Waco pt2? Standoff in Nevada over cattle on BLM land

Step 1: Avoid/Break the law/taxes
Step 2: Refer to said laws/taxes as "tyranny"
Step 3: Claim that your "freedoms" are being persecuted because the U.S. federal government wants to enforce its jurisdiction in the democratic republic of Nevada.

Color me surprised the "liberty train" jumped on this shitwagon.

Royal_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly this. If they really were going up against tyranny they would all be paste right now. If the federal government was anything like what these crazy tea baggers believed, their guns wouldn't help them.

khalid_sl said:

No, that hasn't been our counter arguments.
1)Our counter-arguments are that you brought in drone strikes.
2)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.

Click to expand...

1) Me, about you:

lol he used exaggeration and I'm going to take it seriously.'

Click to expand...

If this were verbal conversation, I'd use 1-2 syllable words and talk very slowly for you. I realize, even when I wrote my first post, BLM cannot call drone strikes. I was using exaggeration to emphasize my point that (as I still believe) that rednecks with or without guns stand no chance against BLM (for example, if rednecks are shooting at BLM, and BLM can't handle it - does national guard not step in? the situation gets militarized.)

Do you get it? Exaggeration for emphasis?Do you need a dictionary? Jesus christ, the shortbus crowd here.


2) What does anti-gun mean? I suppose I am - I wish they didn't exist. Anti-gun rights? I wish it were more difficult for mentally ill to access them (like true psycho's). But even more strict laws in place would not have prevented that elementary school shooting, so it's like wanting rainbows to only be purple.

The guns don't matter here - only that a group of citizens was able to make it impossible to prevent their protest without government use of excessive force (large group - hard to take down with non-lethal force). They didn't need guns to escalate the situation to that level. Done.

frqkjt_sl said:

I realize, even when I wrote my first post, BLM cannot call drone strikes. I was using exaggeration to emphasize my point that (as I still believe) that rednecks with or without guns stand no chance against BLM (for example, if rednecks are shooting at BLM, and BLM can't handle it - does national guard not step in? the situation gets militarized.)

Click to expand...

This is exactly where your argument breaks down. The very presence of the weapons made it where the BLM couldn't handle it alone. Since there would be huge political backlash to calling in the national guard or using "drone strikes" or "special forces snipers", the BLM backed down. Again, clearly the guns mattered and you have to be dumber than the rednecks you are mocking to not see that.

Also, as for your "derp, i was exaggerating for emphasis", that might work if you didn't immediately go with the "snipers" when called on it.

khalid_sl said:

1)Also, as for your "derp, i was exaggerating for emphasis", that might work if you didn't immediately go with the "snipers" when called on it.

2)Again, clearly the guns mattered and you have to be dumber than the rednecks you are mocking to not see that.

Click to expand...

1) So, when I realized you couldn't understand "exaggerating for emphasis," and attempted to provide alternate wording that you can, this proves ... I wasn't using exaggeration for emphasis?

I really can't describe the fail here.

edit:
2) here again, your counter-argument is 'NUH UH!'
My specific point is: without guns, just being a large group of guys is enough to make non-lethal force ineffective, thus escalate the required law enforcement response to unacceptable levels. No guns, see?

You can counter me by showing that non-lethal force would be effective against a group of determined, but unarmed protestors in this situation.

However, look at the many times in history unarmed mobs have been shot at (Kent St. for example) when non-lethal force failed.

But no, you can do nothing but repeat yourself, uncomprehending "NUH UH"

frqkjt_sl said:

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...

Look dipshit, read this quote of yours after I pointed out how fucking stupid the "drone strikes" shit was. You yourself say that the feds had access to options that negate the guns, and used that as an example, and then later on in a post move to snipers. Now again, the BLM backed down because all the options they had to negate the guns would have resulted in huge political backlash. So,because of the guns, they had no good alternatives and backed down. How the fuck does that support at all your assertion that the guns didn't matter?

Fuck dude, your own statements could be read to argue against your own point. Go back to getting schooled by Vaclav in the ACA thread.

khalid_sl said:

1)the BLM backed down because all the options they had to negate the guns would have resulted in huge political backlash. ... How the fuck does that support at all your assertion that the guns didn't matter? ...3) Fuck dude, your own statements could be read to argue against your own point.

Click to expand...

1) feds can negate the guns anyway, so having them doesn't help protect protestors if feds want a fight. so guns don't matter if there is a fight.
2) without redneck guns, feds would still have to use lethal methods with huge political backlash to remove rednecks.

So it seems fight or no fight, rednecks just by showing determination in the face of certain death win (*edit: although in the fight scenario, some of them have to die to win). No guns necessary, instead, group solidarity, determination, and courage.

My specific point is: without guns, just being a large group of guys is enough to make non-lethal force ineffective, thus escalate the required law enforcement response to unacceptable levels. No guns, see?
You can counter me by showing that non-lethal force would be effective against a group of determined, but unarmed protestors in this situation.

Click to expand...

3) not really, you are just very bad at basic logic. I've seen 13 year olds construct more sound arguments, frequently.

*edit: I told you exactly how to counter my argument. Read the bold.

frqkjt_sl said:

1) feds can negate the guns anyway, so having them doesn't help protect protestors if feds want a fight. so guns don't matter if there is a fight.

Click to expand...

How do the feds negate the guns without doing something that will result in large political backlash and even more crazies running into the cause? Hint: They couldn't, hence why they backed down.

frqkjt_sl said:

You can counter me by showing that non-lethal force would be effective against a group of determined, but unarmed protestors in this situation.

Click to expand...

Sure, look at the Occupy Wallstreet protestors and how they were dispersed pretty easily the minute the powers at be got bored with them.

khalid_sl said:

Sure, look at the Occupy Wallstreet protestors and how they were dispersed pretty easily the minute the powers at be got bored with them.

Click to expand...

You are the one going on about how these guys at the ranch were a bunch of badasses, yes? OWS were a bunch of marxist bums.

Group solidarity, determination, courage. (bums don't have these traits) Not guns, in this situation.

*edit

khalid_sl said:

How do the feds negate the guns without doing something that will result in large political backlash

Click to expand...

Here you show again, logic fail. The point was they don't fucking do anything, with or without redneck guns.

I say "they won't do anything if the guys have guns"
then you ask me "how will they deal with the guys who have guns"

You are fucking absurd.

frqkjt_sl said:

I say "they won't do anything if the guys have guns"
then you ask me "how will they deal with the guys who have guns"

Click to expand...

Wtf dude, you are fucking absurd. You have kept on and on saying that it didn't matter that they had guns. Then you have the fucking gall to summarize your position by saying they won't do anything if the guys have guns?

Anyway, I like how I point out a counterexample and then you say "they weren't dedicated enough". Arguing with you is about as fruitful as arguing with Dumar. Any counterexample you will dismiss in the same way.

khalid_sl said:

You have kept on and on saying that it didn't matter that they had guns. Then you have the fucking gall to summarize your position by saying they won't do anything if the guys have guns?

Click to expand...

Two case argument:
Case 1: redneck guns, feds do nothing. Case 2: redneck (oops) NO guns, feds do nothing.

**for Case 2) make sure you refer back to where I told you how to refute me, in bold in a previous post.

Same outcome with guns as without, so guns don't matter.

Let me give you an alternate example of this kind of argument:
Case 1) take pill to help shit easier, shitting doesn't get easier Case 2) no pill, shitting isn't easy

since same outcome whether or not take the pill, taking the pill doesn't matter.

And yes, OWS were a bunch of pussies, in largely urban areas with riot police standing by. This is Nevada desert, with militia guys. Not marxist pussies.

**edit I'm making real effort to use shorter words and sentences for u. i hope it helps.

General Antony_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Don't you work for the IRS or somthing? Shouldn't you be ass-deep in taxes right now?

From my understanding this guy has had due process.

There's really not a court case. There is public land available for use, but the use of that land comes with a fee. Fees are owed. Rancher refuses to pay them because they're enforcing some restrictions that he disagrees with. Every year the fees come due and he doesn't pay them the enforcement office sends him a letter, "You need to pay these fees or else, but for now we're adding a fine". Eventually, probably not coincidentally during a budget crunch, the or elseactuallyhappens. Looking at the millions of dollars he owes they decided to go round up the livestock that he has illegally set to use land which he has restricted use of (at best. In actual fact he has no rights to the land because he refuses to engage with the agency set to administrate that land. He goes so far as to philosophically denounce their basic existence.)

Basically a court case here would be to look over irregularities and to confirm that, yes indeed, this office does have the legal power to enforces the policy that it promotes. It's kinda like taking the IRS to court because they decide audit you and, when they find you haven't paid taxes in 20 years, they decide to garnish your wages. What is there for a judge to look at really except to make sure that you're not getting baldly railroaded?

The facts are honestly not in dispute. If they were, the lamestream media would be going NUTS with this story.

AladainAF_sl said:

Someone help me out here. Because I'm really confused about this. And for the record, I'm not defending the rancher, okay?

The Federal Government spent millions going out there during this stand off, and let's be clear - it was bad publicity. How much did this guy owe in fees? Does anyone have a number? It just seems like the government spent more during this week long stand off than all the backed fees since 1993.

Why not just.. take the guy to court? Give him due process, use the appropriate channels. Why was there a standoff in the first place?

I'm not defending the rancher here, I'm sure he'll lose in court -- but I sure in hell am not defending the way the government handled this. I don't understand what the issue is with just going through the system and the proper channels and give the guy due process.... to lose.

Click to expand...

Because people obeying laws and doing following common sense is far too uncommon nowadays.

If anything, BLM administration has been too lenient with him for too many years. They've just allowed the situation to fester. Bundy honestly does seem to think that he's the man in the high castle.

If enforcement had REALLY wanted to be pricks about it, they could start slaughtering his herd on site. It would cause a backlash, yes, but less of one than dispersing the Great Patriots of the Free Rockies Army Mountaineers Brigade Division would cause. And it would solve the problem.

Bundy seems to forget that part of his glorious freedom imaginings. Back when the west was wild, things like that were viable tactics.

AladainAF_sl said:

Someone help me out here. Because I'm really confused about this. And for the record, I'm not defending the rancher, okay?

The Federal Government spent millions going out there during this stand off, and let's be clear - it was bad publicity. How much did this guy owe in fees? Does anyone have a number? It just seems like the government spent more during this week long stand off than all the backed fees since 1993.

Why not just.. take the guy to court? Give him due process, use the appropriate channels. Why was there a standoff in the first place?

I'm not defending the rancher here, I'm sure he'll lose in court -- but I sure in hell am not defending the way the government handled this. I don't understand what the issue is with just going through the system and the proper channels and give the guy due process.... to lose.

Click to expand...

Ok quick recap for people not familiar with the case or got caught up in the riveting dick measuring contest between Khalid and Frqkjt:

1. He refused to pay the grazing fees starting in 1993
2. He lost his court battle in 1998, 16 years ago.
3. He was ordered multiple times by courts to pay what he owed
4. He now owes just over $1 million
5. The BLM were confiscating the cattle that were on federal land grazing illegally
6. The standoff only occurred when paranoid anti-government crazies decided to turn it into a standoff

The BLM is 100% in the right here. They could have escalated it to a massacre and been justified in doing so. It would be so incredibly stupid to do that over cattle, which is why the BLM backed off. You don't get to tell the federal government that you don't recognize them and then threaten them with violence if they try enforcing their laws.

Iannis_sl said:

If anything, BLM administration has been too lenient with him for too many years. They've just allowed the situation to fester. Bundy honestly does seem to think that he's the man in the high castle.

If enforcement had REALLY wanted to be pricks about it, they could start slaughtering his herd on site. It would cause a backlash, yes, but less of one than dispersing the Great Patriots of the Free Rockies Army Mountaineers Brigade Division would cause. And it would solve the problem.

Bundy seems to forget that part of his glorious freedom imaginings. Back when the west was wild, things like that were viable tactics.

Click to expand...

You're plugged right in. Keep going.