Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
They were working toward an actual redress of grieveances, which would have been a peaceful solution and would've provided actual benefit to the people of Harney and other counties in the state of Oregon.

I've begun to see a bit of rationality in some of the things you say ... and then there's a gem like this one. LOL.

There is no way you can say that the Bird Sanctuary Occupation was peaceful. These armed men took control of the facility and prevented its normal operation by force of arms, by establishing check points, guard sites, etc. They stated that they intended to hold this property for years, transforming it into some sort of training camp for their particular brand of militant.

Also, they were not invited to Harney County, the majority of Harney County didn't want them there, the Hammonds didn't want their "stand" on their behalf .. but the the Bundy Occupiers decided that their understanding of what was true, what was int he "best interests" of Harney County and its People was going to be established IN SPITE OF WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED. I don't care how you cut it, that's a terrorist action.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed. I am troubled by the needless loss of life when a peaceful resolution seemed to be in the works. .

A "peaceful resolution" was not in the works. They had been there for weeks, they were making demands that were beyond unreasonable, the situation was causing problems outside the refuge that could easily have escalated into violence and the state of Oregon was demanding that something be done. As long as they were allowed to come and go as they pleased there was no end in sight.

Disagree. They were working toward an actual redress of grieveances, which would have been a peaceful solution and would've provided actual benefit to the people of Harney and other counties in the state of Oregon.

Oh..puhleese...They disagreed with the government putting two arsonists in jail (who torched federal land and lied about it...and threatened their own family member - nephew - who testified that it was deliberate arson and that they tried to cover it up)...Started with a poaching expedition on federal land, butchered the deer on site and lit up the area on fire to cover up the evidence....according to the nephew who helped them start the fire..

So they seized federal property with an armed force and occupied it...

And were given weeks to surrender and whine to the news cameras about their purported "Grievances" while waving guns around and talking tough...

If this was a bunch of Americans with darker skin following the Islamic faith who decided a heavily armed seizure and occupation of federal property was a good way to voice their "Grievances"....that place would have been raided in 5 minutes with no survivors and Militias would be cheering.

If any errors were made by the feds, it was letting these idiots play Rambo for as long as they did...

If they were Muslims and had any grievances Obama would've addressed them first hand and signed an executive order making it law. Another thing, let's try to keep this civilized dirt ball! You can have your opinion but most of these people(not all)but most were good people trying to help and were there trying to show solidarity because they had their own horror stories with BLM.
Oh,and they had a permit from BLM to set the fire that ran out of control,they all do it because it brings back the vegetation better than ever. It was frickin sagebrush and today because of that accidental burn the area affected is greener than ever.Don't believe everything you hear on the nightly news dillweed!

a reply to: fartsmeller46

... but the fact is they weren't there "showing solidarity" ... their stated purpose was to be there "for years" and set up a militant training camp, change by fiat the use of the land, and 'educate' Harney County on their particular take on the meaning of the Constitution ... and further more, the Hammonds didn't want them there, the Sheriff ordered them to leave (thus invalidating their "stand" under their own warped made up laws) the Governor of Oregon ordered them to leave (which as the "militia" made them insubordinate when they didn't leave ... etc. etc.

And yes, there are citations for all these statements and no, I probably won't post all of them again.

originally posted by: Monkeyguns
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

He ran from one stop check.
Attempted to run another check.
Went for something on him that resulted in him being shot check.
Would you have waited to see If it was a gun or a banana before shooting?.
Heck this is so much conformation bias tbh you guys are seeing what you want to see and ignore everything else.
Well do something about it eh? instead of being internet freedom warriors.
Heck I admire the guy doing what he said he would do but 99.99% of you all will do nothing as you have always done.

He ran from one stop check.

What do you do instinctively when shots are fired at you? Step out of your vehicle to give them a better shot?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Beginning at 3:00 in the video interview of Shawna Cox she says they shot at Ryan when he had his hands out the window.
Beginning at 1:11:20 in the Victoria Sharp interview she tells of the stop and the shot when Ryan put his hands out the window and told them there were women in the vehicle.

Attempted to run another check.

How does one attempt to run a roadblock with their brakes on?

towardsabetterworld.com...
A frame by frame analysis shows that the brake lights of the truck were on when the truck entered the snow to avoid the vehicles blocking the road. How does that equate to "attempting to run"? When I'm attempting to run, I press the accelerator, not the brakes. How about you? The analysis shows that the brakes were applied as soon as the roadblock was spotted ahead.

Went for something on him that resulted in him being shot check.

We were told quite clearly by the FBI agent who introduced and "explained" the video what we were seeing. The power of suggestion is very strong. I've watched the video many, many times and in many "enhanced" forms and I still can't say with any certainty that what the FBI is saying is true.
Again, a detailed analysis leaves a lot of questions in my mind about the video due to it having been altered.
towardsabetterworld.com...
From the above link:

The first segment ended on the frame below which is the first frame the video shows us of Lavoy’s truck after Lavoy’s truck comes to a stop. There is at least 3 seconds in between then and when the truck stopped but the camera was pointed elsewhere during that time.
I also think some time is missing here as 3 seconds from the time the truck almost rolled on it’s side to the driver’s door being open makes no sense to me. Do a 3 second count. Do you think you could compose yourself from being shaken up by a truck that almost rolled to having the heavy drivers door, at a higher than normal angle, fully open in that period.

It seems to me that you are the one with the confirmation bias, you desperately want to confirm that the FBI's actions were correct. I understand that you don't want to believe that our FBI would actually shoot a man with his hands up on the side of the road. (I didn't want to believe that they would shoot a man's wife, son and dog over a sawed-off shotgun but it proved to be true. see Ruby Ridge en.wikipedia.org... )
I understand that you really, really want to trust that the FBI and Oregon State Patrol don't just shoot people down who have their hands up. But step back from what the FBI said and look at the links I've posted above. Also, take a good look at the Wiki account of Ruby Ridge and how very far from the truth the FBI's story really was. The lies about the guns, the lies about the helicopter, the lies about Weaver being an informant.....on and on. What could possibly make you think that they have changed their ways?

Well do something about it eh? instead of being internet freedom warriors.

I've been attempting to "do something" since the '60s. One foot in the voting booth and one foot in the street, the way the Happy Warrior, Abbie Hoffman, advised. It was in the '60s that I was part of a group of people who marched then "occupied" the Red River Gorge, in Kentucky when it was threatened with a dam and development. Lord Amercy, if the Corps of Engineers had tanks and SWAT teams back then, I probably wouldn't be here today telling the tale.
My activism has never stopped. I believe in the same principles espoused by Levoy, liberty for all. I am reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson:

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

wiki.monticello.org...

And further:

The 2d amendment which appears to me essential is the restoring the principle of necessary rotation, particularly to the Senate & Presidency: but most of all to the last. Re-eligibility makes him an officer for life, and the disastors inseparable from an elective monarchy, render it preferable, if we cannot tread back that step, that we should go forward & take refuge in an hereditary one. Of the correction of this Article however I [402] entertain no present hope, because I find it has scarcely excited an objection in America. And if it does not take place ere long, it assuredly never will. The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, & government to gain ground. As yet our spirits are free. Our jealousy is only put to sleep by the unlimited confidence we all repose in the person to whom we all look as our president. After him inferior characters may perhaps succeed and awaken us to the danger which his merit has led us into. For the present however, the general adoption is to be prayed for; and I wait with great anxiety for the news from Maryland & S. Carolina which have decided before this, and with that Virginia, now in session, may give the 9th vote of approbation.

emphasis mine
oll.libertyfund.org...-05_head_096

He was worried that term of the president was unlimited and feared that would never change.
www.archives.gov...

The letter above, written in 1788 was during the period when the proposals were being put forth as to what additions to the original document needed making in order to have the Constitution ratified by the States.

a reply to: diggindirt


Great Post!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fartsmeller46

... but the fact is they weren't there "showing solidarity" ... their stated purpose was to be there "for years" and set up a militant training camp, change by fiat the use of the land, and 'educate' Harney County on their particular take on the meaning of the Constitution ... and further more, the Hammonds didn't want them there, the Sheriff ordered them to leave (thus invalidating their "stand" under their own warped made up laws) the Governor of Oregon ordered them to leave (which as the "militia" made them insubordinate when they didn't leave ... etc. etc.

And yes, there are citations for all these statements and no, I probably won't post all of them again.

Okay...WOW...Well, you see, bubba...there's this thing called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America, it's part of the bill of rights...bill of rights you've heard of that right...it's the supreme law of the land, and, well...it specifically says that the people are a militia, necessary to the security of a free state...that's right, the citizenry as a whole, comprises the militia...Thought you knew. So I find it a stretch that militia types teaching people about the constitution and their basic civic rights and responsibilities equates to a domestic terrorist training camp. Wow, some marksmanship classes, there goes the planet, right?

Based on the way the media has handled Mr. Finicum, I wouldn't be surprised if many of those extremism claims were actually pretty tame proposals in reality as well. I can assure you that there would be at least ten thousand if not a million Americans who would line up to claim twenty acres out there (or two) if the land were reopened for settlement by the citizenry.

Of course the Paiute tribe would have had first claim to most of it if I'm not mistaken, so I think that the tribe would have been mostly the winners of this action had it come to fruition. The ranchers' philosophical arguments would have necessarily required them to honor the Paiute nation's earliest claim, excepting perhaps some preexisting settlement claims that predated the land treaty with the tribe.

That sort of activity might have put a damper on the multibillion dollar large scale environment damaging mining operation that had been planned for the area by that large mining corporation, of course. Drawing industrious individuals to the area with the promise of land to work and live on would have ultimately helped the county tremendously financially, really. Much more so than a mining corp moving in, in my opinion. It sounds like that was what was being organized by the Bundy crew.

You can bet those big mining corps have a serious vested interest in getting their contract. There's a lot of resource sitting under them hills. Resource that should be open to claim by the citizenry and not the big corporations, in my opinion.

a reply to: diggindirt

Hey diggindirt, the smaller miners have been getting squeezed out by the BLM for decades now, haven't they? Am I off on this one? Can you still get a personal mining claim, or is it being regulated out of existence? Can an individual or small outfit still stake a mining claim to mine gold on public lands and actually have it honored, or do they just run you out or refuse to honor claim rights? I'm assuming that large corporations are still welcome, of course; where there aren't any of those pesky ranchers hanging around, that is. If you can get a claim, can you actually get a digging claim, or is it just restricted to panning these days, or what? Also, any references that you would reccomend on that topic? I'm assuming from your screen name, and older commentary I vaguely remember reading, that you have some knowledge of the subject.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

No, actually ... the Second doesn't say ANYTHING you just claimed it does. If you care to actually read it sometime: COTUS - Second Amendment

Further in District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court's decision clearly states that the right to bear arms is not related or limited or enabled by service in the Militia. Heller

The Militia Acts of 1792 describe the terms of the militia and its composition (this is where you and your buddies get the every male 18-45 number), and this was modified further and mostly amended and/or rescinded by the Militia Act of 1903 aka the Dick Act (which blows your whole spurious theory out of the water).

(I've provided links either to the text or to Wikipedia so that you may easily discover the actual facts.)

And at any rate, every State Constitution, in particular, Oregon's, gives command over said militia to the Governor of the State. Oregon Constitution

In times of national emergency, the militias are at the command of the President of the United States. (Militia Act 1903)

Even if the Bundy gang did qualify as "the Militia" (and they didn't in any shape form or fashion) they did not heed the command of the Oregon Governor (nor the Sheriff - which really has nothing to do with anything except for the normal "Sovereign" claim that the Sheriff is the sole arbiter of law in a County.)

They were therefore insubordinate to their Commander in Chief at least, and were very likely, committing treason, trespass and terrorism, by every legal meaning of each of those terms.


So, in short ... please spare me your condescending and patronizing tone until you at least give yourself a basic education in the facts of the matter because all you've offered here is utter nonsense and errors.


POST: Hint, the Paiute didn't want these interlopers there either ... "Get off our Land ..."


ETA: After further considering my information provided above, I will amend slightly by adding 10 USCS 311 to the list of references. This does indeed establish that the unorganized militia of the United States consists of all males 17-45 and all females in the National Guard.

That doesn't change the fact that the militia must be "called up" and is under the authority of the relevant Commander in Chief.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The second amendment states(from memory): A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The law itself by its very wording defines the armed citizenry as a well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state. Any case law you've referenced doesn't change the letter of the law itself. Whether the governor calls them up or tells them all to go home is largely irrelevant to the obvious intent of the law, which was to empower the people as a militia, to secure their freedom, because it is necessary. So you can DC versus heller and militia act and the governor etc. that all you want now, it doesn't change the original intent of the law, which is self evident.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66

The second amendment states(from memory): A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The law itself by its very wording defines the armed citizenry as a well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state. Any case law you've referenced doesn't change the letter of the law itself. Whether the governor calls them up or tells them all to go home is largely irrelevant to the obvious intent of the law, which was to empower the people as a militia, to secure their freedom, because it is necessary. So you can DC versus heller and militia act and the governor etc. that all you want now, it doesn't change the original intent of the law, which is self evident.

You are completely mistaken. The Second does nothing to define the militia. It refers to it certainly. If you were interested in the facts, you would read Heller. Although you, like most supporters of the gun club "militias" ignore the fact that the same Constitution that contains the Second also contains Article III which establishes the authority of the Supreme Court to act as the final arbiter of jurisdiction and Constitutionality, as well as Article IV Clause 2 which makes the Constitution and all Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Your comment about your imaginary militia ignoring the command of the Oregon Governor is ridiculous. Again, see the Oregon Constitution.

You are merely providing clear evidence that you, in a similar way to the Bundy Gang you seem to idolize, in reality have no respect for the actual laws of the United States, our Constitution, the laws of the States and their Constitutions, etc. etc.

You all seem to think that you have the ability to self-exempt yourself from the rule of law.

The Bundy Gang is discovering the reality of that nonsense, and I believe it may be possible to learn from their example.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Anytime you use violence to protest you can't expect the outcome to go well.

Wait, where were they violent, exactly? I haven't seen that news report yet.

I agree something looks afoul when a man has his hands up and is said to be going to the Sheriff to discuss the end of this. So you think taking up arms and taking over a federal building is what exactly?? You realize what they did is no different than walking into a federal bank with guns then announce your there in protest. When you use threats and intimidation that is a form of violence.

I'm still waiting for you to produce documentation that shows reports of violent action by the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Though armed, they did not initiate lethal force. The government did.

But black lives matter burned down Baltimore and Ferguson and how was that handled compared to this?
Did they even indict the step dad in Missouri of the kid who died while assaulting the LEO for "lets burn this ... down" ? I see a major double standard here, one that is puzzling that you defenders of this action are seemingly ignorant or willingly to ignore as I can't tell which it is.

My opinions on it?
I guess if you argue too strongly from that angle you run the risk of racially charging the debate. I think you raise a good point though, Justoneman, in that the disparity in approach to this situation compared to the recent urban uprisings is surely noteworthy.

I sure hope the black lives matter and occupy organizations can mature into more sane and sober constitutionalist type movements. It would really help move this country in a better direction. Hear that militia guys? Get to work! You've got a lot of recruiting and educating to do! Shouldn't be too difficult...the cause of liberty and constitutional government pretty much sells itself.

I think the government's fear of the potential for heavier fallout from heavy handed government action in urban areas is more the underlying issue here than race, though. I don't see this as a let the minorities run wild but stick it to the white folks issue.

The fact is if you come down hard on twenty guys in the woods there will be a lot less blowback than if you come down hard on half the population of Baltimore. Besides which I'd bet there were plenty of white folks at the riots in the cities, so you can't accurately call the disparity in action between venues of unrest racially motivated. You also can't run half the population out of Baltimore to steal their resources as easily as you can a few ranchers. At least that's how the power players behind the scenes would view it. They may be wrong. We have yet to see what blowback will result from the events of the standoff.

The media's reaction, though. The media's treatment of the stories? I suppose that could be somewhat racially motivated. You see it in some of the spin pieces. The TYT spinjob comes to mind where the female spinjock goes on about white privelege for awhile in her over the top editorialization, as if that is even an accurate observation. I think that that is more of a case of media attempting to inject the race issue into the event than a relevant argument, though. The way they(MSM) threw in the weak 'Bundy Sr. is a bigot dontcha know' argument I think also suggests race injection over actual race pertinence, too. Like they wre just trying to bump up the ratings by throwing more mud into the pit or something. I don't know.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I appreciate the references despite our disagreements, by the way. I knew we'd get some substance out of you eventually! I gave you a star.

Which public property and/or government facility did the Black Lives Matter group shut down and occupy for well over a month (stating that they were going to be there for years and recruit other militants to their cause?)

Where's the evidence that BLM members burned anything? Broke into anything? Because the evidence that the Bundy Gang broke into a bird sanctuary (LOL), and by armed force shut down the operations of same, forced government employees to stay off the property by armed intimidation, etc. is crystal clear.

What would happen if a group of armed BLM members took over, say, the Baltimore City Hall and demanded that it be turned over for their use in training more BLM members ... what would happen?

There's the difference. PS, there's a thread for this aspect of the matter located here

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66

I appreciate the references despite our disagreements, by the way. I knew we'd get some substance out of you eventually! I gave you a star.

Ah. Thanks. I'd love to see some substance from you to back up your assertions as well!

When you're ready to discuss the facts of the matter, let me know.

originally posted by: fartsmeller46

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed. I am troubled by the needless loss of life when a peaceful resolution seemed to be in the works. .

A "peaceful resolution" was not in the works. They had been there for weeks, they were making demands that were beyond unreasonable, the situation was causing problems outside the refuge that could easily have escalated into violence and the state of Oregon was demanding that something be done. As long as they were allowed to come and go as they pleased there was no end in sight.

Disagree. They were working toward an actual redress of grieveances, which would have been a peaceful solution and would've provided actual benefit to the people of Harney and other counties in the state of Oregon.

Oh..puhleese...They disagreed with the government putting two arsonists in jail (who torched federal land and lied about it...and threatened their own family member - nephew - who testified that it was deliberate arson and that they tried to cover it up)...Started with a poaching expedition on federal land, butchered the deer on site and lit up the area on fire to cover up the evidence....according to the nephew who helped them start the fire..

So they seized federal property with an armed force and occupied it...

And were given weeks to surrender and whine to the news cameras about their purported "Grievances" while waving guns around and talking tough...

If this was a bunch of Americans with darker skin following the Islamic faith who decided a heavily armed seizure and occupation of federal property was a good way to voice their "Grievances"....that place would have been raided in 5 minutes with no survivors and Militias would be cheering.

If any errors were made by the feds, it was letting these idiots play Rambo for as long as they did...

Oh,and they had a permit from BLM to set the fire that ran out of control,they all do it because it brings back the vegetation better than ever. It was frickin sagebrush and today because of that accidental burn the area affected is greener than ever.Don't believe everything you hear on the nightly news dillweed!

For better or worse, I have a mild obsession with researching...sometimes unimportant things..

I listen to full audio, video, read docs etc.

I have read the actual court docs and testimony and articles surrounding this case..

They did NOT have a permit to burn Public lands..

They took a hunting party past and over the fence of their private lands into public lands.

They then illegally poached several deer..

Butchered the meat in the field for easier transport..

And then handed out matches and match books told everyone to spread out and "light the whole country on fire"...walking and dropping lit matches....in order to destroy the evidence/carcasses of their poaching expedition.

The nephew of the men in jail gave detailed testimony to this...

Other hunters testified to meeting the hunting party in the fields on public lands departing the growing fire

He also said his uncle had threatened him to keep his mouth shut..

After starting the fire on federal land, they returned home and called the BLM saying they had a controlled burn on their own land that appeared to spread to public lands.

This wildfire cost thousands of dollars for the BLM to control..

And if that wasn't bad enough this was the SECOND time they had been convicted of Arson on federal land...

Let me know if you still question any of the above and I can provide docs, links, testimony...whatever you need...but perhaps you could also research yourself and educate yourself? Before accusing me of nonsense like believing everything I hear on the nightly news.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed. I am troubled by the needless loss of life when a peaceful resolution seemed to be in the works. .

A "peaceful resolution" was not in the works. They had been there for weeks, they were making demands that were beyond unreasonable, the situation was causing problems outside the refuge that could easily have escalated into violence and the state of Oregon was demanding that something be done. As long as they were allowed to come and go as they pleased there was no end in sight.

Disagree. They were working toward an actual redress of grieveances, which would have been a peaceful solution and would've provided actual benefit to the people of Harney and other counties in the state of Oregon.

Oh..puhleese...They disagreed with the government putting two arsonists in jail (who torched federal land and lied about it...and threatened their own family member - nephew - who testified that it was deliberate arson and that they tried to cover it up)...Started with a poaching expedition on federal land, butchered the deer on site and lit up the area on fire to cover up the evidence....according to the nephew who helped them start the fire..

So they seized federal property with an armed force and occupied it...

And were given weeks to surrender and whine to the news cameras about their purported "Grievances" while waving guns around and talking tough...

If this was a bunch of Americans with darker skin following the Islamic faith who decided a heavily armed seizure and occupation of federal property was a good way to voice their "Grievances"....that place would have been raided in 5 minutes with no survivors and Militias would be cheering.

If any errors were made by the feds, it was letting these idiots play Rambo for as long as they did...

If this is the sum total of your depth of knowledge of the underlying issues surrounding the recent events in Oregon, I can honestly say you are truly ignorant of the deeper issues surrounding and underlying this event. You should browse around the board, maybe read up a bit. There's a lot more to this story than how you attempted to sum it up in the above post. Alternatively, you may choose to remain ignorant, if you wish, though I would advise against it, because it's ignorant.

I say this meaning no offense. But from responding to various emotional posts...I am confident that I have researched and read up on the LaVoy case and the preceding BLM issues much more so than most people.

What you seem to be saying is that since I don't agree with the tactics and falsehoods being shouted about, that I must be ignorant of the issues. Just the opposite...I have thoroughly examined the events and issues that spurred them and find them to often lack truth, honesty and substance..

If you notice...my posts often include or offer links, citations and data vs. just saying stuff.

Feel free to challenge any factual claims I make and I can direct you to the evidence.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed. I am troubled by the needless loss of life when a peaceful resolution seemed to be in the works. .

A "peaceful resolution" was not in the works. They had been there for weeks, they were making demands that were beyond unreasonable, the situation was causing problems outside the refuge that could easily have escalated into violence and the state of Oregon was demanding that something be done. As long as they were allowed to come and go as they pleased there was no end in sight.

Disagree. They were working toward an actual redress of grieveances, which would have been a peaceful solution and would've provided actual benefit to the people of Harney and other counties in the state of Oregon.

Oh..puhleese...They disagreed with the government putting two arsonists in jail (who torched federal land and lied about it...and threatened their own family member - nephew - who testified that it was deliberate arson and that they tried to cover it up)...Started with a poaching expedition on federal land, butchered the deer on site and lit up the area on fire to cover up the evidence....according to the nephew who helped them start the fire..

So they seized federal property with an armed force and occupied it...

And were given weeks to surrender and whine to the news cameras about their purported "Grievances" while waving guns around and talking tough...

If this was a bunch of Americans with darker skin following the Islamic faith who decided a heavily armed seizure and occupation of federal property was a good way to voice their "Grievances"....that place would have been raided in 5 minutes with no survivors and Militias would be cheering.

If any errors were made by the feds, it was letting these idiots play Rambo for as long as they did...

If this is the sum total of your depth of knowledge of the underlying issues surrounding the recent events in Oregon, I can honestly say you are truly ignorant of the deeper issues surrounding and underlying this event. You should browse around the board, maybe read up a bit. There's a lot more to this story than how you attempted to sum it up in the above post. Alternatively, you may choose to remain ignorant, if you wish, though I would advise against it, because it's ignorant.

I say this meaning no offense. But from responding to various emotional posts...I am confident that I have researched and read up on the LaVoy case and the preceding BLM issues much more so than most people.

What you seem to be saying is that since I don't agree with the tactics and falsehoods being shouted about, that I must be ignorant of the issues. Just the opposite...I have thoroughly examined the events and issues that spurred them and find them to often lack truth, honesty and substance..

If you notice...my posts often include or offer links, citations and data vs. just saying stuff.

Feel free to challenge any factual claims I make and I can direct you to the evidence.

Yet you did not present any links in your editorial post on the last page...looked like you were just saying stuff, actually.

Look, if you want to come in here and present your colored view of the situation, I guess that's your choice to do so. This is a public discussion forum. Whatever gets you throught the night I guess. Don't expect me to serve you virtual tea and dumplins or something though. The only thing your "ohh puh-leease" argument post did convince me of is that you are either ignorant of the issues or were being intentionally one sided. So I'm Ohhh Puh-leaseing your ohhh puh-lease argument.

In all fairness though, please bring any substantive arguments to the thread. Reference links that are pertinent would also be appreciated. Respectfully, however, I am skeptical that they will serve to refute my original argument, that Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.

I'm open to seeing some smoking gun argument, factual article or report, or video that documents or shows him dancing around like a lunatic, raving about how he's gonna kill em all, or something like that. At his point, though, I doubt it exists. If it did I'm pretty sure it would have been posted earlier in this thread. The only items I've seen so far seeking to demonize the man have been spin filled hatchet jobs. Ergo, I continue to defend this argument.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You are completely mistaken. The Second does nothing to define the militia. It refers to it certainly. If you were interested in the facts, you would read Heller. Although you, like most supporters of the gun club "militias" ignore the fact that the same Constitution that contains the Second also contains Article III which establishes the authority of the Supreme Court to act as the final arbiter of jurisdiction and Constitutionality, as well as Article IV Clause 2 which makes the Constitution and all Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Your comment about your imaginary militia ignoring the command of the Oregon Governor is ridiculous. Again, see the Oregon Constitution.

You are merely providing clear evidence that you, in a similar way to the Bundy Gang you seem to idolize, in reality have no respect for the actual laws of the United States, our Constitution, the laws of the States and their Constitutions, etc. etc.

You all seem to think that you have the ability to self-exempt yourself from the rule of law.

The Bundy Gang is discovering the reality of that nonsense, and I believe it may be possible to learn from their example.

Disagree. The wording and meaning of the second amendment is clear and self evident, regardless of any subsequent questionable case law or unconstitutional legislation that has been introduced to dilute it. There's no self exempting about it. The original document is very clear. The right of the citizenry to organize themselves as a militia in times of need is clearly stated there. I alos have to say that I am skeptical of your claims that there is no case law to support that legal position.

If I am mistaken, well then let's just say that I have a philosophical disagreement with the law as it stands on this issue, as the intent of the law was obviously to protect the status of the citizenry as a militia. This meaning is evident within the original sentence that comprises the original amendment. It is literally self evident to anyone capable of reading and comprehending it.

If what you say is true though, and that is truly the color of law that has come about to attempt to redefine the second amendment, I think it's another good example of a reason that Americans in general should be upset about the treatment of the basic natural rights enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Let's table this one though, as we are veering off topic here. I'll do a thread on it soon, and you can spank me on the legalese that I am butchering to your heart's content. The argument I am making is that Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

So you admit you disagree with the constitution?? Very strange when earlier you were using it to support your convictions. It's easy to be confused on tr second amendment their is actually 2 parts. The Federalist papers clearly show this the first part everyone knows is called the operative clause of the second amendment, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is straight forward everyone has the right to bear arms. Now the part you appear not to understand called the prefatory clause. “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

So what does this mean you assume it to mean citizens can take up arms but let's face it never a good idea when your creating a new government the founder fathers knew this. They did believe an armed citizens would guarantee continued freedom. But they saw the armed citizens as a deterent of invasion by foreign powers. Fear was rampant at the time the US was vulnerable to invasion. They didn't have the massive armies of the colonial countries so what they would do became important. They didn't like the idea of a standing army because of expense and believed it took away from the labor force. I won't go into this more tight now but we can if you like. Their solution to this delema being able to call on the citizens when needed.Here you should read the federalists papers 29 and 46 they detail what a militia is. And just to make it clear its not a bunch of yahoos held up in a federal building.

Now here's the other part you seem to not know the constitution puts these militias under federal control. Article I, Section 8. It states “The Congress shall have the power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

So congress controls and arms the militia or in other words pays for them the state is tasked with training and providing officers. And just so you know congress has used the right to call on this militia and here comes the shocker for you.
Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 311 defines the militia of the United States with certain exceptions as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and … female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” So there you have it the Militia is the men and women who join the guard.Again not a bunch of Yahoos who take guns into a bird sanctuary and try to intimidate people.


One more thing the founding fathers actually feared that people would take up arms remember there were a lot of British loyalists that's why the part of calling on the militia to put down armed insurrections you know like they did taking over government land.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yes, I know you disagree.

You're "skeptical" of my "claims" about what Article III and Article IV say??? Then look them up for goodness sakes!

You're "skeptical" of my "claims" about Federal Law? Did I make the Militia Acts up then? Did I fabricate that 10 USCS 311 exists???

Pfft. Read Heller if you want to understand the past and present interpretation of the Second vis-a-vis the militia.

The rest of your post is you waving your hands over the fact that you, like the Bundy Gang, like Mr. Finicum believe that your belief trumps everything, that your interpretation is greater than the laws of the land.

Off topic? LOL. That's the heart and soul of this topic!

And brother (or sister as the case may be) you are not psychic. You did not read Lavoy FInicum's mind. He said what he said, and that has been reported.

You are right about one thing though; you and I are done. Believe whatever nonsense you wish.