Waco pt2? Standoff in Nevada over cattle on BLM land

I take it back. This redneck might opt for suicide by cop. Given the alternative is bankruptcy, and it is, I can even see how a certain blaze-of-glory myth may be attractive.

Ambiturner_sl said:

Former Arizona Sheriff Reveals Chilling Strategy to Put Women To Use As Human Shields

Click to expand...

I guess patriotism is reserved for men now? Human shields is really bending the whole thing out of shape, usually a human shield isn't someone who is also fighting for your cause but rather someone forced to be there. Liberal media going a long way to discredit these patriots, men and women alike.

I dunno about patriots. He's been just fine with it for 20 years, while he was the one avoiding responsibility. It's when they finally decided to demand he pay up when it all of a sudden became a federal case.

Its not like there is very much that Congressmen actually do. But stuff like this is one of the very specific things that they'refor. So I guess he came to the realization that the federal government does in fact exist despite his personal opinion on the matter about 15 years too late.

Him and the Blackfoots probably have a few things to comiserate over.

It'd be completely different if they were trying to take his land. But it ain't his land. That's the entire point, and where his argument really just falls apart.

Adebisi_sl said:

"The world's gonna end" marketing eye rape

Obviously they have a specific reader they market to.

Click to expand...

They may have underestimated the crazy of their target demo. From the comments section below that linked article:

Many have been claiming the last couple of days that the Blaze is running cover for the government on this story. After listening to Glenn today and reading this follow up story which clearly is trying to discredit the brave patriots who stood up to the government thugs I now believe it to be true that the Blaze is running cover. I am disgusted.

Click to expand...

Yes. Glenn Beck is running cover for a federal agency. Jesus fuck ...

Furry_sl said:

I consider myself fairly reasonable and independent. Am I the only one who thinks the court case should play out before action is taken?

If the court case takes a few more decades, then its the governments fault for having a shitty system, lol.

Click to expand...

If you had the slightest idea what was gong on you would know he lost his case many years ago and has been court ordered to stop or pay multiple times. I don't know how long you think you can just ignore court orders with no repercussions, but 16 years is more then fair

Shouldn't have stopped rounding up his cattle.

It does set a bad precedent to allow a bunch of armed, anti-government militia nuts to point guns at armed federal agents executing lawful instructions resulting from due process of the law, but the situation had turned into a powder keg beset by lit matches. Some of his "defenders" were practically begging for it to result in themselves being shot, all in the name of giving the federal government a black eye.

They can always go back after this has blown over, arrest him on federal charges, and relocate/seize the cattle.

fanaskin_sl said:

that should show you the government will back off if you can organize and make a show of force, part of the difference between occupy wall street peaceful protests being busted up and this? regardless of how shallow or stupid this cause was, the cause was decently defined and both sides were armed instead of only one side.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, that's just what we need isn't it. More people with shitty 'causes' running around with guns trying to dick meas.... have a show of force. Because rather than follow laws and come to understandings, we just reject reality, substitute our own and threaten anyone we don't like. 'MERICCA!!!

fanaskin_sl said:

that should show you the government will back off if you can organize and make a show of force, part of the difference between occupy wall street peaceful protests being busted up and this? regardless of how shallow or stupid this cause was, the cause was decently defined and both sides were armed instead of only one side.

Click to expand...

i'd prefer the gun argument stay removed from this case. This guy is a fuckingteabaggertrying to get something for nothing.

edit:tea partier*

fanaskin_sl said:

that should show you the government will back off if you can organize and make a show of force, part of the difference between occupy wall street peaceful protests being busted up and this? regardless of how shallow or stupid this cause was, the cause was decently defined and both sides were armed instead of only one side.

Click to expand...

I would say it's a safe bet that the next time a federal agency moves to take this sort of action against a person or party with a history laced with certain buzz words or association with certain elements, they're gonna come out of the gate swinging harder from more of a preemptive posture.

fanaskin_sl said:

that should show you the government will back off if you can organize and make a show of force ... and both sides were armed instead of only one side

Click to expand...

Both sides were armed, sure. However, we're talking rednecks with guns. Let's have no illusions about this - the feds backed off because they didn't want to make a scene. If BLM wanted to really push the issue, how is a drone strike not sufficient (or snipers)? It's not that the rednecks had guns, it's that they were willing to stand in front of BLM guns (and sure death in the case of actual conflict) to make their point? Or do I have facts wrong? I didn't follow this very closely.

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.

Peaceful, unarmed protests are the way to go. You get the added advantage of appearing to be the victim of brutality should anything happen, and your hunting rifle or w/e won't prevent you from getting your ass kicked.
e.g.Freedom Riders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Azeth_sl said:

i'd prefer the gun argument stay removed from this case. This guy is a fuckingteabaggertrying to get something for nothing.

edit:tea partier*

Click to expand...

I would agree, but part of the argument put forth by part of the "from my cold dead hand" gun crowd is the necessity of having their guns to overthrow the government should it ever become tyrannical. This just demonstrates the sliding scale they then use for defining tyrannical.

frqkjt_sl said:

If they wanted to really push the issue, how is a drone strike not sufficient?

Click to expand...

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