Waco pt2? Standoff in Nevada over cattle on BLM land

frqkjt_sl · Apr 15, 2014

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

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.

Famm · Apr 15, 2014

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.

fanaskin · Apr 15, 2014

frqkjt_sl said:
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

they've learned from the 60's-70's, they learned how to section off crowds and keep them divided so they can't form frenzied mobs. seriously look at how they broke up the occupy protests, there was a lot of thoughtful crowd control executed.

Securitizing America: Strategic Incapacitation and the Policing of Protest Since the 11 September 2001 Terrorist Attacks - Gillham - 2011 - Sociology Compass

The U.S. national response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks accelerated the adoption and refinement of a new repertoire of protest policing we call 'strategic incapacitation' now employed by law enforcement agencies nationwide to police protest demonstrations

frqkjt_sl · Apr 15, 2014

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.

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.

khalid · Apr 15, 2014

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.

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.

fanaskin · Apr 15, 2014

of course they could roll in there with tanks if they really felt like it but it would provoke a response that would outweigh the benefit. I don't even really agree with the guy's premise, all i'm saying is if there is a cause that you may one day think is worth fighting for, look at what these "hillbillies" as you guys like to denigrate them with did with a little backbone and some organization. Imagine if that effort was put towards something that really mattered.

khalid · Apr 15, 2014

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.

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.

frqkjt_sl · Apr 15, 2014

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Royal · Apr 15, 2014

It was the guns + suicide bomber mentality.

khalid · Apr 15, 2014

frqkjt_sl said:
I will not reply to more of this shit.

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.

fanaskin · Apr 15, 2014

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.

frqkjt_sl · Apr 15, 2014

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.

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?

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.)

Royal · Apr 15, 2014

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.

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

khalid · Apr 15, 2014

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.)

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.

Royal · Apr 15, 2014

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.

Arbitrary · Apr 15, 2014

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.

khalid · Apr 15, 2014

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.

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.

Royal · Apr 15, 2014

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.

Arbitrary · Apr 15, 2014

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.

General Antony · Apr 15, 2014

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.

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.

Waco pt2? Standoff in Nevada over cattle on BLM land

shitlord

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Well known agitator

shitlord

Unelected Mod

Well known agitator

Unelected Mod

shitlord

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Unelected Mod

Well known agitator

shitlord

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Unelected Mod

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Tranny Chaser

Unelected Mod

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Tranny Chaser

Ahn'Qiraj Raider