Waco pt2? Standoff in Nevada over cattle on BLM land

khalid_sl said:

Drone strikes? Lol. The political shitstorm that would result from that would be insane.

Click to expand...

That was my point. The rednecks did not need their guns to escalate the situation far enough that feds would be required to use excessive force in order to forcibly remove them, thus, they were not removed.

I wrote this to counter fanakin's statement that rednecks were successful because they had guns. Guns didn't matter, as fed gov't has access to options that negate them. Rather, what makes the difference is redneck willingness to get their ass blown up if necessary, and the fact that blowing up rednecks in a democratic system looks bad for people, who are in charge, trying to get re-elected.

Not to mention this is just a bureaucratic office of the Department of the Interior with a law enforcement arm, not the US Air Force. Just because they are part of the federal government doesn't mean they can dial up a fucking drone strike.

Famm_sl said:

Not to mention this is just a bureaucratic office of the Department of the Interior with a law enforcement arm, not the US Air Force. Just because they are part of the federal government doesn't mean they can dial up a fucking drone strike.

Click to expand...

Look , I wasn't seriously suggesting a drone strike as an option. (it's like .. exaggerating for purpose of humor? what's that called?) Substitute special forces snipers if you like. The point is not how feds can kill rednecks, it's that feds can kill rednecks, whether or not rednecks have guns

This isn't hard.

frqkjt_sl said:

That was my point. The rednecks did not need their guns to escalate the situation far enough that feds would be required to use excessive force in order to forcibly remove them, thus, they were not removed.

I wrote this to counter fanakin's statement that rednecks were successful because they had guns. Guns didn't matter, as fed gov't has access to options that negate them.

Click to expand...

False, the guns made it so that the government would have to escalate to completely ridiculous extremes to get rid of them.If it weren't for the guns, the feds could have easily escalated and used nonlethal.

I mean, jesus dude, mentioning drones is so fucking ridiculous it seems you don't have any clue what you are talking about.

frqkjt_sl said:

Substitute special forces snipers if you like.The point is not how feds can kill rednecks, it's that feds can kill rednecks, whether or not rednecks have guns

This isn't hard.

Click to expand...

You think that negates rednecks with guns? Who do you think these people are, joe blow down the street that has a shotgun in his attic? Look at some of the groups that went down there. They fucking teach courses to military contractor snipers.Tactical Responsefor example brought abunch of people down there. The fact you think you can just change your argument from drone strikes to snipers and think it still works shows how silly your arguments are.


Look, I'm not for these guys either. However, acting like them having weapons didn't matter is pants on fucking head retarded.

khalid_sl said:

1)False, the guns made it so that the government would have to escalate to completely ridiculous extremes to get rid of them.If it weren't for the guns, the feds could have easily escalated and used nonlethal.

2)I mean, jesus dude, mentioning drones is so fucking ridiculous it seems you don't have any clue what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

1) I wrote this in my first post. So you come back and say, "Nuh Uh!" You sure got me.

It seems they could do that without guns, unless you want to argue that the guns were necessary for them to escalate any possible conflict beyond the level where they could be forcibly removed by non-lethal means, making it so that the feds could not act without making a much bigger issue of this than they wanted.

I don't hold with this. Sure, you can tazer and tackle a few unarmed guys. But a medium sized group of unarmed guys? Protests against a democratic government work when the protestors have the guts to stand and take their lumps. Whether the protestors are armed with a few guns against the military of a modern nation state does not factor in.

Click to expand...

2) I wrote this in reply to another .. exceptionally literal person who focuses on minor details rather than the main point:

Look , I wasn't seriously suggesting a drone strike as an option. (it's like .. exaggerating for purpose of humor? what's that called?) Substitute special forces snipers if you like. The point is not how feds can kill rednecks, it's that feds can kill rednecks, whether or not rednecks have guns

Click to expand...

3)

khalid_sl said:

The fact you think you can just change your argument from drone strikes to snipers and think it still works shows how silly your arguments are.

Click to expand...

No. I wrote:

The point is not how feds can kill rednecks, it's that feds can kill rednecks, whether or not rednecks have guns

Click to expand...

I will not reply to more of this shit. This is retard level analysis of my post.

It was the guns + suicide bomber mentality.

frqkjt_sl said:

I will not reply to more of this shit.

Click to expand...

Good, we really don't need the input of someone so stupid that they think the presence of large numbers of guns has no effect on law enforcement response.

khalid_sl said:

Good, we really don't need the input of someone so stupid that they think the presence of large numbers of guns has no effect on law enforcement response.

Click to expand...

This isn't a fucking traffic stop. I gave a specific reason that I feel guns didn't matter in this case:

I don't hold with this. Sure, you can tazer and tackle a few unarmed guys. But a medium sized group of unarmed guys?

Click to expand...

Specifically, with a decent size group of people (as compared to a few), non-lethal methods to forcibly remove people seem to be less effective, thus forcing use of excessive force, even if the guys aren't armed.

Either you didn't read, can't understand, or are trolling.

(I do not imply that I'm obviously correct. Maybe I'm wrong. But so far, the counter arguments are 'Nuh Uh' and 'lol he used exaggeration and I'm going to take it seriously.' So convincing.)

fanaskin_sl said:

but like many people have pointed out there wasn't actually anything worth dying over here, because the guys whole legal argument is fairly damn flawed.

Click to expand...

Apparently goading the government into jackbooted thuggery to prove that we're governed by jackbooted thugs is worth it to some.

frqkjt_sl said:

(I do not imply that I'm obviously correct. Maybe I'm wrong. But so far, the counter arguments are 'Nuh Uh' and 'lol he used exaggeration and I'm going to take it seriously.' So convincing.)

Click to expand...

No, that hasn't been our counter arguments.


Our counter-arguments are that you brought in drone strikes. When pointed out how absurd that was, you then moved it to snipers. When pointed out how that again would not just simply negate armed "rednecks", you then said you weren't going to bother responding. A large group of armed protesters is obviously going to be harder to deal with than an unarmed group. Also, you continually seem to act like this is just joe-blow with a shotgun. A lot of these guys are ex-military contractors, who probably have far more training than anything outside of military reservists. Certainly more than some random BLM guy with a gun.

Look, I get it. This Bundy guy is a kook and I don't want him to "win" either. You are probably anti-gun and so want to refute the idea that civilians with guns can protest tyranny. However, this if anything shows the opposite.

They were only protesting tyranny in their own minds. True tyranny would have mowed them and the cattle down.

They signed themselves up for increased surveillance and a less conspicuous defeat at some future date.

It's true that the government has all the capability in the world to delete them but this isn't North Korea. Deletion would have actual consequences.

Arbitrary_sl said:

It's true that the government has all the capability in the world to delete them but this isn't North Korea. Deletion would have actual consequences.

Click to expand...

For sure. That is what the guns did, make it that any force to remove them had to be so extreme as to cause backlash. That is why the BLM backed down.

As Royal points out though, it still isn't a win for this guy. He is going to get shut down when all this calms down.

We also don't know how much government surveillance was going on at the event itself. All sorts of federal charges could flow directly out of it. Once these guys win their Convicted Felon ribbons, their ability to legally obtain firearms gets trickier.

Applying force in that manner makes far, far more sense. There are a zillion little bureaucratic ways to fuck with those people if one was so inclined. Aw shit son, it looks like the firearm you were carrying was in violation of federal law and now the ATF wants a word. Permits, parking tickets, disability, general NSA cunting about in your life (everyone at the office now knows you dress up as a furry in a diaper every other Tuesday), etc.

Basically all the Stasi shit that really gets the job done.

fanaskin_sl said:

well "patriots" are by definition insane I guess, they are willing to die for something, like good ole patrick henry. but like many people have pointed out there wasn't actually anything worth dying over here, because the guys whole legal argument is fairly damn flawed.

Click to expand...

Yes because those who would rather live on their knees than die on their feet are the smart ones.

Fucking cowards. These are EXACTLY the type of motherfuckers we need. Kill the whole damn lot of federals.