BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

a reply to: clay2 baraka

NO ONE IS USING THE KIDS AS SHIELDS!

a reply to: vjr1113

I hope that if special operators are used the american people are finally outraged enough...

It is illegal to use Active/reserve duty military personnel in such a manner and any president that does so should be impeached with a quickness and imprisoned.

a reply to: diogeneese33

You ALL complain about taxes and gov and schools and chem trails and pharma and gmo... when men stand up for weak old guys going to jail illegally for the second time you call them evil... they are brave you are not. Even if they have agendas they risk their lives for a purpose and a point you do not... you dont

There are a few of us yet.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Impeachment will be the least of his worries.

I know I will be out looking to visit their own devices on them if they murder these people.

No disrespect but, I thought one of the fires was caused by lightening.

the fire been burn'in since the world been turn'in

a reply to: RickinVa

I agree with you on points 1-3.
I can not, in anyway, agree with coercing the press NOT to cover the story. That is censorship. That is what is done in a police state, not in a Constitutional Republic.

a reply to: Spider879

Again I have to ask, Why censor the Press? Why is it that people want to remove the only other source of information? Do you honestly believe that the Government is going to tell you ALL THE FACTS? Even the ones that make them look bad? I can not believe that. When you ask the press to leave and not cover the story then the only people who can tell you what is going on is the Government.

Well, here you have it ATS, they're OFFICIALLY TERRORISTS!!


A national security analyst says there's no doubt the gunmen are "domestic terrorists"

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Punisher75

No doubt this is a big underlying theme to the story few discuss.

The BLM slowly nudged the ranchers in that area for years to get what they want knowing full well they would capitulate or break the law.

a reply to: Phage

Really, there is a history of tresspassing? So what? I don't think they are wackos. I think they are assholes who are using the Hammonds.

The BLM/FWS has wanted the land for the refuge in that area for decades. For good or bad, it's a fact. They knew if they pushed long enough the ranchers would either capitulate or break a law. The result would be the same. The Hammonds just fell in the latter category.

The yahoo's at the refuge, for good or bad, are pushing back at the heart of what they see as the injustice. Few Americans will delve into the story deep enough to see any connection.

Fewer yet will make any connection to other areas of Federal creep into their lives. And why should they? They have been educated to accept what is fed to them and regurgitate on command.

For the record, I am not sure what they hope to achieve by occupying that refuge HQ. They do not have a supporting PA effort to explain anything. Occupy didn't. BLM didn't. On and on so they are at the mercy of the purchased MSM.

These "disagreements" have been going on since the beginning of the country. Have any of the illegal actions changed anything?

Eh...sounds pretty dismal. For me, I am glad there still are Americans (whether I agree with them or not) willing to take action to remind the rest of us we are a nation required to disagree from time to time.

originally posted by: ReadLeader
Well, here you have it ATS, they're OFFICIALLY TERRORISTS!!


A national security analyst says there's no doubt the gunmen are "domestic terrorists"

www.cnn.com...

How interesting. They haven't threatened any action against the people or really the gov unless they try and enforce the law. Which seems just makes them criminals.

Maybe the terrorism charge allows special actions a citizen would be protected against?

The protesters are acting against BLM land confiscation.

The Hammonds are a human interest plus for the media.

a reply to: luthier

Of course we must take into consideration "national security analyst"....
This post you referred to was (although sourced) slight / sarc. I should have noted.. but yes, makes one wonder if they fit a new criminal profile huh?

Not to mention so many seem to want them to be terrorists. .. because they are making a stand. . Albeit slightly deranged. ... they're standing up to Big Bro...

Huh... they used the media and brought up the past... go figure. Just as I said, they are hijacking this issue for their own agenda.


Talk about throwing an armed sit in and no one shows up.

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: luthier

Of course we must take into consideration "national security analyst"....
This post you referred to was (although sourced) slight / sarc. I should have noted.. but yes, makes one wonder if they fit a new criminal profile huh?

Not to mention so many seem to want them to be terrorists. .. because they are making a stand. . Albeit slightly deranged. ... they're standing up to Big Bro...

I am just saying these guys could be considered criminals trespassing and such the only reason to classify terrorism is resources. Which would be a huge waste of money for some outlaws.

Do we really need to rewrite history and classify every semi organized group as a terrorist?

Or can we save that for people blowing up public buildings and shooting unarmed civilians.

The gov has plenty of resources to not be terrorized by some thugs.

The people being terrorized should be what that classification is. Including unarmed government employees.

Mcvae terrorist.

This. Outlaws. Normal FBI resources should be able to handle this.

Quite frankly just fence them in and either make them make the first move or let them share a half acre see how far they get.


And the news gets their 24 hour feed. Everyone wins.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: butcherguy

Right but the caveat is the land they started a fire on was not theirs, they failed to notify fire officials and they did it to cover up their poaching.

If any of that is true then they brought this down on themselves.

That is not true. They started a backfire on their own property and it spread to a tract of land that they were adjacent too, that they had grazing rights to. That tract was in the wild life management area.


The accusations that they started the fire to cover up poaching are not true either. That was the testimony of one witness only who was questionable at best. That was never proven in court and it was even ruled that had they hunted for deer it would not have been poaching because they had rights to the property and the right to take animals on the property for controlled purposes.

That accusation is being used to smear the Hammonds.

The fact is that the BLM WANTS the land that the Hammond's have grazing rights to but they also want the Hammond's private property. The BLM exists for one reason only today and that reason is to remove access to large tracts of land by tax payers and private citizens alike. They are controlled and ran by Earth first do-gooders who think that man is a cancer on the earth and that we should be contained in large urban centers where we can be controlled and have less of an impact on the land. No word on how those large urban centers would be fed, but that's the logic of these people.

Tyranny must be resisted and it comes in many forms, sometimes no-violence can be used but when it comes down to it, tyranny only knows violence and that's the only way to really deal with it. Many people in the area of this incident may be calling the Militia all manner of names or denouncing them publicly but I would hazard a guess that the reason is they do nat want to be the next victim of the BLM. They don't have the money or time to fight the BLM so they are trying to hope it all away.

a reply to: Dragoon01

Many people in the area of this incident may be calling the Militia all manner of names or denouncing them publicly but I would hazard a guess that the reason is they do nat want to be the next victim of the BLM. They don't have the money or time to fight the BLM so they are trying to hope it all away.

Many people in the area have come out in support of the Hammonds. Not so much support for the militia.

See the difference? The people in Oregon seem to. They seem to understand that lawlessness is not an answer.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Eh...sounds pretty dismal. For me, I am glad there still are Americans (whether I agree with them or not) willing to take action to remind the rest of us we are a nation required to disagree from time to time.

Where did I say anything about having a problem with disagreeing?

I am not glad that there are people willing to use others to promote their own agenda and to take illegal action in doing so.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
After catching up with the thread, it seems that the popular view is that this all agenda 21 BLM big gubment land grab something something obama.

While the other side, that they were convicted for arson and since it involved federal land fell under a law that carried a min 5 year sentence and a judge decided against that and has since been overruled is being seemingly ignored.
Or that they don't agree with the original sentencing, which is pretty moot at this point.

Oh and on and on about domestic terrorist and how this is just a plan to make sure we can label people that easier, even tho the Hammonds were never charged or called that.

My final opinion on this, these guys got off light and a judge saw that and decided that it shouldn't have happened.
Now the legality of that is something I don't have a clue about. I would like to say that if you served the time, then you can't be charged for the same crime, but I guess a judge doing something illegal there might change that.
TBH though I am not a big fan of mandatory sentencing, so torn there.

Wonder how all these guys have this free time on their hands to just up and go to OR...
Musta seen that line 100 times when the Freddie Grey and Brown protests were going on.

You think a fire spreading to 127 acres of scrub land is deserving of 5 years in prison?
127 acres of land that contained nothing but weeds and brush. 127 acres of land that grew back before they even went to trial the first time? 127 acres that were being used by the people who started the back burn in the first place. In other words they were the only people using the land and the only ones "damaged" by the fire. Thats why the original judge ruled that the crimes they were charged with (terrorism) were not justified with 5 years of incarceration. Thats not "getting off light" as you put it. I see that you are not a big fan of mandatory sentencing well this should be a textbook case of why mandatory sentencing is a bad idea.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Dragoon01

Many people in the area of this incident may be calling the Militia all manner of names or denouncing them publicly but I would hazard a guess that the reason is they do nat want to be the next victim of the BLM. They don't have the money or time to fight the BLM so they are trying to hope it all away.

Many people in the area have come out in support of the Hammonds. Not so much support for the militia.

See the difference? The people in Oregon seem to. They seem to understand that lawlessness is not an answer.

That does not make them correct.
Many times lawlessness IS the answer.

Maybe Rosa should have just followed the law and rode in the back of the bus...