"What is that saying, don't believe 1/2 of what you read, a 1/3 of what you hear and none of what you see."
I have no reason to believe he charged the police. I wasn't there either and I have no reason to believe you are an idiot.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> entering an unoccupied building without permission is not a violent crime. Trespassing is not a violent crime. Therefore it is still peaceful protest.
> 
> I contend as do they the federal building and the federal ownership of the land it is on is unconstitutional therefore entering the building or occupying the land is no crime at all. I am sure the corrupt legal/court system will charge and convict them of some obscure crime that does not open the question of the constitutionality of the federal land ownership to the jury.


No it's not a violent crime but it's a crime. The man openly stated he was not going to get handcuff because he had a rifle. He was not going to jail he stated.

Well he was correct, he didn't go to jail.

You can contend anything is unconstitutional but that doesn't make it so. You're welcome to that opinion but as I've stated, the court and I disagree with you.


----------



## Medic33

entering a any building and trespassing on someone else's property and being armed and telling the police you ain't taking me alive -well that could be considered a violent crime.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> I've read reports that Mr Finicum charged the police.
> 
> I wasn't there though.........but then again I'm not an idiot.
> 
> I guess if it turns out to be true, you guys could say that Mr Finicum had done nothing wrong and if Mr Finicum wanted to go jogging and head in the direction of the police then it's his right.


see now there you go making me think that you are contradicting your middle statement with that last edit.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Operator6 said:


> I've read reports that Mr Finicum charged the police.
> 
> I wasn't there though.........but then again I'm not an idiot.
> 
> I guess if it turns out to be true, you guys could say that Mr Finicum had done nothing wrong and if Mr Finicum wanted to go jogging and head in the direction of the police then it's his right.


Probably at least a dozen LE body cams at this fiasco, want to bet they all "malfunctioned" or were off?


----------



## Operator6

Medic33 said:


> entering a any building and trespassing on someone else's property and being armed and telling the police you ain't taking me alive -well that could be considered a violent crime.


It's damn sure a threat at the least.


----------



## dsdmmat

Medic33 said:


> entering a any building and trespassing on someone else's property and being armed and telling the police you ain't taking me alive -well that could be considered a violent crime.


It is not someone else's property (private property) we were talking about. An unoccupied cabin in the middle of nowhere on public land.

Did he actually tell the police in person or did he talk to a camera? Two very different things. One can be construed as a threat one can be construed as bravado.


----------



## Operator6

Mad Trapper said:


> Probably at least a dozen LE body cams at this fiasco, want to bet they all "malfunctioned" or were off?


Would that satisfy you or would you contend the recording was "fixed" ?

Legit question.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> It is not someone else's property (private property) we were talking about. An unoccupied cabin in the middle of nowhere on public land.
> 
> Did he actually tell the police in person or did he talk to a camera? Two very different things. One can be construed as a threat one can be construed as bravado.


They entered a federal building without permission carrying firearms. That's a crime as the law reads, that is fact. Until it's ruled unconstitutional then it is law.

It was a threat, he had the ability to carry the threat out.

It is not necessary to threaten the police directly. A recording will suffice just fine.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> Would that satisfy you or would you contend the recording was "fixed" ?
> 
> Legit question.


It seems pretty odd and telling that none of the video has not been leaked to show the officers were in fear of their lives. I would imagine if it was clear that the victim was an aggressor we would have seen some of it by now. That would certainly put some of the questions to rest rather quickly. After all the Feds are claiming they are trying to keep things from getting out of hand.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> It seems pretty odd and telling that none of the video has not been leaked to show the officers were in fear of their lives. I would imagine if it was clear that the victim was an aggressor we would have seen some of it by now. That would certainly put some of the questions to rest rather quickly. After all the Feds are claiming they are trying to keep things from getting out of hand.


The building is still being occupied last I heard, so the case is ongoing. . But then again, what's that old saying you like ? Can't believe what ya read and hear...


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> They entered a federal building without permission carrying firearms. That's a crime as the law reads, that is fact. Until it's ruled unconstitutional then it is law.
> 
> It was a threat, he had the ability to carry the threat out.
> 
> It is not necessary to threaten the police directly. A recording will suffice just fine.


Stating you will not be taken alive can be construed as a threat. It can also be construed as bravado. A law on the books does not have to be adjudicated to be unconstitutional. Is a law is passed by congress and signed by the president that declares private ownership of firearms is illegal, unconstitutional? Or does it take a court to declare it? If they passed a law that said you have to quarter Soldiers in your home, would that law be constitutional until the court says it is not?


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> The building is still being occupied last I heard, so the case is ongoing. . But then again, what's that old saying you like ? Can't believe what ya read and hear...


Yes I forgot, there has never been any camera footage leaked while a case was ongoing.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Stating you will not be taken alive can be construed as a threat. It can also be construed as bravado. A law on the books does not have to be adjudicated to be unconstitutional. Is a law is passed by congress and signed by the president that declares private ownership of firearms is illegal, unconstitutional? Or does it take a court to declare it? If they passed a law that said you have to quarter Soldiers in your home, would that law be constitutional until the court says it is not?


I believe it was a threat. The law believes it was a threat. Frankly that makes your opinion insignificant although you have the right to disagree.

As I stated before, you can claim anything and everything is unconstitutional but that doesn't make it so. The examples you give are not comparing apples to apples as you like to say.......those examples you give have long ago been decided and the courts routinely enforce them.

Your entire argument is its "unconstitutional", but like your opinion on the threat/bravado thing, the court and I disagree.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Operator6 said:


> Would that satisfy you or would you contend the recording was "fixed" ?
> 
> Legit question.


Seems they would bolster their justification of deadly force by releasing it.

Think it will ever see the light of day?


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Yes I forgot, there has never been any camera footage leaked while a case was ongoing.


I see we are making progress, you're admitting that tapes are made and "leaked".

Just because it's not recorded doesn't mean they're not being truthful, which is pure speculation and there could very well be a recording. Just because they are Oregon state troopers and FBI they are liars and murderers ?


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> I believe it was a threat. The law believes it was a threat. Frankly that makes your opinion insignificant although you have the right to disagree.
> 
> As I stated before, you can claim anything and everything is unconstitutional but that doesn't make it so. The examples you give are not comparing apples to apples as you like to say.......those examples you give have long ago been decided and the courts routinely enforce them.
> 
> Your entire argument is its "unconstitutional", but like your opinion on the threat/bravado thing, the court and I disagree.


As they say, "opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink." Your opinions are yours and you are welcome to them. The courts opinions change with the political winds. And any law that on its face violates articles of the constitution are unconstitutional from the time they are signed until they are repealed or adjudicated.

Anyway it has been a pleasure, and it is pretty much an opinion stalemate. Have a good evening, I am off to the fart sack for the evening.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> I see we are making progress, you're admitting that tapes are made and "leaked".
> 
> Just because it's not recorded doesn't mean they're not being truthful, which is pure speculation and there could very well be a recording. Just because they are Oregon state troopers and FBI they are liars and murderers ?


Never said they were. Just that I don't trust anything they claim without evidence. Never have never will.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> As they say, "opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink." Your opinions are yours and you are welcome to them. The courts opinions change with the political winds. And any law that on its face violates articles of the constitution are unconstitutional from the time they are signed until they are repealed or adjudicated.
> 
> Anyway it has been a pleasure, and it is pretty much an opinion stalemate. Have a good evening, I am off to the fart sack for the evening.


That's right and until the political winds blow and the court rules it unconstitutional it is the law.

That's the system we have. It's not perfect.


----------



## Doc Holliday

Every time an immigrant crosses our border in the middle of the night, they have committed a federal crime. Why is it that they are not arrested and sent back? Im not saying anything about what is happening up here in Oregon. But to the comment about they committed a federal crime so they should be arrested... Why not millions of ileagles? 

oh thats right, Obummer only wants white conservitive people arrested for federal crimes


----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> make no mistake..you are one of the sheep... you have bankers hands and you are soft... you should have spent a little time in the military when you were younger... but no worries.. if you go down to the local pawn shop you can pick up a few medals and a SEAL ball cap - INSTANT hero...
> 
> g


Hold on M&M, just cause he didn't serve in the military doesn't mean that he's wrong and you're right. And just for the record you marines are just as guilty of witness intimidation to protest one of your own criminals. As far as who owns or doesn't own this land, If I remember correctly this land in oregon is part of the Louisiana Purchase - land purchased by not individuals but the US Government from France. So Ownership of the land originally was with the Federal Government. Now they did recognize that certain folks had already laid claim to portions of it - such as the city of New Orleans. But you all are way off base on this one.

And again just cause someone doesn't agree with you you stoop to name calling, bullying and berating the individual who disagrees with you.

Why not go back to spouting your idioticies about the bible at least they were sometimes humorous


----------



## Titan6

The bigger question is , Is this going to be the new norm? Are they going to be knocking in doors of gun owners who refuse to give up their arms in the middle of the night, Are they going to carrying of those who disagree with their politics this just shows that the American Government will MURDER its citizens overseas and now in America. I am afraid that they have crossed that line and will now become more common. Wonder how much money the greedy banks and their in the pocket politician will make off the next land deal and murders of more Americans. Cant expect to much though we do have a murderer running for President. Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## dsdmmat

Real Old Man said:


> Hold on M&M, just cause he didn't serve in the military doesn't mean that he's wrong and you're right. And just for the record you marines are just as guilty of witness intimidation to protest one of your own criminals. As far as who owns or doesn't own this land, If I remember correctly this land in oregon is part of the Louisiana Purchase - land purchased by not individuals but the US Government from France. So Ownership of the land originally was with the Federal Government. Now they did recognize that certain folks had already laid claim to portions of it - such as the city of New Orleans. But you all are way off base on this one.
> 
> And again just cause someone doesn't agree with you you stoop to name calling, bullying and berating the individual who disagrees with you.
> 
> Why not go back to spouting your idioticies about the bible at least they were sometimes humorous


The federal government may have purchased it and they were constitutionally allowed to own it as long as it was a territory. As soon as Oregon became a state the federal land claim was void. Go back and read the 10th Amendment link I provided the federal government is only allowed to own certain types of land constitutionally.


----------



## dsdmmat

Titan6 said:


> The bigger question is , Is this going to be the new norm? Are they going to be knocking in doors of gun owners who refuse to give up their arms in the middle of the night, Are they going to carrying of those who disagree with their politics this just shows that the American Government will MURDER its citizens overseas and now in America. I am afraid that they have crossed that line and will now become more common. Wonder how much money the greedy banks and their in the pocket politician will make off the next land deal and murders of more Americans. Cant expect to much though we do have a murderer running for President. Just my 2 cents worth.


It became the new norm at wounded knee, Ruby Ridge and Waco. None of those involved in any of the mention events were imprisoned and some were even promoted.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> That's right and until the political winds blow and the court rules it unconstitutional it is the law.
> 
> That's the system we have. It's not perfect.


i cannot wait for the next unconstitutional law to be passed that says all females have to wear burkas. Will that be unconstitutional from the time it was signed or will a court have to rule on it?


----------



## MaterielGeneral

Here is a video with an audio clip from a witness that was there when the guy got shot.


----------



## Yeti-2015

I just heard on the news they have arrested 3 more of the occupier that were leaving. 
First off there will be all kinds of information that comes out by both sides. Until we have both sides and are able to wade through the BS to get the real story no one except the people involved really knows. Secondly I agree with Operator6, they didn’t follow the law of no guns on federal land, guess that makes me a sheep too. I agree with what they were trying to do, I think they just went about the wrong way. I don’t see the point of going back and forth about how someone’s perceive things that differ from another’s. That part of what makes this a great nation. People with different ideas that work together to get a common goal done. Another thing is when you get into name calling or posting pictures a douche to degrade someone is very childish. There is no reason to get into a “keyboard war” over this, a respectable debate is one thing, and this turned into something else. I’m just think back to the saying that I heard a lot when I was young “If you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all”. Lastly a man died and others are in jail, this will affect these people families. The LEO have a job to do and they did what they was ordered.


----------



## GrumpyBiker

It's coming out that the Feds had information being provided to them from the inside.
A Benedict Arnold it would appear.
It's why I shun the Militias and focus on the III% movement as it was intended vs the Militia type groups that even some III%ers have created.
Sadly you just can't really trust people.... At least I don't.
I am not weighting in on their side nor am I taking the other.
I read everything I can on the topic but the hard facts are tough to come by.
Seems a lot of folks have their opinions ! 
Even the news outlets have varying takes on it and that's normal, but if I had to render my opinion on it I'd feel it would be based on less than all the facts and therefore possibly inaccurate.
But I will say, if you're going to stand with someone you stand with them all the way through.
Not sell them out for a better deal.

Should it ever come to the point that taking a life or death stand or even revolution is called for, ya gotta watch out for the snitches among you.
It's not just a Biker or Prison thing !


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> i cannot wait for the next unconstitutional law to be passed that says all females have to wear burkas. Will that be unconstitutional from the time it was signed or will a court have to rule on it?


There will not be a law passed that women must wear burkas. Sure, if it was passed it would be unconstitutional.

What does that have to do with armed men breaking into a federal building ?


----------



## Operator6

Ammon Bundy's attorney released a statement from Bundy requesting the occupiers stand down and go home.

Bundy also added....." The fight is now in the courts"

Too bad the he didn't realize that before one of his friends was killed, his brother shot and the rest facing time in federal prison. 

I guess he is a sheep now ? Lmfao !!!!


----------



## NotTooProudToHide

Maine-Marine said:


> make no mistake..you are one of the sheep... you have bankers hands and you are soft... you should have spent a little time in the military when you were younger... but no worries.. if you go down to the local pawn shop you can pick up a few medals and a SEAL ball cap - INSTANT hero...
> 
> g


I just want to say that just because you have "banker hands" and or didn't serve in the military doesn't make you a sheep. I'm a young college educated United States citizen and I never did serve in the military. I don't know if I have banker hands, my dad wasn't afraid to work myself or my brothers, but today I work a job thats stressful as hell but physically its cake. I don't drink the koolaid that either side dishes out because the truth is somewhere in the middle. I do think these guys where idiots/jackasses/IRLtrolls for pulling the stunt they pulled. I also think they have a legitimate beef with the feds and it should be addressed through the proper channels.


----------



## M118LR

Laws are written and laws can be changed, the object is to do it in a civil peaceful manner. Once you have decided to take up arms you must realize that others can also bear arms. Dead Right & Dead Wrong have but one common denominator, DEAD. Never forget that time tested statement: "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" Would the occupation of the wildlife refuge have been any less effective without firearms? Or was the sole purpose of Armed Occupation to up the ante? Not everyone that decides to play high stakes poker is a winner. It is most unfortunate that this has lead to a mans death, but he knew that it was a possibility from the moment he armed himself. We have the right to bear arms, but it also comes with a responsibility. The actions taken during the Revolution and the actions taken during the Civil War both related to perceived tyranny, but the end result of both conflicts was the loss of life, so it is incumbent upon all citizens that they exhaust all peaceful means to change what they perceive as incorrect prior to taking up arms. It is a heavy responsibility that we owe to future generations and the price we pay for the right to keep and bear arms. (Yes, I did serve and have been in combat for our nation) So the responsibility to bear arms shouldn't be taken lightly. JMHO.


----------



## Operator6

neonoah said:


> Well, arms they will take because one way or another, die they will.
> It's when all the "be a coward and get a good deal after they kill the men" realize what a repeat of the oldest trick in the book they are, it will be too late.
> I think in this one we get to die as a warrior or a sheep in a pox line. Some people would rather not be cow hearted "but we won?" Dems in a pox line. That's next


I choked a guy out once and when he woke up, he attacked a water cooler and said the same thing so you may be on to something. Lol !!


----------



## Operator6

neonoah said:


> You choked a guy out once.....yeah....sure


It was for sport, he could've tapped out but like the armed occupiers he decided to ride it out to the end.

Actions have consequences.

I'll continue the discussion later, for now I'm going to the bank to make a very large deposit, go out for lunch and then ring some steel on a private range. Later !!!


----------



## M118LR

Last I new it was a Warriors goal to return home victorious! Martyrs always seem to die for their cause.


----------



## csi-tech

Still waiting for the facts on this one. So far the view has been biased towards the guy who got shot. If we have learned anything it is that as the facts come to light so do the guilty. Alot of cops being indicted lately and more than a few being freed from suspicion.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> There will not be a law passed that women must wear burkas. Sure, if it was passed it would be unconstitutional.
> 
> What does that have to do with armed men breaking into a federal building ?


I was just trying to figure out if you thought all laws are constitutional when they are passed and only unconstitutional when ruled upon.


----------



## Real Old Man

Mr.DSm in a previous post made some allusion to the Federal Government not being able to own any land in the state of Oregon, Perhaps he and others ought to read the Oregon Admissions Act ( https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OreConstAdmission.aspx ) to see the terms of Admission as a State.

It is really unfortunate for folks to make Bold Statements by shooting from the hip.


----------



## Real Old Man

Shoot even Texas agreed that some of it's lands were going to be taken possession of by the US Government https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html


----------



## dsdmmat

Real Old Man said:


> Mr.DSm in a previous post made some allusion to the Federal Government not being able to own any land in the state of Oregon, Perhaps he and others ought to read the Oregon Admissions Act ( https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OreConstAdmission.aspx ) to see the terms of Admission as a State.
> 
> It is really unfortunate for folks to make Bold Statements by shooting from the hip.


The constitution only allows three circumstances for the federal government to own land. There is nothing in the admissions act that changes that. The federal property in question does not fit any of the 3 conditions set out in the constitution.

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)


----------



## dsdmmat

I have read reports that there are 5 people left and four are free to leave but will not because they want the Feds to drop all charges against the 5th one before they agree to leave the wildlife refuge.


----------



## Operator6

neonoah said:


> I just saw this:
> 
> UPDATE. THURSDAY. A network of patriot groups from across the Northwest issued a call Thursday morning for supporters to flood into Burns. The request for help came on the heels of the Wednesday night arrest of Jason Patrick, a Georgia roofer who had emerged as a leader among the remaining occupiers of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge after the takeover's key planners, including Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne, were taken into law-enforcement custody.*Only a handful of occupiers remained at the bird sanctuary Thursday morning when the Pacific Patriot Network issued its call for support.*The group's members had helped persuade Patrick to leave the refuge, said Joseph Rice, a founding member from Grants Pass.*The FBI had assured them that Patrick would be given safe passage out of the area, Rice said Wednesday night.*He described the FBI taking Patrick into custody at a nearby checkpoint as a betrayal.*On Thursday morning, BJ Soper, a founding member of the group from Redmond, echoed the sentiment on Facebook.*"The events of the last few days in burns have culminated into a lot of massive frustration and anger," Soper wrote.*"The lies and mistrust used to arrest Jason Patrick last night were dirty and caused any trust left in the tank with the fbi to be lost," he wrote.*Soper called for thousands of people to converge on Burns peacefully to tell the FBI to leave.*"We need not hundreds, but thousands to come here," he wrote. "I am asking for any and all to come."﻿
> 
> I begin to wonder if oby wants to stay in office......by starting a conflict...


Awwww that's cute, they're mad because they were lied to.

Those people are going into Burns and they're going to start a conflict they will not and can't win. IMO highly uneducated individuals acting out on emotion rather than common sense.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> I have read reports that there are 5 people left and four are free to leave but will not because they want the Feds to drop all charges against the 5th one before they agree to leave the wildlife refuge.


The Feds can tell them anything, then next week go to their homes and arrest them. It's like these occupiers are 12 yr olds and they don't believe the government means business.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> The Feds can tell them anything, then next week go to their homes and arrest them. It's like these occupiers are 12 yr olds and they don't believe the government means business.


I am pretty sure they are negotiating through a lawyer to get it in writing. Which still wouldn't stop them from arresting them a week later but may prove very hard to get a conviction in any court.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Operator6 said:


> Awwww that's cute, they're mad because they were lied to.
> 
> Those people are going into Burns and they're going to start a conflict they will not and can't win. IMO highly uneducated individuals acting out on emotion rather than common sense.


White lives matter


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> I am pretty sure they are negotiating through a lawyer to get it in writing. Which still wouldn't stop them from arresting them a week later but may prove very hard to get a conviction in any court.


OH so now they want to negotiate with the evil unconstitutional empire ? Lol !!

Sounds like they just want some attention. I'd give them some attention along with 3 hots and a cot......and a nice view through the bars.


----------



## Operator6

neonoah said:


> I rather think it's the gaytriarchy and commies that are learning you can't just say dismissive things and lead off the stupid and worthless....that was just them.
> But it will be interesting to find out what it comes down to and which politician was about to make a billion bucks
> Plus, anything that miffs the undesirables and losers? Worth the chuckles


Who's winning so far ? Ask yourself that and get back to me.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> OH so now they want to negotiate with the evil unconstitutional empire ? Lol !!
> 
> Sounds like they just want some attention. I'd give them some attention along with 3 hots and a cot......and a nice view through the bars.


Guilty till proven innocent? Sounds a lot like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.


----------



## Operator6

neonoah said:


> Well so far I'm winning because it's pissing off the queers, commies and losers so bad they're spitting senseless bullets all over - but the legal battle hasn't even begun really yet and so far, the only death and damage hasn't been done by the ptotestors eh?


Oh I see you're winning because the queers,commies and losers are mad. Lol !!!! That's hilarious !!!

What exactly are you winning ? Lol !!!


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Guilty till proven innocent? Sounds a lot like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.


That would be unconstitutional. As matter of discussion, they're all going to prison.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> That would be unconstitutional. As matter of discussion, they're all going to prison.


That may be the end result but juries can surprise the prosecution every now and then. I wouldn't bet all the money I had against them going free. Stranger things have happened when average joe citizen sits on the jury.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> That may be the end result but juries can surprise the prosecution every now and then. I wouldn't bet all the money I had against them going free. Stranger things have happened when average joe citizen sits on the jury.


Federal cases are very difficult to win. But that's fine if they do, let the system work. If that's their idea of success I guess at least one failed, he'll be buried soon.


----------



## M118LR

neonoah said:


> You, right here on this board in front of God & everybody....and uncountable boobtube dummorats and lisbins..


Don't count your chickens before they hatch.


----------



## Operator6

neonoah said:


> You, right here on this board in front of God & everybody....and uncountable boobtube dummorats and lisbins..


Me ? I'm far from mad, infact I'm laughing. I'm not trying to be rude but 1/2 your posts I can't make any sense out if it. I do find it funny though, so I do enjoy them.


----------



## Real Old Man

dsdmmat said:


> Guilty till proven innocent? Sounds a lot like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.


So M&M calling the police that killed the Mormon murders is ok in your book?

You are really one strange group.

And there is not one thing in the constitution about the US Government not being able to enter into any contractural agreements (like the Admissions Acts are) where one of the parties agrees to give their land to the US Government.

You have a very strange view of our system of Government. Perhaps if you'd studied the law or heck just for starters read it, then you might be able to discuss an issue in an intelligent manner. But hey what ever floats your boat


----------



## Real Old Man

neonoah said:


> You, right here on this board in front of God & everybody....and uncountable boobtube dummorats and lisbins..


Again like a number of other folks calling folks names, disparaging against them and out right bullying and all that goes with it. I'd be willing to bet that most of us that don't agree with the likes of you are very bright,god fearing, honest to a fault patriotic individuals


----------



## dsdmmat

Real Old Man said:


> So M&M calling the police that killed the Mormon murders is ok in your book?
> 
> You are really one strange group.
> 
> And there is not one thing in the constitution about the US Government not being able to enter into any contractural agreements (like the Admissions Acts are) where one of the parties agrees to give their land to the US Government.
> 
> You have a very strange view of our system of Government. Perhaps if you'd studied the law or heck just for starters read it, then you might be able to discuss an issue in an intelligent manner. But hey what ever floats your boat


 The Federal government is limited in its powers by the constitution. The federal government is not constitutionally authorized to own land except as outlined by the constitution. The Oregon admission placed the land into the federal governments hand for disposal ( sale) to pay for the civil war. Not to keep and maintain, that is beyond the scope of its authorized powers. we are either a constitutional republic or a banana republic, which is it?

I read quite a bit of law and have to work within it, it is my job. I have also sworn an oath to uphold the constitution.

Perhaps assumptions are not one of your strong suits.
Never claimed to support MMs statements.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> The Federal government is limited in its powers by the constitution. The federal government is not constitutionally authorized to own land except as outlined by the constitution. The Oregon admission placed the land into the federal governments hand for disposal ( sale) to pay for the civil war. Not to keep and maintain, that is beyond the scope of its authorized powers. we are either a constitutional republic or a banana republic, which is it?
> 
> I read quite a bit of law and have to work within it, it is my job. I have also sworn an oath to uphold the constitution.
> 
> Never claimed to support MMs statements.


The Federal government can control land if approved by the states legislature. Forts,Arsenals,dock yards and other needful buildings.

For me, that's the end of it.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> The Federal government can control land if approved by the states legislature. Forts,Arsenals,dock yards and other needful buildings.
> 
> For me, that's the end of it.


That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. 
The land I question does not fit any of those categories.

The Feds are allowed to own 10 square miles (DC) territories and the categories listed.

If the federal government liquidated all lands it holds that do not fit the categories listed in the constitution it would go a long way to paying down the national debt.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> The land I question does not fit any of those categories.
> 
> The Feds are allowed to own 10 square miles (DC) territories and the categories listed.


If the states legislature approves it, it's a done deal.

"Needfull building" that's a broad brush to work with. I'm sure the Fed would argue there building is needful.

What do plan to do about your perceived unconstitutional control of land by the Fed ?

Complain ? Take control of a building with firearms in hand ? Get yourself shot ? Go to federal prison ?

I'm guessing nothing but posting on a forum.


----------



## Real Old Man

dsdmmat said:


> The Federal government is limited in its powers by the constitution. The federal government is not constitutionally authorized to own land except as outlined by the constitution. The Oregon admission placed the land into the federal governments hand for disposal ( sale) to pay for the civil war. Not to keep and maintain, that is beyond the scope of its authorized powers. we are either a constitutional republic or a banana republic, which is it?
> 
> I read quite a bit of law and have to work within it, it is my job. I have also sworn an oath to uphold the constitution.
> 
> Perhaps assumptions are not one of your strong suits.
> Never claimed to support MMs statements.


Guess you missed this one:

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[10]


----------



## Real Old Man

Operator6 said:


> If the states legislature approves it, it's a done deal.
> 
> "Needfull building" that's a broad brush to work with. I'm sure the Fed would argue there building is needful.
> 
> What do plan to do about your perceived unconstitutional control of land by the Fed ?
> 
> Complain ? Take control of a building with firearms in hand ? Get yourself shot ? Go to federal prison ?
> 
> I'm guessing nothing but posting on a forum.


Now you're picking on an arm chair commando


----------



## dsdmmat

Real Old Man said:


> Guess you missed this one:
> 
> Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
> 
> The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[10]


Nope didn't miss it, the constitution outlines what properties the Federal government is allowed to own. That article only says they can regulate the lands they are allowed to own constitutionally. If they are constitutionally prohibited from owning something this article doesn't allow them to own it or regulate it.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> If the states legislature approves it, it's a done deal.
> 
> "Needfull building" that's a broad brush to work with. I'm sure the Fed would argue there building is needful.
> 
> What do plan to do about your perceived unconstitutional control of land by the Fed ?
> 
> Complain ? Take control of a building with firearms in hand ? Get yourself shot ? Go to federal prison ?
> 
> I'm guessing nothing but posting on a forum.


Nope not going to take control of anything, can't legally take part in a protest, I will support their legal fund. It is about all I can legally do.

This is not a Lexington moment, it will not spark a nation wide uprising. One has to pick the battles they can win. This one is just a small blip on a long trip.


----------



## dsdmmat

Real Old Man said:


> Now you're picking on an arm chair commando


Now who is making disparaging comments.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Nope not going to take control of anything, can't legally take part in a protest, I will support their legal fund. It is about all I can legally do.
> 
> This is not a Lexington moment, it will not spark a nation wide uprising. One has to pick the battles they can win. This one is just a small blip on a long trip.


Why can't you legally take part in a protest ?


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> Why can't you legally take part in a protest ?


Conditions of my employment.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Conditions of my employment.


I would think that the Fed controlling land in Oregon would take precedence over something like a job.

I mean the occupiers left their jobs, family and one even gave his life.

I guess some just stand up for what they believe a little more than others. To each his own I suppose.


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> I would think that the Fed controlling land in Oregon would take precedence over something like a job.
> 
> I mean the occupiers left their jobs, family and one even gave his life.
> 
> I guess some just stand up for what they believe a little more than others. To each his own I suppose.


As I said this is not a Lexington moment. For every shooter the Army has there are nine support troops. Everyone has their role to play. Who knows maybe I could get selected to sit on the Jury....


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> As I said this is not a Lexington moment. For every shooter the Army has there are nine support troops. Everyone has their role to play. Who knows maybe I could get selected to sit on the Jury....


So your role is to support a never ending legal fund and to give opinions on the constitutionality of the Fed having a building in the wildlife refuge.

Sounds good and be sure you let us know when the Lexington moment happens although Mr Finicum will not be able to attend.

Next year I won't even remember his or the others names and the wildlife refuge will still be there. You tell me who won ......


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> So your role is to support a never ending legal fund and to give opinions on the constitutionality of the Fed having a building in the wildlife refuge.
> 
> Sounds good and be sure you let us know when the Lexington moment happens although Mr Finicum will not be able to attend.
> 
> Next year I won't even remember his or the others names and the wildlife refuge will still be there. You tell me who won ......


I am not sure who has won this one. There were years of abuse the colonists withstood before the battle of Lexington every one of those abuses created friction. The battles of Lexington and Concord lit the fuse for Revolution. I don't believe this event is likely to light the fuse, it may inspire another event that does. Then again it may not. Only time will tell. 
How many battles and years did the American Revolution take? 
How many did the Civil War take?

Some American have short memories, others do not. Mr Finicum will not be completely forgotten to history.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> I am not sure who has won this one. There were years of abuse the colonists withstood before the battle of Lexington. The battles of Lexington and Concord lite the fuse for Revolution. I don't believe this event is likely to light the fuse, it may inspire another event that does. Then again it may not. Only time will tell.
> How many battles and years did the American Revolution take?
> How many did the Civil War take?
> 
> Some American have short memories, others do not. Mr Finicum will not be completely forgotten to history.


Ask Mr Finicums family who won.

What abuse are the people of Oregon withstanding ?
The Oregon State Police were part of the effort.

A few confused armed men looking for a cause to grasp breaking into a federal building in a wildlife refuge is compared to the events leading up to the civil war ? Apples to apples remember ?

I remember significant people in our recent history, not a guy who basically committed suicide by cop over an issue in a different state having absolutely nothing to do with him. It's Oregons issue if it's anyones.


----------



## dsdmmat

Oh his family has certainly lost a father and a husband. I would imagine they will be receiving a very large settlement from the justice department when this is all over not that money could replace the man.

Oregon is just one state and one small portion of the population. There are a lot of abuses being heaped upon different segments of the population of this country. All kinds of movements starting, some petering out some merging and moving on to other things. It isn't just about the ranchers in Oregon or Nevada. There are a lot of unhappy people in this country. Christians feel persecuted, Muslims feel persecuted, Blacks feel persecuted, there are many many more examples of people who are suffering abuses ( whether they are true or perceived doesn't matter).

If you do not see the potential for an incident like this to spark a larger protest that leads to bigger and worse things, then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about.

I believe there is potential for one of these incidents to get out of hand and given the political divide in this country cause real problems (SHTF if you will).



Operator6 said:


> Ask Mr Finicums family who won.
> 
> What abuse are the people of Oregon withstanding ?
> The Oregon State Police were part of the effort.
> 
> A few confused armed men looking for a cause to grasp breaking into a federal building in a wildlife refuge is compared to the events leading up to the civil war ? Apples to apples remember ?
> 
> I remember significant people in our recent history, not a guy who basically committed suicide by cop over an issue in a different state having absolutely nothing to do with him. It's Oregons issue if it's anyones.


----------



## Operator6

dsdmmat said:


> Oh his family has certainly lost a father and a husband. I would imagine they will be receiving a very large settlement from the justice department when this is all over not that money could replace the man.
> 
> Oregon is just one state and one small portion of the population. There are a lot of abuses being heaped upon different segments of the population of this country. All kinds of movements starting, some petering out some merging and moving on to other things. It isn't just about the ranchers in Oregon or Nevada. There are a lot of unhappy people in this country. Christians feel persecuted, Muslims feel persecuted, Blacks feel persecuted, there are many many more examples of people who are suffering abuses ( whether they are true or perceived doesn't matter).
> 
> If you do not see the potential for an incident like this to spark a larger protest that leads to bigger and worse things, then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about.
> 
> I believe there is potential for one of these incidents to get out of hand and given the political divide in this country cause real problems (SHTF if you will).


Here is a link to the shooting video of Mr. Finicum.

His family will not get one red cent.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...deo-shooting-death-oregon-protester/79490322/


----------



## dsdmmat

Operator6 said:


> Here is a link to the shooting video of Mr. Finicum.
> 
> His family will not get one red cent.
> 
> FBI releases video of shooting death of Oregon protester


Yep, you may be right on that one. That is a pretty damming video.


----------



## Operator6

Mad Trapper said:


> Seems they would bolster their justification of deadly force by releasing it.
> 
> Think it will ever see the light of day?


FBI releases video of shooting death of Oregon protester

Too bad the Oregon State Patrol didn't have 4 or 5 Barrett 50 cal semi autos on deck. That would've been my set up.


----------



## csi-tech

Operator6 said:


> FBI releases video of shooting death of Oregon protester
> 
> Too bad the Oregon State Patrol didn't have 4 or 5 Barrett 50 cal semi autos on deck. That would've been my set up.


And there is absolutely no footage of the incident.


----------



## Operator6

csi-tech said:


> And there is absolutely no footage of the incident.


It's there, scroll down the page some.


----------



## Slippy

From what I can tell on the video, LaVoy Finucun crashes the vehicle into a snow drift next to the road block. He exits the vehicle with his arms spread wide. From behind him a person (FBI agent?) appears with a long gun. Finucun appears to reach toward his torso and is shot from behind as well as by a person (another agent?) near the road block in front of him.

That's what I saw...if the video is real.


----------



## Operator6

Looked like he damn near ran over one of the cops. 

That guy wanted to be shot. It's really sad. My gut tells me that guy wouldn't have fired on police.....but you can't count on that. 

If he would have exited the vehicle and laid down on his face, he would be alive today.


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> Looked like he damn near ran over one of the cops.
> 
> That guy wanted to be shot. It's really sad. My gut tells me that guy wouldn't have fired on police.....but you can't count on that.
> 
> If he would have exited the vehicle and laid down on his face, he would be alive today.


wow...

There still is a lot we can't really tell. Were police shooting into the vehicle? What made them speed off in the first place after initially stopping? Were they shot at? He does exit the vehicle with hands up. It's hard to tell if he is reaching for a sidearm or responding to being shot. Looks like he was shot in the back.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Would like to see some footage from the scene/ground.

He did have his arms raised. What is not clear is was he shot because he dropped them, or did he drop them as a result of being shot?

He certainly was not "charging" the LE as reported and not close to any of them.

Ever seen the movie Vantage point?


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> wow...
> 
> There still is a lot we can't really tell. Were police shooting into the vehicle? What made them speed off in the first place after initially stopping? Were they shot at? He does exit the vehicle with hands up. It's hard to tell if he is reaching for a sidearm or responding to being shot. Looks like he was shot in the back.


I wasn't there and I can't change that fact. There's plenty I'll just have to take their word for it or leave it.

I choose to side with law enforcement on this one.


----------



## Operator6

Don't know about any of you but if I ran up on a road block like that then jumped out like he did, I would expect to be killed. 

I'm sure he expected to be killed and he fulfilled his own prophecy.


----------



## Real Old Man

Operator6 said:


> Don't know about any of you but if I ran up on a road block like that then jumped out like he did, I would expect to be killed.
> 
> I'm sure he expected to be killed and he fulfilled his own prophecy.


Especially when you take in the totality of what these officers knew. One) subjects had made it very clear to everyone that they were armed, Two) several had made it clear that they would use violence is pushed by the Feds, Three) This one individual had stated quite clearly that he wasn't going to go to jail. Add that to his deliberate attempt to evade a road block, it will be doubtful if his family receives anything. I think it's quite obvious that the rest of the gang in the vehicle did not share Mr. F. desire for a confrontation or that they were a lot more interested in saving their hides.

As for raising his hands in surrender, that's open to debate. I see it more as him throwing up his hands in disgust and then very quickly bringing them down to belt level where these officers would be expected him to have a weapon. As for shooting him in the back, it's fairly clear that he was facing at least one officer when his hands flashed down. In those circumstances the officer behind him taking him out from behind would seem to be a reasonable act.


----------



## Will2

Mad Trapper said:


> Would like to see some footage from the scene/ground.
> 
> He did have his arms raised. What is not clear is was he shot because he dropped them, or did he drop them as a result of being shot?
> 
> He certainly was not "charging" the LE as reported and not close to any of them.
> 
> Ever seen the movie Vantage point?


Yeah, the video released wasn't that great, better than nothing though. Hopefully they have dashboard or otherwise. You'd think an arrest of such high calibre they would have tons of video footage set up at the roadblock to cover their arses, against any potential backlash if things really went bad. Since they put so much planning into the ambush you'd think that part of their public relations planning would include tons of footage from all angles of the perimeter of the intended arrest zone. One aerial drone seems a little lax.

Initial reports seem issued, however what seems to be the situation is that

They did some type of stop, but failed to execute the warrant.

He asked to speak with the Sherrif instead of the FBI.

Someone came out of the woods from behind him and suprised him so he turned around to see what it was.

He DID NOT PULL OUT A GUN. HE DID NOT HAVE A GUN IN HIS HANDS. HIS hands were in the air until the guy behind him came out from the woods and attempted to approach with his gun drawn.

Audio has not been released but people that have released statements said he was communicating with them asking to speak with the sherrif.

They then suprised him and within a second or two of jumping out of the treeline they shot him.

I would say cops were VERY trigger happy. Report said 6 shots were fired but police reported only 3 shots, so that will be a big issue to figure out, was it 3 shots or 6 shots.

He was white though, so no reason for outrage right, cause that is what black people do when someone not holding a gun gets shot by police do right.

White people with their white privelege it works both way, they get away with stuff so they don't get complained when some white guy gets shot cause, clearly he must have did something really really bad.


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> Yeah, the video released wasn't that great, better than nothing though. Hopefully they have dashboard or otherwise. You'd think an arrest of such high calibre they would have tons of video footage set up at the roadblock to cover their arses, against any potential backlash if things really went bad. Since they put so much planning into the ambush you'd think that part of their public relations planning would include tons of footage from all angles of the perimeter of the intended arrest zone. One aerial drone seems a little lax.
> 
> Initial reports seem issued, however what seems to be the situation is that
> 
> They did some type of stop, but failed to execute the warrant.
> 
> He asked to speak with the Sherrif instead of the FBI.
> 
> Someone came out of the woods from behind him and suprised him so he turned around to see what it was.
> 
> He DID NOT PULL OUT A GUN. HE DID NOT HAVE A GUN IN HIS HANDS. HIS hands were in the air until the guy behind him came out from the woods and attempted to approach with his gun drawn.
> 
> Audio has not been released but people that have released statements said he was communicating with them asking to speak with the sherrif.
> 
> They then suprised him and within a second or two of jumping out of the treeline they shot him.
> 
> I would say cops were VERY trigger happy. Report said 6 shots were fired but police reported only 3 shots, so that will be a big issue to figure out, was it 3 shots or 6 shots.
> 
> He was white though, so no reason for outrage right, cause that is what black people do when someone not holding a gun gets shot by police do right.
> 
> White people with their white privelege it works both way, they get away with stuff so they don't get complained when some white guy gets shot cause, clearly he must have did something really really bad.


Welcome back Will!

I, for one, have really missed your unique brand of insights while you were away. So pull up a rock, grab a cup of log alcohol and regale us with stories about what you have been doing in your absence.


----------



## Urinal Cake

F.B.I.
Famous 
But
Incompetent


----------



## jdjones3109

Maine-Marine said:


> in my mind they could have left them alone and let them slowly head home... no harm no foul no need for action


If me or you walk into a bank, hospital, or anywhere else and "occupy" it, would we be allowed to simply stay there until we felt like going home? I don't necessarily agree with what happened (I don't know all of the facts so I can't form an opinion), but who actually thought this was going to end well? At the end of the day, the federal and state governments can't and shouldn't allow anyone to occupy their buildings or land whether they are vacant or not. It would set a dangerous precedent.


----------



## csi-tech

I think they have had plenty of time to voice their opinions. They had free run of the wildlife refuge facility for weeks and they were essentially left alone. No Police within sight for a long time. It is time for it to come to an end. I just watched the video from the FBI aircraft and I did not see a man peacefully kneeling and surrendering. I watched a man flee from Police attempting to serve what I see as a valid arrest warrant. I watched him evade a road block, bail out of the vehicle and reach for a loaded pistol in his jacket when he was shot. Barring any other facts I'm not seeing this one is case closed for me.


----------



## Gunner's Mate

The RoadBlock Placement was such that they had no time to stop they crashed into the snow drift and ran over some poor bastard that jumped in front of the crashing vehichle, and if they had crashed into the parked RoadBlock it would have been like the ending of Bonnie and Clyde. Well Done BY the LEO's


----------



## Slippy

jdjones3109 said:


> If me or you walk into a bank, hospital, or anywhere else and "occupy" it, would we be allowed to simply stay there until we felt like going home? I don't necessarily agree with what happened (I don't know all of the facts so I can't form an opinion), but who actually thought this was going to end well? At the end of the day, the federal and state governments can't and shouldn't allow anyone to occupy their buildings or land whether their vacant or not. It would set a dangerous precedent.


Dangerous precedent has already been set. Protesters have been "occupying" government buildings for a long long time. Some get shot, some don't. Depends on the positions of the protesters and whether or not the political rulers agree or not.


----------



## Gunner's Mate

Gunner's Mate said:


> The RoadBlock Placement was such that they had no time to stop they crashed into the snow drift and ran over some poor bastard that jumped in front of the crashing vehichle, and if they had crashed into the parked RoadBlock it would have been like the ending of Bonnie and Clyde. Well Done BY the LEO's


This does not mean I agree with the shooting just saying LEOS set up a nice Roadblock, Lucky that he didnt crash the Roadblock though probably would have been some serious injuries


----------



## Real Old Man

I've looked at the video a couple of times and it doesn't look like the driver made any attempt to stop or slow down.

As for asking to speak with the sheriff, If you're told the magic four words (you are under arrest) the time for talking and discussing is all over. And the act of quickly reaching for your waistband (on a person who said he would not be taken to jail) would be a clear indication to anyone in the LEO community (and to most folks that read Captain Ayoob's articles) that Mr F was reaching for a weapon.

Very lousey judgement on the Part of Mr F, Kind of like the stupid crap pulled by the gentle giant Mike or the candy packing kid in Florida.

Sometimes you just can not fix stupid


----------



## Kauboy

So initial reports were, yet again, inaccurate.
His hands were out initially, but at the time he was shot, his hand was moving toward an interior jacket pocket that held a loaded 9mm handgun.


----------



## Slippy

Advice to youngsters;

Do not reach for your loaded 9mm when you exit your vehicle after you crash it next to a Law Enforcement Roadblock. Simply place your interlocked hands on your head, kneel on the ground and cross your legs behind you.


(Memories...light the corners of my mind...misty watercolored memories...)


----------



## Maine-Marine

jdjones3109 said:


> If me or you walk into a bank, hospital, or anywhere else and "occupy" it, would we be allowed to simply stay there until we felt like going home? I don't necessarily agree with what happened (I don't know all of the facts so I can't form an opinion), but who actually thought this was going to end well? At the end of the day, the federal and state governments can't and shouldn't allow anyone to occupy their buildings or land whether their vacant or not. It would set a dangerous precedent.


if you can not mentally picture the difference between occupying a bank and an empty building..I can not have a discussion with you


----------



## Maine-Marine

Kauboy said:


> So initial reports were, yet again, inaccurate.
> His hands were out initially, but at the time he was shot, his hand was moving toward an interior jacket pocket that held a loaded 9mm handgun.


how do you KNOW what he was reaching for and that the pistol was a 9mm and that it was loaded


----------



## Maine-Marine

a few comments

what was a guy in the woods and why would he shot at the guy standind between him and other LE's... STUPID placement of Officers

Why try and jump in front of a moving vehicle

why is there a bullet hole in drivers side front windshield

AND LAST... the report/rumor/ is that he was not reaching for a weapon..he was shot in the side 

I will wait to see on this...


----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> how do you KNOW what he was reaching for and that the pistol was a 9mm and that it was loaded


It doesn't matter what he was reaching for, he ran up on a road block and failed to stop, had made threats and did not get on the ground when he exited the vehicle.

The cops don't play games when it gets to that juncture.


----------



## jdjones3109

Slippy said:


> Dangerous precedent has already been set. Protesters have been "occupying" government buildings for a long long time. Some get shot, some don't. Depends on the positions of the protesters and whether or not the political rulers agree or not.


I work at a college. We've had students "occupy" the offices of various administrators from time to time, but there's a HUGE difference between their actions and those of the militia members. When all is said and done, when the government tells you it's time to leave, it's time to leave. Like it or not, they're not to be played with as though they won't shoot and arrest you (in that order).


----------



## mcangus




----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> how do you KNOW what he was reaching for and that the pistol was a 9mm and that it was loaded


Maine it doesn't matter if he had one there or not. He'd already told folks - i think on camera - that he was armed and not going to go to jail. The officers tried to arrest him and his cohorts (doesn't matter what you or I think once a warrant has been issued it's for the courts to decide). He decided to flee. and ran into a road block. Then jumped out of the car demanding to speak with the sheriff. Sorry you don't get to choose who arrests you. he's startled by someone coming out of the wood line - great move if you've ever got to take an armed suspect into custody especially if gunplay eventually has to occur. He made the move to his waist (his choice on how to play the hand he was dealt). The good guys (who have their weapons drawn ) shoot him before he can hurt them. Trust me on this your average man with a pistol can't out draw a man with a drawn gun . So he's now paid the consequences.

If he made the move and was armed, not too bright. If he made the move and wasn't carrying then is in the Michael Brown Category of human


----------



## jdjones3109

Maine-Marine said:


> a few comments
> 
> what was a guy in the woods and why would he shot at the guy standind between him and other LE's... STUPID placement of Officers
> 
> Why try and jump in front of a moving vehicle
> 
> why is there a bullet hole in drivers side front windshield
> 
> AND LAST... the report/rumor/ is that he was not reaching for a weapon..he was shot in the side
> 
> I will wait to see on this...


Have you watched the news in the last year or ten? I've seen them shoot unarmed black people with impunity. No one gave a damn. Why (besides the obvious) is this any different? He wasn't reaching for his gun? So what. He could have been unarmed for all they care. He was shot in the side? They could have shot him in the back as he was walking away holding nothing but a pen knife. We've given them a license to kill unarmed citizens and now we're supposed to be upset it's backfiring on us? SMH.


----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> a few comments
> 
> what was a guy in the woods and why would he shot at the guy standind between him and other LE's... STUPID placement of Officers
> 
> Why try and jump in front of a moving vehicle
> 
> why is there a bullet hole in drivers side front windshield
> 
> AND LAST... the report/rumor/ is that he was not reaching for a weapon..he was shot in the side
> 
> I will wait to see on this...


I think there is a lesson to be learned here (not for folks like Op, me CSI or Kau) but for folks like you that seem to think that a) your actions don't have consequences b) that there are some situations that no matter how much you or your followers think you're right aren't worth dying over, and that C) most folks in law enforcement aren't there to play your stupid silly games. It's serios business for them and if you act foolish you will pay for it


----------



## Maine-Marine

Why would he get out with his hands up and then go for a gun??? 

does not make sense to me!!!

I do not care what anybody says.. I want to see more video with audio and i want to know which officer fired first and why.

These guys were not gang members and to my knowledge they did not have mile long rap sheets... the powers that be forced this...

the sheriff invited them to speak and that might very well be the reason they wish to speak to the sheriff

WELL some of the FBI guys get to put a notch on their gun and have bragging rights that they killed a hardened criminal that was going for his gun

until I see more video the FBI are in wrong

if this is like most other stops you have 3 guys yelling get your hands up and 2 more yelling get on your knees... 

frankly.. I am pissed off....


----------



## Operator6

Plenty of people have acted like they are complying then reach for a gun. He may have been trying to get an advantage or simply changed his mind, then the officer in the woods took the shot. 

If there was a bullet hole in the windshield that maybe why the SUV Mr Finicum was driving veered off the road. Either way, you don't approach a road block like they did. That in itself is an act of aggression.


----------



## Arklatex

They ran from the police.

They were considered armed and dangerous.

When the chase was over the man jumped out of the car. 

I can see this as a justifiable shooting given the few facts we have so far. I don't think it had to come to this but it's over and done now.


----------



## Will2

Maine-Marine said:


> a few comments
> 
> what was a guy in the woods and why would he shot at the guy standind between him and other LE's... STUPID placement of Officers
> 
> Why try and jump in front of a moving vehicle
> 
> why is there a bullet hole in drivers side front windshield
> 
> AND LAST... the report/rumor/ is that he was not reaching for a weapon..he was shot in the side
> 
> I will wait to see on this...


This is why more video footage is badly needed. We know there is other camera/footage as I have seen atleast one picture from another angle.

However in regard to why there are bullets,imo, is as follows:

The closest corrobration of events, from the 18yo singer, indicated that the police fired on the vehicle. Someone said it was the original stop that police started firing on Finicum and occupants, injuring Ryan Payne (or Bundy I think Payne) in the arm. Then AFTER the vehicle was banked and Finicum was shot multiple times (apparently) atleast one source states police then started firing on Finicum's vehicle atleast twice, which resulted in the windshield getting several bullet holes.

I have not yet seen any report indicating that anyone in the vehicle fired on police, in fact, police opened up fire on the vehicle after Ryan put his hands out the window to show he was unarmed. Shortly after that Finicum sped off - likely fearing they would be killed as police seemed intent to use lethal force and had shut down paceful interaction with them.

We do not yet know if police told Finicum he was under arrest. I havn't seen any audio indicating that and will wait on more information release from the police, hopefully audio as well as more video and photos and the coroners report where the bullet holes are is VERY important forensic information.

However there is equipment that could cause someone to reach for a part of their body due to firing things like microwaves on the nervous system. I'm not saying police staged it, as if the US wanted to stage an event they could have done way more to make it more convincing.

There are just so many versions of the events right now. Once Bundy is released if the residence at the Nature reserve ends, then we will have a better idea of his version, if any, as I am sure his lawyer will be getting him to exercise silence on this.


----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> Why would he get out with his hands up and then go for a gun???
> 
> does not make sense to me!!!
> 
> I do not care what anybody says.. I want to see more video with audio and i want to know which officer fired first and why.
> 
> These guys were not gang members and to my knowledge they did not have mile long rap sheets... the powers that be forced this...
> 
> the sheriff invited them to speak and that might very well be the reason they wish to speak to the sheriff
> 
> WELL some of the FBI guys get to put a notch on their gun and have bragging rights that they killed a hardened criminal that was going for his gun
> 
> until I see more video the FBI are in wrong
> 
> if this is like most other stops you have 3 guys yelling get your hands up and 2 more yelling get on your knees...
> 
> frankly.. I am pissed off....


Then unfortunately you belong to that anti government "gang" (organized or not) that simply refuses to understand that there are laws in this country and weither or not you like them or agree with them or not doesn't matter. You all (and I include you in that black lives matter group as well as the supporters of Michael Brown and the Eric Holders of the world) for your own perverted reasons do not want or believe that you are required to abide by society's rules (laws) simply cause you dont agree with them.

Frankly I hope no law enforcement officer ever comes in contact with anyone of your persuasion. Your ignorance and pig headedness will do just like this fool did and force an officer to deal with you in a similar manner. Now I know that you and others of your ilk firmly believe in your beady little brains that all any cop in this country wants to do each and every day is to kill one of your sorry azzes. But I can assure you that that is the furtherest thing from their minds.

They like you just want to go home at the end of the day and enjoy their lives.


----------



## Denton

Real Old Man said:


> Then unfortunately you belong to that anti government "gang" (organized or not) that simply refuses to understand that there are laws in this country and weither or not you like them or agree with them or not doesn't matter. You all (and I include you in that black lives matter group as well as the supporters of Michael Brown and the Eric Holders of the world) for your own perverted reasons do not want or believe that you are required to abide by society's rules (laws) simply cause you dont agree with them.
> 
> Frankly I hope no law enforcement officer ever comes in contact with anyone of your persuasion. Your ignorance and pig headedness will do just like this fool did and force an officer to deal with you in a similar manner. Now I know that you and others of your ilk firmly believe in your beady little brains that all any cop in this country wants to do each and every day is to kill one of your sorry azzes. But I can assure you that that is the furtherest thing from their minds.
> 
> They like you just want to go home at the end of the day and enjoy their lives.


Your lack of knowledge of the difference between true law and unconstitutional statutes, codes and regulations is typical of today's American population. It is much easier to think that if it is written by the government, it is law and worthy of respect and compliance.

The typical American is deserving of a controlling and oppressive government, and you will get more of it.

I can also assure you that your assurances of the caliber of people wearing law enforcement uniforms is unfounded. I personally knew men who were the exact opposite of what you describe, and I can assure you that senior federal agents who are preparing to retire are concerned about the brand of agents that have been hitting the field in the last few years.

As far as your string of insults you spewed at another member who did not first throw them at you or anyone else but was only giving his analysis of what he is seeing, today, I believe they speak for themselves and for your character. I'll let them do the talking.


----------



## Kauboy

Maine-Marine said:


> how do you KNOW what he was reaching for and that the pistol was a 9mm and that it was loaded


Clearly you can't "know" what he was reaching for, MM. That's the fine line officers walk every day.
They have to use their best judgement. They can't assume that a man approaching a roadblock in a dangerous manner(excessive speed, ignoring center line, attempting to drive around), who's stated he will die before being arrested, and is *KNOWN* to have been armed during your entire interaction with him, is going to be a coherent and passive person. He got out of the vehicle and began stomping around. He gave no indication that he would follow their orders. His right hand went into his left jacket side, and then came out, hands back up. He then noticed another person coming up behind him, and made the same motion again. He was then shot.

I believe I'm safe in recalling that you carry a firearm for personal protection.
Can you *know* that a man pointing a gun at you will shoot?
Do you wait to find out before you take action?

I know that he had a loaded 9mm because the linked article stated so.


> "He did have a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in that pocket."


Yes, that is an "after the fact" fact. However, it proved their intuition to be accurate. He was armed, and reaching in the direction of a firearm.


----------



## Camel923

4 Oregon Occupiers Remain Holed up After FBI Releases Video of Shooting


----------



## Denton

Camel923 said:


> 4 Oregon Occupiers Remain Holed up After FBI Releases Video of Shooting


They need to heed the directive of their leader and go home. The point is made, and as Ammon Bundy said, the real battle will be fought in court, now.


----------



## GTGallop

I've heard for a while now that he was murdered, gunned down in cold blood, it was essentially a drive by shooting, they made it look like a traffic stop and then shot him the back of the head, etc.

But when I saw the video, I saw a man that fled police at a high rate of speed, charged a roadblock, tried to run over an officer, wrecked his truck, tried to evade into the woods, then he put his hands up (hands up don't shoot) then he reached for his waist band. Bang - dead.

IMHO - his shooting was a good shoot in the sense that his behavior and conduct after initial contact with police was erratic, panicked, unpredictable, and dangerous for all parties involved. I'm not saying he deserved to die, just that when you play with the government you always play by their rules and their rules say that when you pull a "Finicum" you get shot. It has been that way for a long time and isn't a secret. If you expected them to treat him any differently then you have been huffing moonbeams and rainbows right out of a unicorns ass.

The minute he reached for his pants, what ever noble cause he was fighting for evaporated, he was just another immediate threat that needed to be eliminated - dumb dumb dumb on his part.


----------



## Mad Trapper

From the video released I'm not convinced he was not reaching for a gunshot wound. It is clear that at some point he was shot in the back.

Is that is the best footage that LE can release?

If in fact he was armed, and reaching for a gun, prior to being shot himself, he got what he asked for.

I'll be skeptical until the whole of the incident is revealed. That will include what transpired at the first roadblock.


----------



## Denton

mcangus said:


>


What I see, here.

I see the driver attempt to go around the road block. I see another individual jump in front of a truck that just drove into the snow. I do not see an attempt to run down an officer.

I see a man with his hands in the air. I see the man reach to his side. Had he been shot? Beats me, but that is a possibility. Could he have been reaching for a pistol? It is a possibility, but not even the most retarded would think he would be able to get to a weapon and compete against others who are already drawn and waiting to shoot.

I do see that the drone footage is not conclusive.

The only judgement I will offer is directed toward the officer who stepped in front of a truck that had just been steered off the road and into the snow. He needs to be sent to a shrink.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> Could he have been reaching for a pistol? It is a possibility, but not even the most retarded would think he would be able to get to a weapon and compete against others who are already drawn and waiting to shoot.


He'd already stated that he would die before being arrested. We aren't dealing with a straight arrow here.
Plus, he was the "spokesman" and could have considered himself a martyr for his cause.
Crazy people can do crazy things. Suicide by cop is real.


----------



## Real Old Man

Denton said:


> What I see, here.
> 
> The only judgement I will offer is directed toward the officer who stepped in front of a truck that had just been steered off the road and into the snow. He needs to be sent to a shrink.


Funny guy. You and M&M can make all of your wild accusations about a situation you have little or no knowledge about. However, let one of us criticize one of your statements and were called every name in the book.

And again what you define as a real law really has about as much validity as a bucket of warm spit.

But hey you and the black lives matter folks are only different in what you believe, not your attitude towards society in general


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> He'd already stated that he would die before being arrested. We aren't dealing with a straight arrow here.
> Plus, he was the "spokesman" and could have considered himself a martyr for his cause.
> Crazy people can do crazy things. Suicide by cop is real.


People say stupid things. Maybe he decided to do that, but considering he was a husband, a father, a man with ranching responsibilities and was reported to be a good man, it is reasonable to be suspicious of that possibility.

Yes, he could have considered himself a martyr for the cause, but we don't have any way of knowing that. To me, it seems to be a futile act; it takes one out of the fight for liberty and, for a spokesman, it silences one's voice in a very permanent manner. Not a typical mindset for someone who steps up to be a spokesman.

Yes, people are crazy, in and out of uniform.

Although I am far removed from the scene and have no more idea of what really happened than anyone else in such a position, what sways my position on the situation more than anything else is that the protesters are not welcome by the people of the town and the rancher who was sent to jail didn't want the Bundy posse to get involved, either. The Bundy posse really should have taken all this into consideration and left as soon as they arrived.


----------



## Denton

Real Old Man said:


> Funny guy. You and M&M can make all of your wild accusations about a situation you have little or no knowledge about. However, let one of us criticize one of your statements and were called every name in the book.
> 
> And again what you define as a real law really has about as much validity as a bucket of warm spit.
> 
> But hey you and the black lives matter folks are only different in what you believe, not your attitude towards society in general


I suggest you simmer down and stop trying to insult at every turn.


----------



## Kauboy




----------



## Maine-Marine

There is a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson about government troops killing farmers

Concord Hymn (1837)

By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> What I see, here.
> 
> I see the driver attempt to go around the road block. I see another individual jump in front of a truck that just drove into the snow. I do not see an attempt to run down an officer.
> 
> I see a man with his hands in the air. I see the man reach to his side. Had he been shot? Beats me, but that is a possibility. Could he have been reaching for a pistol? It is a possibility, but not even the most retarded would think he would be able to get to a weapon and compete against others who are already drawn and waiting to shoot.
> 
> I do see that the drone footage is not conclusive.
> 
> The only judgement I will offer is directed toward the officer who stepped in front of a truck that had just been steered off the road and into the snow. He needs to be sent to a shrink.


I think the officer anticipated the vehicle to ram the roadblock and was taking evasive action, at the same time the driver veered off the road.

Kinda like a squirrel running across the road and freaks out and runs right back in the way.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> I think the officer anticipated the vehicle to ram the roadblock and was taking evasive action, at the same time the driver veered off the road.
> 
> Kinda like a squirrel running across the road and freaks out and runs right back in the way.


Definitely a possibility. I'm just glad he didn't end up like the squirrel usually does!


----------



## GTGallop

Denton said:


> I see another individual jump in front of a truck that just drove into the snow. I do not see an attempt to run down an officer.


What you see and what an officer sees are two different things. And the officer writes the report.

"History is written by the victors" ~ Churchill


----------



## csi-tech

Kauboy said:


> He'd already stated that he would die before being arrested. We aren't dealing with a straight arrow here.
> Plus, he was the "spokesman" and could have considered himself a martyr for his cause.
> Crazy people can do crazy things. Suicide by cop is real.


There truly are some questionable people in the LE profession (Like Denton said) and as pay and benefits dwindle the applicants are becoming even worse. Knowing what Kauboy said beforehand the Officers who were arresting him were prepared for this very type of outcome. I don't believe they forced his hand either. His partner was taken peacefully. Anyone who sees some vast conspiracy here (absent any more information) is tilting at windmills. If someone tells me "You ain't takin me alive copper, See" and reaches in the breast of their coat may very well get shot.


----------



## Denton

csi-tech said:


> There truly are some questionable people in the LE profession (Like Denton said) and as pay and benefits dwindle the applicants are becoming even worse. Knowing what Kauboy said beforehand the Officers who were arresting him were prepared for this very type of outcome. I don't believe they forced his hand either. His partner was taken peacefully. Anyone who sees some vast conspiracy here (absent any more information) is tilting at windmills. If someone tells me "You ain't takin me alive copper, See" and reaches in the breast of their coat may very well get shot.


Again, you and I do not know if he were first shot. We both know people do not react to being shot like characters do in the movies.

As far as there not being enough good cops out there, those of us who complain about that need to remember we either haven't stepped up to be counted or stepped out when we became disillusioned. I, for one, am glad there are people like you and 6811 still serving the communities. I thank you both.


----------



## Operator6

If I had been the law enforcement calling the shots, when that SUV failed to stop about 100 yards out I would've had Barrett 50's make Swiss cheese out if it until it stopped rolling. 

Wrong or right that's what would've happened. That's one reason I'm not a police officer.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> If I had been the law enforcement calling the shots, when that SUV failed to stop about 100 yards out I would've had Barrett 50's make Swiss cheese out if it until it stopped rolling.
> 
> Wrong or right that's what would've happened. That's one reason I'm not a police officer.


Glad you are not a police officer. Police officers are not supposed to be soldiers, and this isn't Fallujah.

Such a response does nothing but incite and provoke more suspicion and hatred, and rightfully so.


----------



## Operator6

Right, this isn't Fallujah and you should stop at Oregon state trooper roadblocks.


----------



## Prepper News

I still say there is a reason they went speeding off after originally stopping. The only thing that makes sense is they were being shot at or otherwise felt threatened for their lives. Don't know if they were shot at or not while in the vehicle.


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> If I had been the law enforcement calling the shots, when that SUV failed to stop about 100 yards out I would've had Barrett 50's make Swiss cheese out if it until it stopped rolling.
> 
> Wrong or right that's what would've happened. That's one reason I'm not a police officer.


Easy, you're getting the Old Man excited


----------



## Kauboy

Wait a minute...
Twice now a member has mentioned the vehicle being shot at.

Is there any evidence of this?
Or is this another part of the conspiracy?


----------



## Real Old Man

Prepper News said:


> Easy, you're getting the Old Man excited


Nah. Just had a spam and egg and chees on toast sandwich. With that lump in my gut there's nothing going to excite me except the couch


----------



## Real Old Man

Kauboy said:


> Wait a minute...
> Twice now a member has mentioned the vehicle being shot at.
> 
> Is there any evidence of this?
> Or is this another part of the conspiracy?


You're not going to force these folks to fess up to having facts to back up their statements.

If they'd been shot at don't you think the Bundy (wonder if he was related to Al) would have made some sort of statement to that effect?


----------



## Prepper News

Real Old Man said:


> You're not going to force these folks to fess up to having facts to back up their statements.
> 
> If they'd been shot at don't you think the Bundy (wonder if he was related to Al) would have made some sort of statement to that effect?


We're all just speculating here, including you too old timer...based on a fuzzy video at some bad angles.


----------



## Protect this House

Is it me or does it seem fishy that he would be going for his gun with his left hand still raised high in the air. The fact that this video's sound has been disabled also makes me think that he was shot in the side first and the excuse was made that he was going for his gun. He was not the driver so he hadn't shown an aggressive act at this point.


----------



## Kauboy

neonoah said:


> I said "it looked like" - but I always paint you out a word twister so go ahead


It didn't look like anyone fired at the vehicle at all. No mention was made about it in any news article. No mention was given by the FBI supplying the video.
I didn't twist anything. You *MENTIONED* them being shot at, and I asked for evidence.
If you're just making stuff up based on bad video, that's not helping.


----------



## Real Old Man

back a few posts ago, someone questioned if the person who was shot was armed. Now I know that CNN is somewhat less than a reputable source, but listen to the video and the on air reporter Oregon standoff: FBI releases video of shooting death - CNN.com


----------



## GTGallop

Maybe he was armed, maybe he wasn't. Maybe it was planted on him post mortem. That has no bearing on the shoot.

What does matter is his actions and statements leading up to the shoot. After the first bullet mushroomed, everything else becomes irrelevant.


----------



## Operator6

You know I hear all the things the cops should've done or could've done but if those idiots had stayed home none of this would've happened. 

IMO they got what they've been asking for other than a major uprising after the fact. 

I have beer to drink, Mardi Grass and football to watch this weekend. Ain't got time to get shot up by the Feds.....


----------



## GTGallop

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## Operator6

Rambo just came on AMC channel for all you sympathizers........

I think some of those occupiers may have thought they were John Rambo.


----------



## Maine-Marine

I hear there is a special award for starting a thread that goes 25 pages without being closed...


----------



## Operator6

I like how Ammon Bundy waited until after his friend was killed to tell everyone to "go home and the fight is in the courts now". 

And people actually follow this complete idiot ? That's what happens when you get a few people needing to have a purpose in life without direction and a guy like Bundy to pull their strings.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> You know I hear all the things the cops should've done or could've done but if those idiots had stayed home none of this would've happened.
> 
> IMO they got what they've been asking for other than a major uprising after the fact.
> 
> I have beer to drink, Mardi Grass and football to watch this weekend. Ain't got time to get shot up by the Feds.....


And if the government were to stay within its constitutional borders...

I think it is sad when my fellow countrymen behave like abused spouses and defend the abuser.


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> And if the government were to stay within its constitutional borders...
> 
> I think it is sad when my fellow countrymen behave like abused spouses and defend the abuser.


The federal courts, State of Oregon and I disagree. Until you can get ANY court to agree with you, the constitutionality argument is just s convenient excuse to break the law.

That aside, when you come upon a roadblock the proper thing to do is stop. They chose not to and one made another choice not to surrender and paid with his life.

A very ignorant move on the behalf of the occupants of that white SUV.


----------



## Real Old Man

Denton said:


> And if the government were to stay within its constitutional borders...
> 
> I think it is sad when my fellow countrymen behave like abused spouses and defend the abuser.


One thing I think is really funny; you all seem to think that your idea of what is unconstitutional matters in the overall scheme of things. It doesn't as the Constitution laid down the rules of how things are supposed to be done by our government.

But you and others don't seem to want to abide by the rules. Op is right until a law is challenged (or an executive order) it's the law of the land. You can all sit back and scream and pound your chests until the cows come home, but until the 9 wise men issue a ruling, you all need to obey the law, Course if you don't you will now become one of the few that have the right to challenge the legality as you will now have standing before the courts.

So pick the law you think is unconstitutional violate it and see how that goes for you. Take one for the team


----------



## Slippy

There lies the problem. The Constitution of The United States LIMITS the Federal Government. 

HOWEVER, We The People have allowed our elected legislators to usurp The Constitution almost immediately after it was ratified. Since 1787 We The People have chosen Regulation over Freedom.

Anybody who thinks that trend will EVER be reversed is an idiot.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide

The shooting was justified in my book Law enforcement avoided direct confrontation for weeks and didn't even have a perimeter set up until recently. The guy ran from a legal traffic stop, almost hit a law enforcement officer with his vehicle while trying to avoid a road block, ignored verbal commands to surrender, then reached towards a pocket that contained a loaded 9mm handgun. 

I do think it would have been better if they hit him immediately with a non lethal like a taser, oc spray, or a bean bag round as he exited the vehicle or set a k9 on him. It would look bad on camera but he would be alive. That being said the only person responsible here is Lavoy Finicum for the poor choices he made, what did he think law enforcement was going to do?

I get the debate about government authority that started this whole thing, but don't be critical of the guys on the ground.


----------



## Slippy

NotTooProudToHide said:


> The shooting was justified in my book Law enforcement avoided direct confrontation for weeks and didn't even have a perimeter set up until recently. The guy ran from a legal traffic stop, almost hit a law enforcement officer with his vehicle while trying to avoid a road block, ignored verbal commands to surrender, then reached towards a pocket that contained a loaded 9mm handgun.
> 
> I do think it would have been better if they hit him immediately with a non lethal like a taser, oc spray, or a bean bag round as he exited the vehicle or set a k9 on him. It would look bad on camera but he would be alive. That being said the only person responsible here is Lavoy Finicum for the poor choices he made, what did he think law enforcement was going to do?
> 
> I get the debate about government authority that started this whole thing, but don't be critical of the guys on the ground.


I can damn sure argue both sides of this debate and micro analyze it;

On the specific shooting of LaVoy, I can argue it was justified. Exit the vehicle, hands on top of head, kneel down and cross legs behind you and you increase your chances of staying alive.

On the way that the whole thing was handled as well as the over-reaching oppressive/aggressive nature of the BLM/BATF Feds? Well in a pure Constitution sense, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE EVER HAPPENED!


----------



## A Watchman

Now that all of the arm chair patriots here on PF are done with their "pissing on themselves and each other" contest for 20 plus pages while arguing over the armed militant's strategy, intelligence, stupidity, unwanted participation, procedures, protocol, all while offering their own understanding of the Fed's rights as well as their own legal opinions ......... I will tell you what Lavoy would tell you........ You are missing the point from his worldview if you think this was all about a Federal Burn Ban" for him. It's so much more deeply rooted and personal for him.

He was there not because he was asked to be, only because he decided it was his duty to make a stand against the overreaching Federal Government's continued assault on State and private citizen's rights. This observation was important enough to him, that he was willing to give his life just to make a visible stand against the tyranny instead of remaining silent. Smart move on his part? Likely not, but to him it was how he defined his duty and existence here in this country.

At least give the man his due. He was not sheeple. He made a stand.

Do I support what could be viewed as a radical and doomed mission? Well, I didn't go to Oregon but ......I know where he stood and understand his pain.

*"There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them" Lavoy Finicum

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin
*


----------



## GTGallop

Slippy said:


> I can damn sure argue both sides of this debate and micro analyze it;
> 
> On the specific shooting of LaVoy, I can argue it was justified. Exit the vehicle, hands on top of head, kneel down and cross legs behind you and you increase your chances of staying alive.
> 
> On the way that the whole thing was handled as well as the over-reaching oppressive/aggressive nature of the BLM/BATF Feds? Well in a pure Constitution sense, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE EVER HAPPENED!


^^^ Thread Winner ^^^

That's the crux of it.
If the government behaved, would be no need for Bundy and his ilk.
If Finicum behaved would be no need for Glock and Hornady to make an appearance in the snow.


----------



## Maine-Marine

So there are pictures that show lavoy carried a holster on his right hip. he was right handed
it was just report this morning that he left his gun back at the compound because he was going to a meeting
I am guessing we will find out he was not armed AT ALL

So try standing with your hands up and see what happens when you get shot in the left side.

I want to hear the video of what was going on.. I think we will see that he was shot with his hands up and he reached for his wound and then he was murdered..

This is a TRUE HANDS UP DON"T SHOOT SCENE

that is my opinion and that is what I believe right now.. I might be wrong but with the testimony of him being right handed, not having an weapon, and having his hands up... being shot in the side is what it looks like


----------



## Maine-Marine

NotTooProudToHide said:


> but don't be critical of the guys on the ground.


Say what... as a patriot and america I will always question authority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

even more so when the shot a man with his hands up


----------



## Prepper News

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me. "

Be careful as you cheerlead this growing militarized police state with their technologies to spy on your every move. You may be a casualty one day yourself if they decide to bust down your door to confiscate your firearms or anything else they want. The DHS has purchased massive amounts of hollow point bullets the past few years.

https://www.rt.com/usa/dhs-ammo-investigation-napolitano-645/

As hollow points are against the Geneva Convention, who might they be for then? Why are police departments purchasing targets of kids, pregnant women, and grandmothers?

https://www.rt.com/usa/women-children-target-practice-623/

Here's another secret...if you're on this board, chances are they really don't like you. They don't like constitutionalists, people who grow their own food, people who own guns, people who homeschool, etc. YOU are who they consider an "extremist".

Judicial Watch: Defense Department Teaching Documents Suggest Mainstream Conservative Views ?Extremist? - Judicial Watch

Just sayin.


----------



## csi-tech

Maine-Marine said:


> Say what... as a patriot and america I will always question authority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> even more so when the shot a man with his hands up


Evidently we watched a different video from completely different incidents.


----------



## Slippy

Prepper News said:


> Here's another secret...if you're on this board...chances are...they really don't like you. They don't like constitutionalists, people who grow their own food, people who own guns, etc. YOU are who they consider an "extremist".


Ooooh FUDGE!!! Now you tell me.:miserable:


----------



## A Watchman

Slippy said:


> Ooooh FUDGE!!! Now you tell me.:miserable:


Okay Okay....I confess. My real name is Slippy..... or is it JD Jones?


----------



## Slippy

A Watchman said:


> Okay Okay....I confess. My real name is Slippy..... or is it JD Jones?


Y'all use fake names?


----------



## Billy Roper

Some people are saying that his hand didn't come down until he was shot in the side, then in the stomach, then in the head from the LEO who had hidden out in ambush in the woods behind him, away from the barricade. Others say he was unconcealing his left shoulder holster to surrender when he was shot.


----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> Say what... as a patriot and america I will always question authority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> even more so when the shot a man with his hands up


Perhaps you were watching a different video than the rest of us. His hands never did go up. They went out parallel to the ground. That is not the sign of someone giving up. It's a call to the LEO's - see I'm not packing a gun (weither he was or wasn't isn't relavant)


----------



## Real Old Man

csi-tech said:


> Evidently we watched a different video from completely different incidents.


Thought It was just me?


----------



## Real Old Man

Billy Roper said:


> Some people are saying that his hand didn't come down until he was shot in the side, then in the stomach, then in the head from the LEO who had hidden out in ambush in the woods behind him, away from the barricade. Others say he was unconcealing his left shoulder holster to surrender when he was shot.


Do you have a site where folks are making these statements. If so I'd sure like to see it/them


----------



## Slippy

Great Arguments and Debates my friends...

But consider this;

What if one of the natives had been shot in Ferguson, or Baltimore or any of the Occupy Wall Street fiasco's?


----------



## Arklatex

I just watched the video again and it sure looked like he was reaching for something right before he died. I still don't understand why there is no audio or other video footage. I'm sure there had to be more cameras recording this from the ground. Makes me suspicious.


----------



## Slippy

neonoah said:


> One less?


Reminds me of the old joke;

Q: What do you call 10,000 Black Lives Matter Protesters at the bottom of the ocean?

A: A Good Start!


----------



## Denton

Real Old Man said:


> One thing I think is really funny; you all seem to think that your idea of what is unconstitutional matters in the overall scheme of things. It doesn't as the Constitution laid down the rules of how things are supposed to be done by our government.
> 
> But you and others don't seem to want to abide by the rules. Op is right until a law is challenged (or an executive order) it's the law of the land. You can all sit back and scream and pound your chests until the cows come home, but until the 9 wise men issue a ruling, you all need to obey the law, Course if you don't you will now become one of the few that have the right to challenge the legality as you will now have standing before the courts.
> 
> So pick the law you think is unconstitutional violate it and see how that goes for you. Take one for the team


As a matter of fact, the supreme court decided that the citizenry is not obligated to abide by an unconstitutional law and the courts are not obligated to enforce them. If the system does enforce them, it is not protected by the law.

It is not a matter of what I think, it is a matter of what I know.

Interesting, though; you urge others to make a stand, yet you prefer to criticize those who do. There is a time and place for everything, but when the time and place is here, I certainly like knowing who is not to be trusted. Thanks. May your chains always rest lightly.

And, by the way; I have done that, and the law preferred not to proceed. Why? The state knew how it would have went for me, just as I did.


----------



## Deebo

There HAS to be more footage. If it was good damn proof, it would be all over the news. 
It is being hidden. 
The govt controls the news. If you think different, you are asleep. 
I would bet there is twenty body camera and different clips of this. 
Ask JFK?
I support my local sheriff, but any level above him is out. I choose to be skeptical of any govt agency.


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> As a matter of fact, the supreme court decided that the citizenry is not obligated to abide by an unconstitutional law and the courts are not obligated to enforce them. If the system does enforce them, it is not protected by the law.
> 
> It is not a matter of what I think, it is a matter of what I know.
> 
> Interesting, though; you urge others to make a stand, yet you prefer to criticize those who do. There is a time and place for everything, but when the time and place is here, I certainly like knowing who is not to be trusted. Thanks. May your chains always rest lightly.
> 
> And, by the way; I have done that, and the law preferred not to proceed. Why? The state knew how it would have went for me, just as I did.


I'll make my case in court, not by taking over a government building or attempting drive around State Trooper roadblocks.

To each his own.


----------



## Will2

Well it is pretty clear the judge is going to give them time, now is only a question of how much time.

What really got me was that she said what they did was worse than the Boston Tea Party. They literally tarred and feathered British personnel resulting from the Boston Tea Party and did massive amounts of monetary damage by destruction of the load of tea. The fact she considers this worse than the Boston Tea Party probably means they will be getting 10+ years.

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

Like if you tar and feather someone that is probably atleast aggravated assault / felony battery, and abduction.

None the less the tea party acts were considered treason punishable death at the time. So I am not sure what the Judge intends for those guys. However you can't get much worse than the death penalty other than torture for life perhaps.

"As a result of the Boston Tea Party Britain passed the Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts) to punish Boston for its rebellious actions. These laws ultimately led to the American Revolutionary War"

And the judge considers this worse.

No bail... means they are considered dangerous. If they arn't getting out now and the judge has already said she considers what they did more serious than treason, they ain't getting out anytime soon.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ail-for-oregon-occupiers-ammon-and-ryan-bundy


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> I'll make my case in court, not by taking over a government building or attempting drive around State Trooper roadblocks.
> 
> To each his own.


And, you may do that until the government turns completely lawless.

Then again, when the government decides it is time to take your land on behalf of the Chinese government....


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> And, you may do that until the government turns completely lawless.
> 
> Then again, when the government decides it is time to take your land on behalf of the Chinese government....


I'll cross that bridge when/if I get to it. Until then I'm going to love and enjoy my family and this great country I live in.


----------



## Arklatex

neonoah said:


> "The fact she considers this worse than the Boston Tea Party probably means they will be getting 10+ years."
> 
> Which of course is commie-ganda and bull crud.
> I have noted with disgust the delight taken in killing a worthwhile man for trespassing and reaching for his gut wound.
> I've seen ya when yer shot. I know what you do.
> But crab apple is watching so we must express patience and faith in the American people and wait it out.


Reaching for his gut wound... I think you're on to something here. Without audio or ground footage it looks like he is going for a gun. But perhaps he was reacting as anyone would if shot in the side...


----------



## A Watchman

No longer can you take anything at face value only based as it appears or has been orchestrated for your viewing. When the cameras are rolling expect the script to already have been written and the actors in place.


----------



## Operator6

The 4 occupiers will leave if they're not arrested and the others are pardoned. 

Lmfao!!!!!! These people should put on clown suits so as to look like they sound. 

Ammon Bundy told the judge he would do as the court wants him to do.......yeah I bet he will, right there in his cell.


----------



## Operator6

A Watchman said:


> No longer can you take anything at face value only based as it appears or has been orchestrated for your viewing. When the cameras are rolling expect the script to already have been written and the actors in place.


What's so hard to believe ? Finicum stated multiple times he wasn't going to jail because he has a gun.

Well he was correct, he didn't go to jail. He went to the morgue and I'm sure they have room for more.

These guys are going about it all wrong wether they realize it or not.


----------



## Operator6

neonoah said:


> Well the thing is, I was a hillbilly and the only "me" left for miles.
> When we going to shoot one another ya rear back like the dragon but when you got the 'pendicitis, your shoulders go forward not back, and you're aiming your chin where it hurts, not where you're gonna aim...usually ....but faith, patience and "being off the reservation, the right way"..


^^^^^ that's what I was thinking too. Lol !!!!


----------



## A Watchman

Operator6 said:


> What's so hard to believe ? Finicum stated multiple times he wasn't going to jail because he has a gun.
> 
> Well he was correct, he didn't go to jail. He went to the morgue and I'm sure they have room for more.
> 
> These guys are going about it all wrong wether they realize it or not.


O6, you just don't get it. You are trying to write your own script here while being many miles away..... and from outside the theater. You are simply the audience.


----------



## Operator6

A Watchman said:


> O6, you just don't get it. You are trying to write your own script here while being many miles away..... and from outside the theater. You are simply the audience.


Looks like you have your own pen in hand as well.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide

Slippy said:


> Great Arguments and Debates my friends...
> 
> But consider this;
> 
> What if one of the natives had been shot in Ferguson, or Baltimore or any of the Occupy Wall Street fiasco's?


If the situation was the same I'd feel the same way. It doesn't matter whether your a white rancher or a black welfare recipient, if you act like an ass towards law enforcement you get dealt with accordingly. It kind of bothers me that some of the people that cry foul now are the same ones that where hollering for use of deadly force against the protesters/rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore.

I also want to make it clear that I have no problem with people questioning the government. This notion is the founding principle that the United States was founded on and our founding fathers have some pretty interesting quotes on the issue. That being said, when you rebel against status quo there is a certain risk you take, this situation is just part of it. Like I said before, you mess with the bull you get the horns. Hopefully something good can still come out of all this.


----------



## A Watchman

Operator6 said:


> Looks like you have your own pen in hand as well.


No pen in hand here, just well trained eyes and an alert mind.


----------



## Will2

> Well he was correct, he didn't go to jail. He went to the morgue and I'm sure they have room for more.


Like Burns has a Morgue, they probably didn't even have a jail for all the protesters.

This whole thing is tragic.

The entire county only has like 7000 people.


----------



## GTGallop

neonoah said:


> Well the thing is, I was a hillbilly and the only "me" left for miles.
> When we going to shoot one another ya rear back like the dragon but when you got the 'pendicitis, your shoulders go forward not back, and you're aiming your chin where it hurts, not where you're gonna aim...usually ....but faith, patience and "being off the reservation, the right way"......crab apple is especially particular (historically) about situations in which some crab apple is directly involved - or any dept or service thereof


Mmmmm-Kaaaay? The words I recognize as English but I got nuthin' after that. Crabapple? Rear back like the dragon?



Operator6 said:


> These guys are going about it all wrong wether they realize it or not.


I'm a 3%er easily but I'm more in the 2.9 to 3.1 range. Not the 0.5 to 1.5 range like these guys were. So I can say that there is absolutely no danger of me taking over a bird sanctuary just to stick it to the man.

But if I were to do such a thing - which I'm not. I would think it needs to be done this way:
1. Pick a place of historic meaning and significance - not just some wilderness area.
2. Set a timeline - YOUR TIMELINE - for how long you plan to occupy. Something significant like 13 days because that's how long the Alamo held for or until April 15th because its tax day or something like that. If you don't set a time line then you are playing by THEIR TIMELINE.
3. Plan for retaliation. You will likely be arrested, charged, sentenced and jailed. Get a lawyer BEFORE you do something stupid. Get a plan together so your legal team can be two weeks to a month ahead of the other side. You should already know what they will likely charge you with, what you will likely plea bargain to, and all of that.
4. Establish supply lines. Do not rely on the government to send you beef jerky and kool-aide. If you didn't bring enough food with you to last for two weeks, then don't plan on staying for one.
5. When it's over, and it will be over at some point, have a plan for your surrender. Not the legal aspect - that has already been covered. Put all of your weaps in a tub. Send the tub out. Everyone strip down naked - nothing up your sleeve. Cops that shoot naked and unarmed people have a lot to answer for. Bring your own handcuffs. Cuff yourself in a chain and come out hands up. If the thought of surrender makes you nervous, then maybe you need a little vallium before you do it. Hard to ask for that after you get holed away so secure that first - Mello Out & Hands Up.
6. Take notes - copious notes. If you live, you will likely never be employed again. Your only hope is to write a book that will let you retire and eek out a meager existence.
7. For Pete's Sake! Make sure you were clean before you get in. You can't go in and bitch about a government that only takes from the people if you have 11 foster kids and you are getting thousands of dollars from the government. You don't be that way and don't let people in that have that kind of hipocracy hanging over them.


----------



## Operator6

A Watchman said:


> No pen in hand here, just well trained eyes and an alert mind.


You're going to have to find another guy to play the " I know better than you " card on.

I don't care what they THINK is constitutional or not. When you run up on a State Trooper roadblock you damn well better stop and if you don't and jump out, prepare to be killed.

I think the police showed amazing restraint. When that SUV didn't stop, IMO they should've blown it to hell.


----------



## Prepper News

GTGallop said:


> Everyone strip down naked - nothing up your sleeve. Cops that shoot naked and unarmed people have a lot to answer for.


That will probably get you a lewdness charge.


----------



## GTGallop

Prepper News said:


> That will probably get you a lewdness charge.


Just another Saturday night...


----------



## Operator6

Cops have shot naked unarmed men. 

Google the "Gil Colar" story. 

To sum it up for you.....white college kid takes some dope, goes nuts, attacks a girl driving on his college campus but doesn't hurt her. Runs to police station on campus and beats on glass and the door. 

Black cop comes out of the building as he's the only officer there. Draws his sidearm, Gil Colar starts to run at the officer. The officer shoots him in the chest. 

Gil Colar was naked about 5'5" tall 135 pounds and a former hicktown high school wrestler. 

Shooting was ruled justified because the officer had his gun in hand and the boy could've taken it.


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> When that SUV didn't stop, IMO they should've blown it to hell.


Or better yet...just not been there in the first place.

Of course this is AmeriKa...land of the free with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. Gotta keep locking up people for victim-less crimes!


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> Or better yet...just not been there in the first place.
> 
> Of course this is AmeriKa...land of the free with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. Gotta keep locking up people for victim-less crimes!


You and Obama should have a beer together.


----------



## Slippy

Prepper News said:


> Or better yet...just not been there in the first place.
> 
> Of course this is AmeriKa...land of the free with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. Gotta keep locking up people for victim-less crimes!


Unlawful RoadBlock perhaps? WHY was the FBI blocking the road? Makes a man go Hmmmm?


----------



## Operator6

Slippy said:


> Unlawful RoadBlock perhaps? WHY was the FBI blocking the road? Makes a man go Hmmmm?


The Oregon State Police set up that roadblock.


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> You and Obama should have a beer together.


Are you saying libertarians and fascists are the same?


----------



## Slippy

Operator6 said:


> The Oregon State Police set up that roadblock.


You sure of that?


----------



## GTGallop

Slippy said:


> Unlawful RoadBlock perhaps? WHY was the FBI blocking the road? Makes a man go Hmmmm?


PROFILING! They pulled over ALL of the armed protesters on that road.


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> Are you saying libertarians and fascists are the same?


Most people in prison need to be there. That's what I'm saying.

What do you call a victim-less crime ? Drug dealing ? Drug use ?

Remember now, we are speaking of prison not jail. Two different facilities.


----------



## Operator6

GTGallop said:


> PROFILING! They pulled over ALL of the armed protesters on that road.





Slippy said:


> You sure of that?


I'm reasonably sure. I really don't care if mall cops set it up.....they should've have ran up on it like they did.


----------



## Slippy

Operator6 said:


> I'm reasonably sure. I really don't care if mall cops set it up.....they should've have ran up on it like they did.


I'm not an FBI agent (anymore...maybe...possibly...:Confuse: nah just kidding??!!) but I'm "reasonably" sure that the FBI usually allows local yokels to take charge of most hi-profile sitiations?

Carry on, this is fun...:joyous:


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> Most people in prison need to be there. That's what I'm saying.
> 
> What do you call a victim-less crime ? Drug dealing ? Drug use ?
> 
> Remember now, we are speaking of prison not jail. Two different facilities.


I just didn't think you'd do me dirty like that. That was hurtful bro.


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> I just didn't think you'd do me dirty like that...
> 
> http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/20649-who-do-you-side-kinda-fun-quiz.html#post374204
> 
> that was hurtful bro.


I only pick on people I like.


----------



## M118LR

Op6, I'm still kind of interested in that "Victimless Crime" definition? Sounds like you let folks off easy on that one.
Seems most folk that pass thru jail on the way to prison "Haven't done anything wrong"? But somehow things got fouled up during the hearings/trial.


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> Op6, I'm still kind of interested in that "Victimless Crime" definition? Sounds like you let folks off easy on that one.
> Seems most folk that pass thru jail on the way to prison "Haven't done anything wrong"? But somehow things got fouled up during the hearings/trial.


https://www.libertariannews.org/201...titutes-86-of-the-american-prison-population/


----------



## M118LR

I'm sorry Prepper News, regurgitating BS I couldn't swallow the first time won't give you a get out of jail free pass. Would you care to put your fingerprints on a real debatable answer? Or are you going to hide behind the indefensible intolerable answers given in the past?


----------



## Operator6

I encourage everyone yo read that link. 

Immigration is one of thr listed victimless crimes. 

It gets even stupider (lol !) after that. 

Com'on MAN !!!


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> I'm sorry Prepper News, regurgitating BS I couldn't swallow the first time won't give you a get out of jail free pass. Would you care to put your fingerprints on a real debatable answer? Or are you going to hide behind the indefensible intolerable answers given in the past?


Victimless crimes - drugs, prostitution, "illegal" gambling, and a million others things where there is no actual victim. What exactly is there to explain?


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> I encourage everyone yo read that link.
> 
> Immigration is one of thr listed victimless crimes.
> 
> It gets even stupider (lol !) after that.
> 
> Com'on MAN !!!


Awesome, I do too!

Illegals shouldn't be in our prisons. They should be deported. Maybe we should build a wall? Or better yet...stop offering all the incentives bringing them here in the first place.


----------



## M118LR

Real answer, all the money spent on drugs isn't EARNED. Would you care to tell US working Americans how these drug subservience unemployable PREDATORS  come to have the unearned funds to support thier antisocial habits. (If you say they are supported by the funds produced via tax dollars of those working.......) Or would you care to try and defense your supposed "Victimless Crime Thesis"? I forgot, it wasn't YOUR Victimless Crime Thesis!


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> Victimless crimes - drugs, prostitution, "illegal" gambling, and a million others things where there is no actual victim. What exactly is there to explain?


How many prostitutes that are turning tricks illegally pay income tax ?

How many drug dealers do you know that pay income tax on that money ?

You don't think they should pay their fair share ?

You don't think people addicted to drugs commit other crimes in order to support their addiction ?

How many children have been forced into prostitution rings ?

How many people have been infected with disease from prostitutes and intravenous drug use then unknowingly and knowingly passed that disease on ?

^^^^^^^ just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> Real answer, all the money spent on drugs isn't EARNED. Would you care to tell US working Americans how these drug subservience unemployable PREDATORS  come to have the unearned funds to support thier antisocial habits. (If you say they are supported by the funds produced via tax dollars of those working.......) Or would you care to try and defense your supposed "Victimless Crime Thesis"? I forgot, it wasn't YOUR Victimless Crime Thesis!


if you think the funds they use to buy drugs is supported by crimes where there are victims...then go find those crimes and prosecute.


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> Awesome, I do too!
> 
> Illegals shouldn't be in our prisons. They should be deported. Maybe we should build a wall? Or better yet...stop offering all the incentives bringing them here in the first place.


Sorry but immigration violations are not victimless crimes. It's a crime against every tax paying American. Unfortunately deporting an illegal does not prevent them from coming back. They are not as likely to come back after a few years in prison and the US may not look so appealing and others will take note.

Yes, we should build a wall. We should also place armed soldiers along that wall and enforce our border.


----------



## M118LR

Op6, don't get into the Grass until the Highhanded Foolish play their Liberalism Trump Card. If Prepper News was truly any member of the group he/she is trying to give voice to, he/she would not have the earned means to give this group voice.


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> if you think the funds they use to buy drugs is supported by crimes where there are victims...then go find those crimes and prosecute.


They're proscuted everyday......that's why we have so many people in prison.

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## M118LR

Prepper News said:


> if you think the funds they use to buy drugs is supported by crimes where there are victims...then go find those crimes and prosecute.


I have no need to prosecute, for I have meet the doers of victimless crimes at my doorstep, and they have failed to have the strength of character of a worrking man defending his home and loved ones from their victimless crimes.


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> How many prostitutes that are whoring illegally pay income tax ?
> 
> I don't know...and if I told you I cared....I'd be lying to you.
> 
> How many drug dealers do you know that pay income tax on that money ?
> 
> I don't know any drug dealers.
> 
> You don't think they should pay their fair share ?
> 
> The country got along just fine prior to the income tax and Federal Reserve coming into existence in 1913.
> 
> You don't think people addicted to drugs commit other crimes in order to support their addiction ?
> 
> I'm sure some do. Prosecute crimes where there are victims.
> 
> How many children have been forced into prostitution rings ?
> 
> Those are crimes against children and should be prosecuted. Coercion, assault, etc.
> 
> How many people have been infected with disease from prostitutes and intravenous drug use then unknowingly and knowingly passed that disease on ?
> 
> People get infected by and pass on STD's all the time. For people who knowingly pass on diseases...there is a victim.
> 
> ^^^^^^^ just the tip of the iceberg.


The war on drugs has been a massive failure. Maybe we should look to other countries having success by NOT locking people up...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/


----------



## M118LR

Care to opine upon those other countries with a massive success? Perhaps there is a reason why America wasn't in your statistics? Why quote the EU when you want to discuss the American Solution?


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> Sorry but immigration violations are not victimless crimes. It's a crime against every tax paying American. Unfortunately deporting an illegal does not prevent them from coming back. They are not as likely to come back after a few years in prison and the US may not look so appealing and others will take note.
> 
> Yes, we should build a wall. We should also place armed soldiers along that wall and enforce our border.


There's all sorts of stuff we can agree on!


----------



## M118LR

Prepper News said:


> There's all sorts of stuff we can agree on!


Let US begin with the fact that there is no victimless crime.


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> Op6, don't get into the Grass until the Highhanded Foolish play their Liberalism Trump Card. If Prepper News was truly any member of the group he/she is trying to give voice to, he/she would not have the earned means to give this group voice.


No need to hate bro. Embrace the power of positivity.


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> Let US begin with the fact that there is no victimless crime.


Adam Kokesh made a video loading his shotgun in Washington DC. Spent months in prison. Where is the victim?


----------



## M118LR

Tis not hating, just shining the light on hypocrisy. Words spoken are not equal to the deeds that are truly done. Attempting to take the High Road for actions that you are not capable of nor have ever done is just a simple form of devils advocate. Should those doers of victimless crimes invade your doorstep, we would have no need of your senseless banter. But this is America, and I respect your right to spout off about that which you know not.


----------



## M118LR

Prepper News said:


> Adam Kokesh made a video loading his shotgun in Washington DC. Spent months in prison. Where is the victim?


Common sense. Nuff said.


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> Care to opine upon those other countries with a massive success? Perhaps there is a reason why America wasn't in your statistics? Why quote the EU when you want to discuss the American Solution?


15 years of success in Portugal.


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> Tis not hating, just shining the light on hypocrisy. Words spoken are not equal to the deeds that are truly done. Attempting to take the High Road for actions that you are not capable of nor have ever done is just a simple form of devils advocate. Should those doers of victimless crimes invade your doorstep, we would have no need of your senseless banter. But this is America, and I respect your right to spout off about that which you know not.


That's some good Shakespeare stuff right there.


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> Common sense. Nuff said.


Who is the victim?


----------



## M118LR

Only when compared to the failures of Socialistic EU Countries. Would you like to declare the full statistics per capita of Portugal vs USA. Or would you rather compare the actual numbers of Portugal against Podunk Heartland America? You are using the same argument that gun grabbers use for the success of the failed UK or Australian Gun Control (Confiscation) Programs. But you expect someone to swallow this liberal time honored BS? It don't work in the USA. Try pandering to the EU.


----------



## M118LR

Prepper News said:


> Who is the victim?


Care to film any other unlawful events? Would you still be willing to ask who is the victim? How about common sense, DVD Filming you while you raped and murdered someone. Thought you were sensible enough to understand that "Common Sense" was the victim. Guess I've given you to much Street Credit. Time has come to extract. Never debate with a fool, the wizened will not know how to tell the difference. Prattle on.


----------



## Prepper News

M118LR said:


> Care to film any other unlawful events? Would you still be willing to ask who is the victim? How about common sense, DVD Filming you while you raped and murdered someone. Thought you were sensible enough to understand that "Common Sense" was the victim. Guess I've given you to much Street Credit. Time has come to extract. Never debate with a fool, the wizened will not know how to tell the difference. Prattle on.


Oh...common sense was the victim, huh?

LMAO. Awe man, that was fun. I guess when you gotta extract, you gotta extract.

Sorry for hi-jacking your thread MM...my bad.


----------



## Denton

Prepper News said:


> Adam Kokesh made a video loading his shotgun in Washington DC. Spent months in prison. Where is the victim?


You are making a mistake; a mistake I make from time to time.

After investing many years in studying the making of our constitution and those things expected by the founders, I have found that attempting to enlighten those who are educated in nothing but the ways of the slave is a lesson in futility.

I, too, wasted time in this thread. A prudent man will realize it is better to save his pearls.


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> They're proscuted everyday......that's why we have so many people in prison.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.


No, most people in the prison system are in for drugs...they aren't getting them for other things...it's drugs.


----------



## Prepper News

Denton said:


> You are making a mistake; a mistake I make from time to time.
> 
> After investing many years in studying the making of our constitution and those things expected by the founders, I have found that attempting to enlighten those who are educated in nothing but the ways of the slave is a lesson in futility.
> 
> I, too, wasted time in this thread. A prudent man will realize it is better to save his pearls.


It's still fun trying 

I remember when the crowd booed Dr. Paul in a 2012 primary debate in SC when he started talking about The Golden Rule. That was a sad moment.


----------



## M118LR

Parting Shot. 
Like all Americans somewhere in your film library there is a family photo of the 4 th of July BBQ with Hot Dogs & Hamburgers on the grill. Once the Vegetarians rule the World and make it a crime to eat meat, what shall you do with your family film library? Who is the victim of this crime Denton/Prepper News? Adam Kokesh by chance? For the laymen I submit common sense. Your rebuttals Gentlemen? Heaven forbid you should be convicted of meat eating by your own endeavors,upon your own property, by your own hand (ie film/photo)


----------



## Denton

Yeah, that was wonderful.

All my years studying brilliant men of history and all I had to do to understand it all was quietly study that parting shot.


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> No, most people in the prison system are in for drugs...they aren't getting them for other things...it's drugs.


I do not know anyone who has been to PRISON for USING drugs.

Plenty for selling drugs and plenty in prison from their reaction/crimes from using drugs.

Doctors are not immune......the Feds raided a couple Doctors offices a couple months ago.

If you do not believe drug addiction/ use increases crime and violence, then there's no use continuing the conversation.

Every see a guy on Meth run out of money and want more dope ?


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> I do not know anyone who has been to PRISON for USING drugs.
> 
> *Almost 2 million arrests a year. Over half for marijuana possession, not dealing or manufacturing.*
> 
> Plenty for selling drugs and plenty in prison from their reaction/crimes from using drugs.
> 
> *Most for possession.*
> 
> Doctors are not immune......the Feds raided a couple Doctors offices a couple months ago.
> 
> If you do not believe drug addiction/ use increases crime and violence, then there's no use continuing the conversation.
> 
> *If you don't believe the "War on Drugs" is a massive failure, there's no use in continuing the conversation. See Portugal for a better way.*
> 
> Every see a guy on Meth run out of money and want more dope ?


*Marijuana is the primary drug people are incarcerated for.*


----------



## Operator6

Prepper News said:


> *Marijuana is the primary drug people are incarcerated for.*


Sorry but the primary reason that people are in prison is not for smoking marijuana. That's probably the lie liberals want us to believe so they can open the gates and let the animals out.

Arrest and jail is different than going to prison.


----------



## Denton

Some fun facts.

This former Alabama state corrections officer knows that drugs is responsible for the majority of the prison population in Alabama. I can't speak for the rest of the country.

Yes, pot gets a lot of them there.

Oh, another fun fact I learned from my son when he was doing open source intel contract work a while back; the Mexican cartels would quickly be put out of business if marijuana were no longer illegal in the U.S.

Denton's point of view on it is filtered through the constitution, however. The federal government has no business outlawing it without a constitutional amendment. The states, on the other hand, can do so if they prefer.


----------



## Operator6

I've never met anyone that went to PRISON for smoking pot and pot alone. 
Never !!!!
But of course the folks here claim the major of people in prison are there for smoking pot. 

Again, black is white and white is black. It's a common theme on the forum.

One thing is for certain . .......Amerrica is in decline and drugs are playing a major role in that decline.


----------



## Denton

Is it logical to suggest one must first possess something before one can use it? 

I believe semantics is at play, here.

Regardless, America is in decline, and the decline is steep, but drug usage (or possession) is a symptom of it and not a cause.

The nation has turned its back to its Creator and has sloughed off the notion of discipline. Couple these things with the fact that our fellow countrymen have absolutely no clue about how the federal government is supposed to be compared to how it has become and you can easily see how we have earned our chains.


----------



## Operator6

Possession of small amounts of marijuana is a misdemeanor in Alabama and an officer has the authority to destroy the drug and let the person go on their way. 

I know several officers that will do just that unless there is a felony being committed in conjunction with finding the marijuana. 

Again, I've never heard of or met anyone being sentenced to prison for smoking pot and the only crime they committed was smoking pot.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> Possession of small amounts of marijuana is a misdemeanor in Alabama and an officer has the authority to destroy the drug and let the person go on their way.
> 
> I know several officers that will do just that unless there is a felony being committed in conjunction with finding the marijuana.
> 
> Again, I've never heard of or met anyone being sentenced to prison for smoking pot and the only crime they committed was smoking pot.


Again, semantics. It isn't the burning joint in my hand, but the sandwich bag of grass in my pocket that gets me sent to Ventress Correctional Facility.
It isn't the joint between my lips, but the garden plot behind my house that causes the feds to take my property.
That I have no pot at all in my car while driving on vacation but simply that I prefer cash over checks or cards that gets several thousand dollars confiscated from me without probable cause or a warrant simply because I might be dealing in drugs.

We can rationalize away every single individual right in the name of public good if we want.

But, let's get back to land, shall we?

The federal government is entitled to what land, as originally outlined in the constitution?

Article I, section 8 makes this question clear:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

It is clear why such land is necessary, and nobody can deny this.

It also makes clear that the federal government has legal jurisdiction over this land, even though it is within a state's jurisdictional borders. This is important if one is contemplating federal laws and their enforcement with regard to the constitution as the founders viewed it, but that is for another discussion, I suppose.

So, what of the vast stretches of land that is controlled by the bureau of land management? Was the BLM something the founders ever imagined? Did they think the federal government should ever possess land in such manner, or did they set things up in a manner where the federal government was to be tightly regulated and the rest was up to the states and the individuals?

How did we stray so far from the original intentions of our founding fathers, and why did we allow the stray?


----------



## Denton

There I go, again, involving myself in such a debate. It is clear from my last post that I have even set it up for an expected response so that I can continue with the discussion. I apologize for that. It is going to be like starting a construction project only to not finish it. It'll take too many hours and I simply do not have the time to spoon feed babies who will only spit it up on my clothing.

I'll say this, though; what we take for granted is not how things are supposed to be. More things than you care to imagine are illusions.


----------



## Prepper News

Operator6 said:


> Sorry but the primary reason that people are in prison is not for smoking marijuana. That's probably the lie liberals want us to believe so they can open the gates and let the animals out.
> 
> Arrest and jail is different than going to prison.


If it's federal and state prisons only...about half of the prisoners are serving time for drug offenses. But you are correct...most are not in for marijuana. Local jails are a different story though.


----------



## Real Old Man

Prepper News said:


> https://www.libertariannews.org/201...titutes-86-of-the-american-prison-population/


You know I don't like to take sides, but Drug charges as victimless crimes. Just take a look at what goes on south of the Border. Crap that's like saying the Mob's Loan Sharking was a victim less crime. Ask someone wh0's late on the Vig and see what he says


----------



## Real Old Man

Denton said:


> Is it logical to suggest one must first possess something before one can use it?
> 
> I believe semantics is at play, here.
> 
> Regardless, America is in decline, and the decline is steep, but drug usage (or possession) is a symptom of it and not a cause.
> 
> The nation has turned its back to its Creator and has sloughed off the notion of discipline. Couple these things with the fact that our fellow countrymen have absolutely no clue about how the federal government is supposed to be compared to how it has become and you can easily see how we have earned our chains.


Dent it 's called possession with intent to distribute. Your half ounce for personal consumption to help you with the effects of your chemo treatment is not going to put you in the joint.

However be a high school senior and bring a pound to a party to give to a bunch of underage girls will get you a felony rap.


----------



## Real Old Man

Prepper News said:


> *Marijuana is the primary drug people are incarcerated for.*


Here in VA simple possession is a $25 fine but don't pay the fine or show up for court and the judge will have you arrested. We had one mope that did just that, and since most class 1 misdemeaners get printed so did John. We'd just gone to AFFIS and turns out John wasn't John but Bill . Bill was wanted in Georgia for two murders, so I guess you could say that MJ was the reason Bill/John made it to the joint


----------



## Denton

Real Old Man said:


> Dent it 's called possession with intent to distribute. Your half ounce for personal consumption to help you with the effects of your chemo treatment is not going to put you in the joint.
> 
> However be a high school senior and bring a pound to a party to give to a bunch of underage girls will get you a felony rap.


But my ounce of pot in a sandwich bag will.

That I have five thousand dollars in cash in the trunk of my car when I am stupid enough to consent to search during a traffic stop is reason enough to lose that 5,000 bucks because of the statutes.

Oh, and what about that ol' country boy who is carrying a pound of grass so I can eventually have a half ounce of it (as 1/2 ounce is the arbitrary number I am allowed?)?

What if I am an adult and I am traveling to a party with two pounds of grass for my stoner friends? Am I now a criminal?

I am in no way arguing for the use of pot or any other drug. The point, then?

Murder is illegal, and it is clear. So is rape, theft, etc. I don't care if you live deep in the big city of Los Angeles or deep in the woods of the Appalachians, you know the Law, whether or not it ever be written on paper. The same can't be said of pot. One must first be told that it is illegal to grow pot or sell pot before one knows this.

The Law is written only so that punishment might be given to those who violate it.

What of statutes that are written so that something might be made illegal?

No matter if you throw in the words "intent to distribute," it is still a matter of a person first must be informed of its illegality as it is not a violation of the Laws of nature and nature's God.


----------



## Real Old Man

Personally I think every one that wants coke or H ought to get a full ounce in a single shot. Take them out of the gene pool right now.

Course I also believe that if you kill someone while driving under the influence that you ought to be hung for murder.

Same for Rapists. Same for those that commit treason. 

But hey call me a dinoseaur


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> But my ounce of pot in a sandwich bag will.
> 
> That I have five thousand dollars in cash in the trunk of my car when I am stupid enough to consent to search during a traffic stop is reason enough to lose that 5,000 bucks because of the statutes.
> 
> Oh, and what about that ol' country boy who is carrying a pound of grass so I can eventually have a half ounce of it (as 1/2 ounce is the arbitrary number I am allowed?)?
> 
> What if I am an adult and I am traveling to a party with two pounds of grass for my stoner friends? Am I now a criminal?
> 
> I am in no way arguing for the use of pot or any other drug. The point, then?
> 
> Murder is illegal, and it is clear. So is rape, theft, etc. I don't care if you live deep in the big city of Los Angeles or deep in the woods of the Appalachians, you know the Law, whether or not it ever be written on paper. The same can't be said of pot. One must first be told that it is illegal to grow pot or sell pot before one knows this.
> 
> The Law is written only so that punishment might be given to those who violate it.
> 
> What of statutes that are written so that something might be made illegal?
> 
> No matter if you throw in the words "intent to distribute," it is still a matter of a person first must be informed of its illegality as it is not a violation of the Laws of nature and nature's God.


The country boy with a pound of Marijuana isn't carrying a pound so you can have a 1/2 ounce....... He's carrying a pound so he can sell it and make money that he will not pay tax on. 
Same with the two pounds......

I like what you tried to do there though......

Ignorance to a law is not an excuse. I learned that the hard way.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> The country boy with a pound of Marijuana isn't carrying a pound so you can have a 1/2 ounce....... He's carrying a pound so he can sell it and make money that he will not pay tax on.
> Same with the two pounds......
> 
> I like what you tried to do there though......
> 
> Ignorance to a law is not an excuse. I learned that the hard way.


I already covered ignorance of the law as it originally meant.

The country boy isn't carrying it so I can have a 1/2 ounce, he is carrying it so I can have a 1/2 ounce?

Yes; you learned the hard way, but not the lesson you should have learned, not are you understanding what I am attempting to teach you. Then again, there will be those who prefer to stay in Babylon. I don't know what to say.

Well, yes I do. It is a shame that the founding fathers bothered to build what we were readily willing to give up.


----------



## Slippy

Operator6 said:


> ....
> 
> Ignorance to a law is not an excuse. I learned that the hard way.


C'mon Op6, give it up my, man lets hear it!

Story, story, story...:joyous:


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> I already covered ignorance of the law as it originally meant.
> 
> The country boy isn't carrying it so I can have a 1/2 ounce, he is carrying it so I can have a 1/2 ounce?
> 
> Yes; you learned the hard way, but not the lesson you should have learned, not are you understanding what I am attempting to teach you. Then again, there will be those who prefer to stay in Babylon. I don't know what to say.
> 
> Well, yes I do. It is a shame that the founding fathers bothered to build what we were readily willing to give up.


I don't understand your second sentence phrased as a question.

I understand that you are trying to lay down that unconstitutional laws are not laws and I have no duty to follow them.

My contention is that if you go around with that attitude and actually live it then expect to spend a lot of time in as Donald calls it......"the clink". Ultimately I'm no lawyer and I'm certainly no constitutional scholar but I'm no idiot either.

I've done well and I for the most part have never felt oppressed but rather inconvenienced with the understanding that in our current society we make laws that for that time in history to stop a problem from developing into a disaster.


----------



## Prepper News

Slippy said:


> C'mon Op6, give it up my, man lets hear it!
> 
> Story, story, story...:joyous:


I'm up for a good story


----------



## Operator6

Slippy said:


> C'mon Op6, give it up my, man lets hear it!
> 
> Story, story, story...:joyous:


It was nothing serious. It was a simple charge of Public Display of Alcohol. Like I told the judge......the law that I'm pleading guilty to is enforced 355 days out of the year but during Mardi Grass is not only legal, it's encouraged and the city profits from its sale on the public streets.

I was drinking a cool pop on 4th of July on a public beach.

The judge asks if I would agree to pay court costs and threw the case on the condition that I would not be arrested in the next 6 months or the case would come back to court. I agreed and thank him. I did get my 200.00 cash bond back entirely. Court costs 75.00.

I received cash right outside the courtroom door from the clerk and immediately paid my court costs.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> I don't understand your second sentence phrased as a question.
> 
> I understand that you are trying to lay down that unconstitutional laws are not laws and I have no duty to follow them.
> 
> My contention is that if you go around with that attitude and actually live it then expect to spend a lot of time in as Donald calls it......"the clink". Ultimately I'm no lawyer and I'm certainly no constitutional scholar but I'm no idiot either.
> 
> I've done well and I for the most part have never felt oppressed but rather inconvenienced with the understanding that in our current society we make laws that for that time in history to stop a problem from developing into a disaster.


Now, we are getting somewhere.

We can further explore this when I return from Dothan and to the house where my laptop is.

Meanwhile, dont let the gossipers make you air dirty laundry.


----------



## Denton

Too late, I see.


----------



## Real Old Man

Looks like this batch of fools haven't taken the hint: Armed group in Oregon ranch standoff calls on others to join them | Fox News


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> Now, we are getting somewhere.
> 
> We can further explore this when I return from Dothan and to the house where my laptop is.
> 
> Meanwhile, dont let the gossipers make you air dirty laundry.


In response I predict you're going to say that today's problems doesn't suspend the constitution and I totally agree. I don't feel drugs being illegal violate the constitution and neither do the courts. Ever hear the saying "Elections have consequences" ? Well, they do !

However if you run around breaking the laws you do not believe are constitutional get prepared to spend time in the clink while you try to prove your point.

There are right ways and wrong ways to go about things.


----------



## Real Old Man

And now a bit more of the story from his own folks. LaVoy Finicum, Who Vowed to Die Before He?s Arrested, Charged at Police ? Didn?t Have Hands Up


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> In response I predict you're going to say that today's problems doesn't suspend the constitution and I totally agree. I don't feel drugs being illegal violate the constitution and neither do the courts. Ever hear the saying "Elections have consequences" ? Well, they do !
> 
> However if you run around breaking the laws you do not believe are constitutional get prepared to spend time in the clink while you try to prove your point.
> 
> There are right ways and wrong ways to go about things.


Good jump start, but you are still thinking Babylonian Law and not the laws of nature and nature's God.

Then again, you are attempting to create a hybrid of the two, and that can't be done.

Just because you have a day in court doesn't mean that court is a constitutional court, by the way. Something to think about.

Tell you what, though. I'm willing to make a deal. Leave me alone if I want to grow grass on my property. Leave me alone if I give some to someone else. As a matter of fact, leave me alone if I trade it for goods, services or precious metals. However, if any transaction includes taking federal reserve notes for grass, come and get me, copper! When I do that, I then leave the world of the constitution and then wander onto the plantation.



> I've done well and I for the most part have never felt oppressed but rather inconvenienced with the understanding that in our current society we make laws that for that time in history to stop a problem from developing into a disaster.


You've done well. That's nice; good for you. That has nothing to do with our individual rights. However, I can certainly deduce some really bad things from that part of your statement.
I'm not going to do that as I don't see it as being pertinent to the discussion.

You say you are willing to infringe on other people's rights in order to feel as if the government is preventing future problems. Well, that's really nice thinking, and that sort of thinking is how tyranny is sold to the masses when it isn't first enforced at the point of a bayonet.

The laws of nature and nature's God doesn't allow for something like the Minority Report. It isn't good enough to assume I am going to commit a crime because I have a bottle of whiskey or a bag of weed. Yes, I said a bottle because there was a time when a bottle of booze was reason enough to bust a man.

Here's the thing. You are right. We no longer live in a nation of people who deserve or could handle being ruled by constitutional law; the laws of nature and nature's God. This nation is now nothing more than a nation of degenerated, carnal creatures who are incapable of independent thought or action.

That being said, does that mean a man is to be treated as the carnal-minded creatures in need of a shepherd wielding a stiff staff? Not according to the laws of nature and nature's God.


----------



## Operator6

I never said I would infringe on anyone's rights. 

I don't feel like it's your right to cultivate marijuana. Just because you want to do something doesn't make it your right. 

Drugs abuse is bad for the country......legal or not. That's a fact. Nothing good comes out of drug abuse and it affects everyone including the people who chose not to do it. 

It's part of what's wrong with America. We are a country without morals and our chickens are coming home to roost in the matter. 

Welfare,crime,abortion and the persecution of the Christian faith. 

And I'll say this again......if you go around breaking laws because you feel they are unconstitutional you will spend a lot of time in jail or prisons. 

It's not required that you like it....it's not required the system is right. So I suggest going about changing the laws you see as unconstitutional by the proper means......not armed take overs of federal buildings or running up on roadblocks and not stopping. 

To think the government can't tax you because you didn't use its money to make the sale or purchase is ridiculous. If that were the case I would be worth 10 times what I am and the Federal government wouldn't have a dime of my money. I could just accept gold or silver for payment and it wouldn't be taxable. That's a fail.

Ask Wesley Snipes how his not paying income tax worked out because he felt it was unconstitutional, well actually his argument was that the federal tax code read that foreign made money was not taxable. Some line of thinking though......reading something and deciding for yourself what it means and not taking into account the entire tax code by reading only part of it. One part of the code doesn't necessarily make the other part unconstitutional or another section of the code unenforceable


----------



## Operator6

Oh and by the way, there are still dry counties where alcohol is still illegal to purchase or sell it.

Infact, you can be arrested in some Mississippi counties for the mere possession of alcohol. 

Now, if you think it's unconstitutional and you're sure if that........head on down here and get your rights violated then file yourself a big lawsuit......

Good luck with that.


----------



## Denton

You don't want to infringe upon my right, but you tell me what plant I can't cultivate.

Some counties are dry, but that doesn't mean I can't drink in them.

A lot of people who don't understand the laws of nature and nature's God keep on telling me good luck with them as they push to become God. All I can say is, good luck when they come for you.


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> You don't want to infringe upon my right, but you tell me what plant I can't cultivate.
> 
> Some counties are dry, but that doesn't mean I can't drink in them.
> 
> A lot of people who don't understand the laws of nature and nature's God keep on telling me good luck with them as they push to become God. All I can say is, good luck when they come for you.


It's not your right to cultivate an illegal drug, I don't care if it is a plant.

It's illegal to bring alcohol into a dry county in Mississippi. 
Read the last sentence in this article. 
Dry County Law & Legal Definition


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> It's not your right to cultivate an illegal drug, I don't care if it is a plant.
> 
> It's illegal to bring alcohol into a dry county in Mississippi.
> Read the last sentence in this article.
> Dry County Law & Legal Definition


You keep talking statute, I keep talking the laws of nature and nature's God. You keep talking slavery and I keep talking freedom.

Do you live in Mississippi? Do you live in the U.S.? Do you live on your own property? Who is your master? You may not know who it is, but the founders knew who it was not to be and that is the government.

Now, just as then, there are those who not only prefer the Crown but prosper from the rule of the Crown.


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> You keep talking statute, I keep talking the laws of nature and nature's God. You keep talking slavery and I keep talking freedom.
> 
> Do you live in Mississippi? Do you live in the U.S.? Do you live on your own property? Who is your master? You may not know who it is, but the founders knew who it was not to be and that is the government.
> 
> Now, just as then, there are those who not only prefer the Crown but prosper from the rule of the Crown.


I have homes in Al,Ms and Fl.

Yes and it's your opinion. The law doesn't ask your opinion, that's what the voting booth is for. You personally do not get to decide what laws are unconstitutional.

I understand you do not agree and you may even be right but you fail to understand and is that doesn't matter. Is that fair ? That doesn't matter either. You can change the law but you must follow it or suffer the consequences. That's just the way it is.


----------



## Operator6

Is your argument "it's my right to do with my body as I choose" ?


----------



## Prepper News

Denton said:


> You are making a mistake; a mistake I make from time to time.
> 
> After investing many years in studying the making of our constitution and those things expected by the founders, I have found that attempting to enlighten those who are educated in nothing but the ways of the slave is a lesson in futility.
> 
> I, too, wasted time in this thread. A prudent man will realize it is better to save his pearls


(from the ghost of posts past)


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> I have homes in Al,Ms and Fl.
> 
> Yes and it's your opinion. The law doesn't ask your opinion, that's what the voting booth is for. You personally do not get to decide what laws are unconstitutional.
> 
> I understand you do not agree and you may even be right but you fail to understand and is that doesn't matter. Is that fair ? That doesn't matter either. You can change the law but you must follow it or suffer the consequences. That's just the way it is.


No, my opinion doesn't matter. It isn't a matter of my opinion, and the laws to which you refer has nothing to do with the constitution.

I am right, by the way. I am not the one who fails to understand. That would be you. You don't know what you do not know, which makes this a very stupid conversation.

I've given you more than you can comprehend as it is.

The laws of nature and nature's God means you have your rights, and you have the responsibilities that go along with those rights.
Your commercial laws tell you that you are guilty before a law is broken because the government owns and controls everyone and everything.

Enjoy Babylon. You support it and are its cheerleader. You have benefited from it.

Alas, alas, that great city, Babylon.

I understand it doesn't matter because your master rules this nation.


----------



## Denton

Prepper News said:


> (from the ghost of posts past)


I post for my pleasure, now, and not for anyone's edification.


----------



## Operator6

If I ran my business by what should be, what I thinks fair, what I believe the law should be, I would be bankrupt and in jail. 

I'm not willing to do that by breaking the law, I'd rather stay out of jail, make an obscene amount of money, VOTE and use my influence and money to help change the laws that I do not agree with. If that doesn't sayisfy me, nothing is stopping me from running for office. 

There are alternatives to grabbing your AR and taking over Federsl buildings, some people with guns go around looking for a cause to use them.


----------



## BuckB

Operator6 said:


> I have homes in Al,Ms and Fl.
> 
> Yes and it's your opinion. The law doesn't ask your opinion, that's what the voting booth is for. You personally do not get to decide what laws are unconstitutional.
> 
> I understand you do not agree and you may even be right but you fail to understand and is that doesn't matter. Is that fair ? That doesn't matter either. You can change the law but you must follow it or suffer the consequences. That's just the way it is.


I have known Denton enough years to know that he is more than capable of defending himself. But I cannot help but weigh in on this discussion.

When you speak of the "voting booth", you talking of Man's law. That is not what Denton (or I) am speaking of. He is talking of God's law. He is speaking of those rights that are so base, that no government or man can take away from you.

Let me put it into simpler terms, if 50% + 1 person decided in the voting booth that you had no right to bear arms, would you volunteer your weapons to the local constabulary?

Not me Jack...


----------



## Operator6

With your philosophy prostitution should be legal,drugs and a multitude of other crimes and you'd legalize them in the name of God given rights. 

That's brilliant.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> If I ran my business by what should be, what I thinks fair, what I believe the law should be, I would be bankrupt and in jail.
> 
> I'm not willing to do that by breaking the law, I'd rather stay out of jail, make an obscene amount of money, VOTE and use my influence and money to help change the laws that I do not agree with. If that doesn't sayisfy me, nothing is stopping me from running for office.
> 
> There are alternatives to grabbing your AR and taking over Federsl buildings, some people with guns go around looking for a cause to use them.


Again, you are mixing apples and oranges.

Your business has nothing to do with my rights, and my right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Crown.

I grow weary attempting to explain Kirchoff's Law to someone who is struggling with numbers.

Come back when you even give a damn about what a pearl is, much less know what one is. The only thing that seems to dazzle you is your own financial success.


----------



## Operator6

BuckB said:


> I have known Denton enough years to know that he is more than capable of defending himself. But I cannot help but weigh in on this discussion.
> 
> When you speak of the "voting booth", you talking of Man's law. That is not what Denton (or I) am speaking of. He is talking of God's law. He is speaking of those rights that are so base, that no government or man can take away from you.
> 
> Let me put it into simpler terms, if 50% + 1 person decided in the voting booth that you had no right to bear arms, would you volunteer your weapons to the local constabulary?
> 
> Not me Jack...


Yeah, it's your God given right to get high. You stick with that.....


----------



## BuckB

Operator6 said:


> With your philosophy prostitution should be legal,drugs and a multitude of other crimes and you'd legalize them in the name of God given rights.
> 
> That's brilliant.


Frankly, I do not care about prostitution or drugs. If the States want them legal or illegal, it does not matter to me a whit. What does matter is what the FEDERAL government is willing to do to circumvent the right of the individual and the State.


----------



## Operator6

Laws passed by the majority representatives can be challenged and if found unconstitutional are overturned. 

That's how it works. I'm sorry you don't like it.

Your welcome to run for office and change it. 

But I'm the one that doesn't understand ?

Black is white, white is black.........ok if you say so.

If you wish to live immorally, I understand but don't use the excuse of God gave you the right. Sure God gave free will but it's breaking Gods law and mans law. .......And God instructed to follow Governments rule and to pay tax. If you think God wants you to get high and trade stuff for dope then I don't agree with it.


----------



## Operator6

BuckB said:


> Frankly, I do not care about prostitution or drugs. If the States want them legal or illegal, it does not matter to me a whit. What does matter is what the FEDERAL government is willing to do to circumvent the right of the individual and the State.


Im not telling you not to care about what you think are unconstitutional laws . I'm telling you there are ways to change the laws you disagree with. Grabbing guns, taking over federal building and running around roadblocks are not efficient methods.

The general voting public sees this as extreme, it actually does more harm than good.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> Laws passed by the majority representatives can be challenged and if found unconstitutional are overturned.
> 
> That's how it works. I'm sorry you don't like it.
> 
> Your welcome to run for office and change it.
> 
> But I'm the one that doesn't understand ?
> 
> Black is white, white is black.........ok if you say so.


Again, you do not have a clue. You are thinking like a slave on the plantation. Or maybe, someone who thinks they are the master.

What are civil laws? How are they different than the laws of nature and nature's God?

Don't answer in ignorance. Take a few years and learn. You are decades behind the learning curve.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> Im not telling you not to care. I'm telling you there are ways to change the laws you disagree with. Grabbing guns, taking over federal building and running around roadblocks are not efficient methods.
> 
> The general voting public sees this as extreme, it actual at does more harm than good.


There are laws for you, and there are laws for me. You need to learn the difference.

Who is your master?

In what jurisdiction do you you live?

I am speaking in a different language; a language you do not understand.

If you are lucky, you can do a quick google to make a shallow response, but that is all you can do. Come back in about ten years an you might be able to hold your own. At that time, you will be intelligently take a side; good or evil.


----------



## Denton

Peace out.


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> There are laws for you, and there are laws for me. You need to learn the difference.
> 
> Who is your master?
> 
> In what jurisdiction do you you live?
> 
> I am speaking in a different language; a language you do not understand.
> 
> If you are lucky, you can do a quick google to make a shallow response, but that is all you can do. Come back in about ten years an you might be able to hold your own. At that time, you will be intelligently take a side; good or evil.


Ok, now I'll give you some advice.

If you ever come to south Alabama and decide you can pick and choose which laws apply to you, you will soon find out who your master is until you post bond, if you get bond.

You will most definitely speak a different language in the Metro jail.

It's just common sense that even if your right if you go about a resolution the wrong way you will fail. You learn that first day running a business.


----------



## Denton

Operator6 said:


> Ok, now I'll give you some advice.
> 
> If you ever come to south Alabama and decide you can pick and choose which laws apply to you, you will soon find out who your master is until you post bond, if you get bond.
> 
> You will most definitely speak a different language in the Metro jail.
> 
> It's just common sense that even if your right if you go about a resolution the wrong way you will fail. You learn that first day running a business.


I am in south Alabama, smart guy.

I never said I would not go to jail, again.

You continue to speak of business; you have no clue or concern about the laws of nature and nature's God. You only care about corporate law. 
You are all about your own personal profit.

Remember what I said I would not speak upon because I didn't think it was pertinent? I was wrong. Pharisee, you are what you are, and you will not understand what I say.


----------



## Operator6

Denton said:


> I am in south Alabama, smart guy.
> 
> I never said I would not go to jail, again.
> 
> You continue to speak of business; you have no clue or concern about the laws of nature and nature's God. You only care about corporate law.
> You are all about your own personal profit.
> 
> Remember what I said I would not speak upon because I didn't think it was pertinent? I was wrong. Pharisee, you are what you are, and you will not understand what I say.


Yeah I guess you are but most here on the coast consider this south Alabama, even have a college with the title. But sure geographically you're correct.

When you went to jail did you use the defense of " it's a unconstitutional law" ?

How did it turn out ? You'd have a better chance the police violated your rights rather than the law being ruled unconstitutional.

What part of Gods law says you can grow and sell pot ? I missed that verse in the Bible. Can you link me to it ?


----------



## shootbrownelk

Maine-Marine said:


> My wife's family owns sections and sections and sections of cattle and horse land in Montana. Her dad still owns part of the cattle operations and I imagine we will own that part of it some day
> 
> the federal gov owns 16 million acres and lease out about 8 million acres as range... the scary thing is who and how is the price set and what if they decide to back date cost or to stop grazing in order to protect the endangered wild red eye hildabest... if you think that there are federal people who care about farmers setting prices and making rules.. you are mislead....
> 
> frankly, IMHO the federal gov should own the land around DC and that is it.. all other land should be state owned.. and the fed should not be spending money to purchase more
> 
> any way a man is dead...he will be missed...


 I am against our Federal (BLM-NFS) lands being turned over to the states. They would in short order, sell it off to Oil/Gas/ Developers or Wealthy friends/donors and we citizens would be on the outside looking in. Federal control isn't great, but State control is terrible.JMO


----------



## Real Old Man

Operator6 said:


> Laws passed by the majority representatives can be challenged and if found unconstitutional are overturned.
> 
> That's how it works. I'm sorry you don't like it.
> 
> Your welcome to run for office and change it.
> 
> But I'm the one that doesn't understand ?
> 
> Black is white, white is black.........ok if you say so.
> 
> If you wish to live immorally, I understand but don't use the excuse of God gave you the right. Sure God gave free will but it's breaking Gods law and mans law. .......And God instructed to follow Governments rule and to pay tax. If you think God wants you to get high and trade stuff for dope then I don't agree with it.


You're making a huge mistake in trying to talk sense with some folks. They believe that the only laws congress can pass are those which "they" think the Constitution lets congress pass.

Doesn't matter onw whit to any of them that they're so wrong as to be laughable.


----------



## Real Old Man

shootbrownelk said:


> I am against our Federal (BLM-NFS) lands being turned over to the states. They would in short order, sell it off to Oil/Gas/ Developers or Wealthy friends/donors and we citizens would be on the outside looking in. Federal control isn't great, but State control is terrible.JMO


That's what TR convinced congress about over 100 years ago.

But try telling that to some around here and you'll be branded a Constitutional Uncle Tom


----------



## Operator6

Real Old Man said:


> You're making a huge mistake in trying to talk sense with some folks. They believe that the only laws congress can pass are those which "they" think the Constitution lets congress pass.
> 
> Doesn't matter onw whit to any of them that they're so wrong as to be laughable.


They don't believe what they're posting. If they believed it, they would be posting from the prison library.

They're just posting what they WANT to believe, not the reality of the matter.


----------



## Real Old Man

Perhaps the folks with the gripe of federal land ownership ought to real the following legal opinion: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=plrlr


----------



## Kauboy

Wow... 16 pages longer since the last time I visited...
Not even sure what's going on anymore.


----------



## Prepper News




----------



## Real Old Man

Kauboy said:


> Wow... 16 pages longer since the last time I visited...
> Not even sure what's going on anymore.


We're shooting for the record 150 pages:bs:


----------



## Kauboy

Real Old Man said:


> We're shooting for the record 150 pages:bs:


Well, if you continue with the "I follow Man's Law" vs. "I follow Nature's Law" shtick, you might make it.

The truth is, when Man put Man's Law in charge of Man, Nature's Law took a backseat.
Yes, things *should* work according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
However, Man has imposed himself yet again to claim authority over other men, and has constructed a system of control to do his bidding.

A law need not be formally declared unconstitutional for it to be illegal and wrong.
If a law were passed that called for the arrest of all Jews, would you stand idly by while your neighbors were taken away?
Would you offer a prayer for them, hope for their safety, and then do nothing?
Would you stand in front of your capitol building, and demand for their release?
Or would you take up arms, and kill the brownshirt that's trying to haul them away?
Wrong is wrong, and you don't need permission to do something about it.

In the case of these protesters, I supported them right up until they took over land not belonging to them.
They had a good message. That message is now lost.


----------



## luminaughty

Some on here sound as if it is ok to peacefully protest but not ok to have an armed protest or violate state and/or federal laws to raise awareness to injustices perpetrated against citizens. Say a citizen carries a firearm for self defense but lives in a place that law makers believe they can infringe or outright eliminate the citizens Second Amendment right. The citizen who is now violating the law by exercising his/her RIGHTS is witness to a crime where another innocent citizen is at risk of death or injury if he does not use his firearm to stop the criminal. By stepping in and stopping the crime he will be charged for breaking the (unconstitutional) law himself. Does this make him wrong also? When a whistle blower leaks secretes or classified information that a corporation or government entity is committing acts that put citizens health or lives in danger or that exposes acts of treason and violations of our Constitution does that make the whistle blower wrong? There are many injustices and outright crimes perpetrated against American citizens by corporate and government entities everyday and many times if not most of the time peaceful protests, letters to our representatives, town hall meetings, and even voting change nothing and the crimes against citizens continue. There is a HUGE difference between what the rioter in ferguson and baltimore did since they were using these "so called" injustices to destroy private property and steal for their own benefit. Those rioters were not looking for equality and justice but instead were looking for an excuse to commit crime and in many cases they wanted to be treated as superior and more important than other races. The black lives matter movement is a perfect example since they are only concerned when a black person is victimized by a person of another race while they fail to address the fact that the MAJORITY of all crimes perpetrated against blacks are committed by other blacks. What I'm saying is we live in a time when corruption and greed rule our corporations and governments and these crimes against the citizens are almost never prosecuted and in the rare cases when a few of the low level offenders are it is almost always business as usual for the higher up criminals within days or hours. We have reached a tipping point and the days of addressing our legal grievances through all available legal venues is fast becoming little more than a pipe dream for most. In addition I saw the video footage of the shooting and it clearly looks to me as if he had surrendered and had his hands up until someone fired on him FIRST. I can not tell if he was hit by gunfire or one of the agents fired and missed him but it does appear after reacting to being shot or shot at he was ether trying to reach the wound, get out of the line of fire, or draw a weapon in self defense. It looks like an intentional shooting (murder) to me and was probably an attempt to discourage others from resisting the current tyranny we are all living under.


----------



## Operator6

neonoah said:


> Another article
> 
> ..."Ms. Cox recounted her recollection of*a barrage of "hundreds" of rounds of ammunition being fired into the white pickup truck by law enforcement agents*- before, during and after Mr. Finicum's death. * The interview (included below) took place after Ms. Cox contacted me via text message,*"
> 
> So there goes the plants pretending they couldn't see that plainly in the video anyway....
> 
> Second Eyewitness: Chronicling the Tragic Ambush and Murder of LaVoy Finicum [Video] | Free Capitalist Project


After how they blew into that roadblock situation, everyone in that SUV is lucky to be alive. If I had been there I would've had bigger guns. You try to run me over and I'll use deadly force.


----------



## Kauboy

luminaughty said:


> Some on here sound as if it is ok to peacefully protest but not ok to have an armed protest or violate state and/or federal laws to raise awareness to injustices perpetrated against citizens.


Protest is fine.
Armed protest is fine.
Violating a law(state of federal) on principal, where no life, limb, or livelihood is at risk, is unnecessary and provocative.
It is difficult to win over support in that situation.

In the Bundy Ranch situation, I supported Bundy since the Feds were rolling in destroying property he built, and stealing cattle he owned. Officers were seen attacking members of his family. A very large show of force was mounted by the federal government to intimidate this man and his family. Their crime? Grazing cattle on land they'd grazed on for decades, even before the "restrictions" and fees were established.
He had a clear and obvious threat to livelihood, and his family member(daughter?) was injured.
An armed resistance showed up, drove the Feds back, and took back his cattle.

In the Oregon incident, two groups were present to show their support for some ranchers who were going to be arrested on arson charges.
The ranchers turned themselves in. One group went home, the other drove many miles away to break in to and occupy a federal facility.
No life, limb, or livelihood was at risk to justify breaking the law. They just didn't like the situation.

If you want to raise awareness, be smart about it.
Gather all of the evidence you can. Take all legal actions you can. Play their "game" against them.
When you've mounted enough support, and have undeniable proof of overreach, make your stand.
This was NOT the smart way to go about this.


----------



## Operator6

Kauboy said:


> Well, if you continue with the "I follow Man's Law" vs. "I follow Nature's Law" shtick, you might make it.
> 
> The truth is, when Man put Man's Law in charge of Man, Nature's Law took a backseat.
> Yes, things *should* work according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
> However, Man has imposed himself yet again to claim authority over other men, and has constructed a system of control to do his bidding.
> 
> A law need not be formally declared unconstitutional for it to be illegal and wrong.
> If a law were passed that called for the arrest of all Jews, would you stand idly by while your neighbors were taken away?
> Would you offer a prayer for them, hope for their safety, and then do nothing?
> Would you stand in front of your capitol building, and demand for their release?
> Or would you take up arms, and kill the brownshirt that's trying to haul them away?
> Wrong is wrong, and you don't need permission to do something about it.
> 
> In the case of these protesters, I supported them right up until they took over land not belonging to them.
> They had a good message. That message is now lost.


The laws the protesters broke are not unconstitutional. You may think so but that doesn't make it true.

It's not unconstitutional to set up a roadblock to stop a car that has people in it that has taken over a federal building with guns and have an arrest warrant issued.

They should've stopped but they didn't. They paid the price. Don't like it ? Sorry that's how our system works, your welcome to try to change it but until you do......you can break any law you want if your willing to pay the consequences.

Don't like that ? Well that's your problem.

The courts have ruled time and time again that you can't descriminated against race or religion. So there's not going to be a law against bring Jewish and if there was, no one would enforce it.

It's real simple if you want it to be.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Operator6 said:


> The courts have ruled time and time again that you can't descriminated against race or religion. So there's not going to be a law against bring Jewish and if there was,* no one would enforce it.*
> 
> It's real simple if you want it to be.


I would not bet that NOBODY would enforce it..


----------



## Operator6

All you people complaining this and that is unconstitutional ......... 

What do you plan to do about it ? Complain on a forum ? Grab your AR and take over a building ?

Yeah, that's what I thought.....you're not going to do anything, you're not going to do anything that will change anything because you refuse to use the system that we have in place. 

If anything you're just going get yourself killed or arrested, then the courts will rule the law constitutional and everyone will agree but the dead men and the ones in prison. 

Go ahead, be my guest. 

I'd rather challenge laws that I felt are unconstitutional the proper way, but then you wouldn't get to use your AR's and be a cool patriot attaching yourself to a cause. Lol !

Go about it the right way or pay the price.....I don't care either way., I don't make your choices.


----------



## Maine-Marine




----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> I would not bet that NOBODY would enforce it..


Until they do......they're not. Understand that ?


----------



## Maine-Marine

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Maine-Marine

"The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees."

attributed to — George Washington


----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> I would not bet that NOBODY would enforce it..


Well here's one that won't.


----------



## GrumpyBiker

Level heads and calculated actions will accomplish more than living down to the "lunatic revolutionary" that the press likes to paint Constitutional Conservatives & Activists.
But often we provide all the proof they need to make their case against us.
We need to think clearly before acting and remember that we need to be our own best friend instead of our worst enemy.
Some things we will not be able to change and may actually do more damage to our beliefs & causes.
Giving the congress the evidence they need / want to constrict our freedoms even further.
I'm not saying we the people should roll over or get to our knees but we should think clearly and act intelligently.

That's my $.02 YMMV


----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> "The thing that sets the Muslim terrorist apart from all other people in the world is he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees."
> 
> attributed to - George Washington


See what I did there ? The Muslims think they're right just like you do.......


----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson


How much blood have you spilled ? Oh yeah, that hurts and you could die so you'll just keep posting on the firum and let the crazies go to Oregon. Smart move.... That's a last resort after all possible avenues have been explored and not for a few idiots wanting to show off their guns and make the news to dream up.

It's also easy to take a figure of speak and use it to kill people. The Muslims use the Koran like that......


----------



## Real Old Man

GrumpyBiker said:


> Level heads and calculated actions will accomplish more than living down to the "lunatic revolutionary" that the press likes to paint Constitutional Conservatives & Activists.
> But often we provide all the proof they need to make their case against us.
> We need to think clearly before acting and remember that we need to be our own best friend instead of our worst enemy.
> Some things we will not be able to change and may actually do more damage to our beliefs & causes.
> Giving the congress the evidence they need / want to constrict our freedoms even further.
> I'm not saying we the people should roll over or get to our knees but we should think clearly and act intelligently.
> 
> That's my $.02 YMMV


You know Grumpy makes a good point. Most Preppers are aghast when they look at Doomsday Preppers, and with good reason. the same is true here. Keep giving the other side the ammunition to brand all of us a Kooks, Looney Tunes, Wacko's and you'll make the rest of world look at the rest of us that try and work within the system to set things right with the same brush like a DD Prepper.


----------



## Operator6

Had an old lady today ask me if I've been watching the gun nuts that took over that federal building in Oregon. 

I replied..,...I sure have.

I still don't understand why those freaks think their guns are going to save them. Lol!!!!


----------



## Operator6

Ammon Bundy wanted to kick out one of the occupiers named David Fry. Mr Fry made anti Semitic comments and a pro ISIS statement. 

Mr Finicum talked Bundy into letting him stay. 


Bundy is still calling for all the protesters to go home. 

And some of you guys thought Bundy is a patriot

Maybe he changed his mind after he saw his friend get popped. Things got real for him then I guess.


----------



## luminaughty

Without having to look to far in the past for injustices committed by corporations and governments can anyone tell me how many have been sent to prison for the Billions lost (stolen) by wal street and some of the larger banking institutions? When eric holder and the department of justice instructed to licensed firearms dealers to sale guns to criminals knowing they where being purchased for drug cartels how many where prosecuted? When they failed to track the firearms like they claimed they would and atleast two American law enforcement officials were killed (and an unknown number of Mexican civilians) with some of those same firearms how many were prosecuted? When it was discovered the entire operation was implemented in order to make it look as though American citizens and the imaginary "gun show loop hole" was responsible for arming the cartels in order to justify more unconstitutional infringements on our Second Amendment how many were prosecuted? When the irs started targeting conservative organizations and individuals who provided financial support for republicans during the election how many were prosecuted? When Obama directed ins, dhs, and our border patrol to release illegals who entered (invaded) America how many were prosecuted? When the embassy in benghazy was attacked and Americans killed including our ambassador after repeated requests were made for additional security how many were prosecuted? During the attack when calls for help were ignored and forces ready to respond were ordered to stand down how many were prosecuted? When it was later discovered Benghazi was key in running providing arms to Syrian rebels and ISIS how many were prosecuted? When obuma care was taken to court and the court changed the individual mandate from being a tax into being a penalty to save the law how many were prosecuted? When it was revealed that several supreme court justices had already decided to rule in favor of law not based on its constitutionality but instead their person political views how many were prosecuted? When Edward Snowden leaked out that our government was unlawfully monitoring ALL Americans personal emails, phone calls, internet posts and every other source of private information how many were prosecuted? When Russia warned our government the tsarnaev brother had been associated with terrorist organizations and our government chose to not pursue them witch resulted in the boston bombing how many were prosecuted? When the blm along with other federal agencies damaged Bundys property and killed Bundys cattle how many were prosecuted? As of now hillary clinton has not been prosecuted for sharing top secrete information through an unauthorized and unsecure server. Going farther back to the Branch Dividians 76 citizens were murdered by an attack from our federal law enforcement including many women and children witch resulted in how many prosecutions? When it was discovered that the department of veterans affairs was deliberately stalling and denying healthcare to vets that resulted in injury and death how many were prosecuted? Anyone could literally fill an entire novel with the unlawfull and unconstitutional acts perpetrated by large corporations and government entities but one would be hard pressed to make a single paragraph out of those who have been prosecuted for their crimes. I don't feel I need to lay out every example of abuses of power here since it is VERY easy to find hundred of examples online. So for all those dreaming of being able to restore our rights and freedoms and holding those who would take them from us ask yourself when the last time was you saw any high ranking corporate or government officials prosecuted for the crimes they committed. To say that letting congress or the American citizens know what crime have been perpetrated against them in secrete will bring the criminals to justice and hold them accountable is naïve at best since EVERY example I've stated above is already public knowledge and nothing has changed yet.


----------



## Denton

Embrace the power of the paragraph.


----------



## A Watchman

Goodness gracious........ if this thread in itself wasn't enough ........ now I need some air and now dizzy after that last post....... please next time let me know when to breathe.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Operator6 said:


> How much blood have you spilled ? Oh yeah, that hurts and you could die so you'll just keep posting on the firum and let the crazies go to Oregon. Smart move.... That's a last resort after all possible avenues have been explored and not for a few idiots wanting to show off their guns and make the news to dream up.
> 
> It's also easy to take a figure of speak and use it to kill people. The Muslims use the Koran like that......


I apologized to you for being rude but you can not stop personal attacks and being arrogant and insulting... Frankly.. I think you need a weeks vacation... of course I am not a moderator


----------



## Operator6

Maine-Marine said:


> I apologized to you for being rude but you can not stop personal attacks and being arrogant and insulting... Frankly.. I think you need a weeks vacation... of course I am not a moderator


Personal attacks ? Insulting ?? I don't think so, I'm just disagreeing with you.

I don't think I'm arrogant, I'm proud of my accomplishments and don't mind sharing them.

I'm going to take a couple weeks vacation, I'm thinking about going to Oregon and watch the turkey shoot, but the wife is wanting to go to the Bahamas for a couple days so that's where I'll end up.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Operator6 said:


> Personal attacks ? Insulting ?? I don't think so, I'm just disagreeing with you.
> 
> I don't think I'm arrogant, I'm proud of my accomplishments and don't mind sharing them.
> 
> I'm going to take a couple weeks vacation, I'm thinking about going to Oregon and watch the turkey shoot, but the wife is wanting to go to the Bahamas for a couple days so that's where I'll end up.


Too bad this has turned into a pissing match. I would like to learn what really took place. There must be much more recordings besides the fuzzy stuff that was released. How many holes are in the white SUV? LeVoy's autopsy. What transpired at the first roadblock?


----------



## A Watchman

Several pissers and one bragger.


----------



## Operator6

Mad Trapper said:


> Too bad this has turned into a pissing match. I would like to learn what really took place. There must be much more recordings besides the fuzzy stuff that was released. How many holes are in the white SUV? LeVoy's autopsy. What transpired at the first roadblock?


I would suggest watching news reports but some say you can't believe the news and in fact it can be wrong.

Some would say wait until the autopsy report cane out but some say they are going to say what the cops want it to say.

I'd say watch the video but the video doesn't have audio and it's taken from an airplane and some say that's on purpose so you can't see what's really going on.

So what's your take on it ? This thread is where the facts will be found ?

I think not, but it's a good place to discuss what we think is right or wrong with the Oregon standoff.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Operator6 said:


> I'm going to take a couple weeks vacation, I'm thinking about going to Oregon and watch the turkey shoot, but the wife is wanting to go to the Bahamas for a couple days so that's where I'll end up.


Take the wife to Vermont, more fun than a turkey shoot: About the Southern Vermont Primitive Biathlon


----------



## Real Old Man

A Watchman said:


> Several pissers and one bragger.


That is where you are totally wrong. the OP called those officers murders. And So far I've yet to see one post of facts that indicate that the officers did anything but the duty they are sworn to perform. You also have one or two that pontificate on what is in their humble minds Unconstitutional Acts. Never for once citing anything other than their misguided interpretation of the Constitution.

it is doubtful if the ultra conservative wackos will ever change their minds or attitudes. Much the same as the ultra left wing liberals won't stop until they've done everything they can think of to gut this nation. Kind of like the war in spain in the mid 30's. The Nazi's and Adolph on the side of the Flangists and the Commies and Uncle Joe on the side of the Republicans. With the rest of the world not taking sides (except for a few in the international brigades that tried to help the rightfully elected government stay in power) until after der Feurer invaded Poland.


----------



## Kauboy

neonoah said:


> Another article
> ..."Ms. Cox recounted her recollection of*a barrage of "hundreds" of rounds of ammunition being fired into the white pickup truck by law enforcement agents*- before, during and after Mr. Finicum's death. * The interview (included below) took place after Ms. Cox contacted me via text message,*"
> So there goes the plants pretending they couldn't see that plainly in the video anyway....
> Second Eyewitness: Chronicling the Tragic Ambush and Murder of LaVoy Finicum [Video] | Free Capitalist Project


Thank you! That's a good start to my question. See how easy that was?
Now, hopefully we can see evidence to substantiate the claims. That's how our system works. When it's one's word against another's, we must follow the evidence.

What "plants" are you talking about?
Ficus?
Dandelion?



Operator6 said:


> The laws the protesters broke are not unconstitutional. You may think so but that doesn't make it true.
> It's not unconstitutional to set up a roadblock to stop a car that has people in it that has taken over a federal building with guns and have an arrest warrant issued.
> They should've stopped but they didn't. They paid the price. Don't like it ? Sorry that's how our system works, your welcome to try to change it but until you do......you can break any law you want if your willing to pay the consequences.
> Don't like that ? Well that's your problem.
> The courts have ruled time and time again that you can't descriminated against race or religion. So there's not going to be a law against bring Jewish and if there was, no one would enforce it.
> It's real simple if you want it to be.


Perhaps a re-read of what I wrote is in order?
May I direct your attention to the last few sentences?

And yes, I can state whatever law I wish as being unconstitutional. I have that freedom. The system I live in may disagree, and punish me for it, and I will accept that possibility if the time ever comes. The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew this all too well. It was known that each and every one of them would be killed if they were captured. Some chose to sign their names as illegibly as possible as a result. John Hancock was quite proud of his stance against tyranny.
Benjamin Franklin was quoted at the signing saying, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Yes, when men stand up to a government they oppose, they must be open and willing to accept the consequences should they fail.
Personally no, I don't have a problem with that.

Again, I DO have a problem with the ways these men conducted themselves once they broke into a federal facility.


----------



## Operator6

Kauboy said:


> Thank you! That's a good start to my question. See how easy that was?
> Now, hopefully we can see evidence to substantiate the claims. That's how our system works. When it's one's word against another's, we must follow the evidence.
> 
> What "plants" are you talking about?
> Ficus?
> Dandelion?
> 
> Perhaps a re-read of what I wrote is in order?
> May I direct your attention to the last few sentences?
> 
> And yes, I can state whatever law I wish as being unconstitutional. I have that freedom. The system I live in may disagree, and punish me for it, and I will accept that possibility if the time ever comes. The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew this all too well. It was known that each and every one of them would be killed if they were captured. Some chose to sign their names as illegibly as possible as a result. John Hancock was quite proud of his stance against tyranny.
> Benjamin Franklin was quoted at the signing saying, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
> Yes, when men stand up to a government they oppose, they must be open and willing to accept the consequences should they fail.
> Personally no, I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> Again, I DO have a problem with the ways these men conducted themselves once they broke into a federal facility.


I read your post again and I believe I read part of your post and part of someone's else's and then wrote an improper response. I apoligize for my mistake.


----------



## Kauboy

Operator6 said:


> I read your post again and I believe I read part of your post and part of someone's else's and then wrote an improper response. I apoligize for my mistake.


No problem, bud. It happens.


----------



## Real Old Man

Kauboy said:


> T
> What "plants" are you talking about?
> Ficus?
> Dandelion?
> .


I think he's talking about us that didn't see the dead man with his hands in the air surrendering


----------



## Mad Trapper

Real Old Man said:


> I think he's talking about us that didn't see the dead man with his hands in the air surrendering


And being shot, after the fact? Surrendering.

What went into the white SUV , before the 2nd checkpoint, after/during the first? Where are videos of the OSP and FBI of this carnage?

You are being lied to. Let the light out. If FBI/OSP are innocent, fine. YOU have proof, or you have proof of guilt.

Do the right thing.


----------



## Kauboy

Mad Trapper said:


> And being shot, after the fact? Surrendering.
> 
> What went into the white SUV , before the 2nd checkpoint, after/during the first? Where are videos of the OSP and FBI of this carnage?
> 
> You are being lied to. Let the light out. If FBI/OSP are innocent, fine. YOU have proof, or you have proof of guilt.
> 
> Do the right thing.


I'd like to see the video too. Until there's evidence, speculation doesn't cut it.


----------



## Maine-Marine

43 pages.. wow... 

and i do a thread on canned meat it gets maybe 6 pages


----------



## Real Old Man

Maine-Marine said:


> 43 pages.. wow...
> 
> and i do a thread on canned meat it gets maybe 6 pages


It was bacon at 30 dollars a pound. Slip posted about green bacon, please tell me your bacon wasn't green?


----------



## SGG

This article says there was an informant with them

http://time.com/4503678/oregon-occupiers-government-informant/


----------



## MaterielGeneral

"U.S. District Judge Anna Brown warned attorneys not to bring up the circumstances surrounding Finicum’s death, saying this trial is not about the shooting."

Yeah, don't want to talk about it. Censorship at its finest. Of course the gov doesn't want to talk about murder.


----------



## Maol9

Mad Trapper said:


> I want to see the body cam tapes.


Me I am waiting to see the body count...

Keep calling for a Race War?

Thin doan beauch whin yous git what yo axed fer.


----------



## Maol9

Maine-Marine said:


> conspiracy to impede federal officers..... what the heck is that


A death sentence?

To bad he wasn't Black we all could have rioted and ripped off some good $hit

Hands Up Don't Shoot!!!

Gonna git me some of that liquor store there, Oh yeah!!!


----------

