True. But you prove my point. It’s just not a high priority location. I think Bundy knew that. Judging by what he’s been saying, it looks like they just want to occupy the place for a couple of weeks and then leave. If the government wants to charge them with trespass or armed trespass or something, they can. Not sure how worth it it is, but they can do that. More likely they’ll just leave, this will have been a completely pointless exercise, and nothing more will come of it.
adaher: it just isn’t a level playing field with armed protestors versus unarmed users. The armed protesters are deliberately trying to intimidate with lethal firearms.
I thought the exact same thing when driving by a “right to openly carry” or somesuch named event in Kirkland Wa., as I drove by in mini van full of kids. Ya, right, I’m going to stop and have a reasoned debate with a bunch of armed folks who are openly in your face about the right to carry in public. I mean no disrespect, but a rational debate it isn’t if the debating opponent has a firearm and is ready to use it. Hyperbole aside, I hope you can see that is the case.
On these boards, you and I have debate guns with at least a modicum of respect and zero intimidation.
This is an armed sit in with folks that claim they won’t start violence but fully prepared if violence happens and are, is it fair to say, heavily armed?
So if some armed thug comes into your house and sets himself down, gun held in his lap, in your spare bedroom that you have the rarely used treadmill kept in and turns on the television, announcing that if anyone tries to get him to leave he’ll shoot 'em, but that he will leave at some point, maybe in a year, maybe later, well you’d be saying to just let him be. He’s going to leave at some point and you are not using that room much right now (not a high priority location) …
Bullseye, huh?
That’s my house and fully covered by the Castle Doctrine. Public property is not in the same category as private property. The police will protect private property because it is rather important to somebody. Chances are, you’ve never even heard of this wildlife refuge building and its occupation affects your life not at all. It doesn’t even affect the workers there, since as federal workers they’ll get paid regardless.
People thinking they can successfully stand against society as a whole by holing up somewhere and waving a few guns around affects me quite a bit. It’s how insurrections begin.
So, their blundering incompetence aside, what they’re doing would be a lot worse than a few home invasions were it to become a common occurrence. The government has been patient so far, and I agree with that, but I certainly hope they prosecute the trespassers to the fullest extent of the law, especially if they actually use their guns.
Are you saying the work they did was useless or unimportant?
And people thinking they can stand against the international community by arming themselves and breaking international law affects us. That’s how rogue nations and world wars happen.
Either law should be enforced by force, or force should be a last resort. Our citizens deserve at least as much consideration as foreign tyrants. At minimum. Our government is doing what governments do when faced with having to send fighting men into harms’ way. Diplomacy first.
Why do you think this is “either” and “or”?
For example, force was not needed in enforcing the law against the arsonist Hammonds. But that doesn’t mean they just stopped setting fires and went home; they went to prison. If they had not surrendered peacefully, it would have been appropriate and expected that force would be used to bring them in.
So negotiations for domestic lawbreakers are simply, “Surrender peacefully or force will be used”.
For international lawbreakers, it’s “Let’s talk about it. Oh, you feel that strongly about it? Okay, we’ll just let you do it then.”
I’m not in favor of going in guns blazing in Oregon, but it’s silly to compare the two. It’s entirely reasonable to treat domestic crimes differently than international crimes/terrorism/disputes.
Silly is right.
International relations are between ostensibly equal entities (countries) and “international law” is a mixture of long-standing custom and unenforceable agreements between sovereign equals. In a sense, treaties are like contracts: we agree to behave like X until we decide not to. And there’s no effective court system to appeal to when somebody decides not to. As such, “might makes right” plays a very large role in international relations.
Converesly, even in a relatively free and democratic country, compliance with the law is not officially optional for anyone anywhere. To be sure, some people can sometimes violate some laws without some consequences. There is an element of imperfection and of discretion in all enforcement and in all prosecution. But “might makes right” (or “dollars make right”) has no place whatever in relations between citizens or between citizens and the properly constituted government
Morally, legally, and ethically compliance by citizens with the law of their country is not a matter of individual choice. It’s a matter of obligation potentially enforceable by the full might of the government acting in the name of the people.
(bolding mine)
I’m sure you gleaned that from all the comments on how they are prepared to stay for years, right? Because when someone says “years”, they obviously mean “weeks”, right? :dubious::rolleyes:
Oh. You believe that Castle Doctrine gives the legal right for you to go in and use whatever force is needed to remove an armed thug from a room that you are not using and don’t much care about at that minute, but that in comparison the Federal government has no legal right to go in and remove armed … “patriots” … from a building because at that moment no one was otherwise using it?
Got it.
So if there is conference room, say 423B, in Congress that relatively few use and that few in this country have ever heard of … fine for a group of armed citizens (“patriots”, “anarchists”, “Islamists”, whatevs) to go occupy it and threaten lethal force against anyone who they perceive as trying to remove them from it until they get their demands. Public building, no one needs the room that minute, few in the country even know of the room … its not covered by Castle Doctrine!
Really, of all the arguments I have ever read you making this is the most inane and pathetic one ever.
I disagree completely. Looking at the statements the Bundys and their allies have made regarding their motivations, they want to spark something on the continuum of a re-awakening of rural political power to a civil war. They’re sadly deluded, and more rational people aren’t going to give them a civil war, but when the occupation of Malheur fails and they get bored/hungry and leave, at some point they’re going to try again with a threat of violence at a more public/visible/critical location.
If they don’t see the results they wanted from Malheur, they may try occupying the visitor center at Zion National Park, or a federal courthouse in Las Vegas - the exact location I can’t predict, but by escalation they can put many more people at risk of violence than they have this time.
Eventually, given enough opportunities and threats of violence, either they’re going to actually hurt someone or someone’s going to hurt them. It’s best if after they leave the refuge they’re arrested some months later and face charges for threatening to use violence to further their political goals. It’s one thing to protest to get what you want politically. It’s completely different to use a bunch of guns and threaten to kill people to get what you want politically.
Agreed it should be diplomacy first. that said, these perps are lawbreakers and need to face their day in court over it.
if these guys are not willing to lay down arms peacefully, a couple of snipers would be sufficient to keep LEO out of harms way. or a gas attack with flashbangs. Not that I am advocating such a response. but they are very publicly breaking the law in an overtly armed way threatening violence (and do so earlier at the bundy ranch). No way they should get a free pass when they quit being prima donnas but be forced to defend the legality of their actions in court.
Just out of curiosity adaher, do you really not understand the difference between the role and capacity of the police and of the Federal authorities in the application and enforcement of domestic laws and the role and capacity of the United States or even of international bodies in the application and enforcement of international laws and often in their variable interpretations?
Again, some degree of waiting these criminal thugs out, and of allowing them a chance to leave the premises peacefully, is a reasoned course of action. There is no urgency that mandates immediate action and no need to feed into giving them too much attention. Personally if a month goes by I’d just block off the roads in and out and fence them in allowing birders safe access to the rest of the property. And when they come out they must face charges for the variety of laws that they have broken.
Of course the fact that being convicted of a crime punishable by a term of 1 year or more will result in their being ineligible to purchase firearms under Federal law, and that even a gun-related misdemeanor will result in ineligibility under most state laws, is sort of poetic.
I don’t know exactly how long they have supplies to live on, but leaving them alone and fenced in, they could presumably declare themselves their own sovereign nation. Which, since they’re on federally-owned land, would amount to an invasion, correct?
Agree completely with your whole post.
The snippet above is what tells me these guys have decided to die for what they think they believe in. Their fondest hope is to provoke a Branch Davidians style event.
They surely understand that if the standoff ends peacefully they will be arrested and convicted of something fairly serious. And that Federal and most state law will make gun ownership illegal for them going forward even after they are eventually released. And that their personal arsenals, be they great or small, will be confiscated during the process.
ISTM their sense of identity is so tied up in being gun wielders and in this struggle that they will not back down. As well the group dynamics of the people in there will ensure that any one person harboring private doubts about continuing their crusade will be real unlikely to speak them for fear of being ostracized or worse.
The longer this lasts the greater the odds of an accidental firefight.
The smart money now would be to surround the place with real troops with real firepower at a safe distance then use robotics to blanket the building with tear gas and insane loud music / noise. Both continuously for as many days as it takes. Ensure there are no communications in or out, no electricity, and no running water. These anarchists will trash the building, but that’s a pinprick. Establish small shielded areas near the building where any surrendering bad guys can be handled without fear of fire from the building. Tell them what those low walled things are for; it’s their sanctuary against their fellows.
Then start waiting. But it won’t be long.
If this is allowed to turn into a long-term (multi-week) standoff eventually the good guys will grow tired and lax. Meantime the bad guys can simply camp out for a few weeks then attack at a moment of their choosing, confident all the while the Feds are sitting on their hands being reactive not proactive.