A Militia Has Taken Over A Federal Building In Oregon

“This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people and we intend to use it,” he said, adding that they plan to assisting ranchers, loggers, hunters and campers who want to use the land. “We will be here as a unified body of people that understand the principles of the Constitution.”
--The Washington Post

Actually, I did.

They haven't "taken it over". They are peacefully assembling on land which you claim belongs to everyone, which would necessarily include these people.

 

<Mod Edit> You think that taking land from the people of the US is OK. You think it's OK to take what we pay for and do what you will with it. Well, it's not. We have a say too. And a lot of us don't like what you're doing.

We'll fight you and win, BTW.

 

They aren't seeking title to the land they are just using it as a stage to protest upon for a bit. At this point it is just theater, public theater, to make a valid point and bring attention to their concerns and seek redress from the government.

Cheers
Labour

 

Your childish insult has been reported.

So you ignore all the evidence which proves you wrong and go off on some infantile rant laden with lies and insults.

Typical "progressive".

 

You have presented no "evidence", just your rambling. Typical con.

 

One more time. would they be OK if someone else came in and laid claim to the land? Yes or no?

 

You asked for evidence that they would let other people use the land and I provided it in the form of a direct quote from The Washington Post. I also used your own logic, i.e., everyone owns the land, to support my position.

In typical "progressive" fashion, you ignored the evidence and logic I presented and responded with a bevy of lies and insults.

 

Doesn't matter, they're white.

They don't get space to destroy.

 

I already answered your question TWICE. I provided a direct quote from the activists expressly stating that they would not prevent others from using the land. Here it is AGAIN:

&#8220;This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people and we intend to use it,&#8221; he said, adding that they plan to assisting ranchers, loggers, hunters and campers who want to use the land. &#8220;We will be here as a unified body of people that understand the principles of the Constitution.&#8221;
--The Washington Post

So you can insult and lie as much as you want, it won't fool anyone with half a brain. The evidence speaks for itself, as does the utter lack of evidence in support of anything you say.

 

The solution is obvious: Have the militia call itself OWR - Occupy Wildlife Refuge.

Now the press and liberals alike will hail these courageous patriots!

 

I think need to get back to the original cause Steven Dwight Hammond and his father, Dwight Lincoln Hammond:



In 2012, a federal judge in Oregon sentenced the ranchers to much shorter prison terms, finding that 5-year sentences would “shock the conscience” and violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The 9th Circuit has rejected this interpretation, ruling that spending five years behind bars for arson is not “grossly disproportionate” to the serious offense.

U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan said the shorter terms were appropriate because the minimum 5-year sentence was intended to punish arson in populated areas, not “out in the wilderness.”

The 9th Circuit also rejected the Hammonds’ claim that the federal prosecutor was not allowed to appeal their sentences.

When the jury convicted the ranchers of arson, the Hammonds agreed to waive their rights to appeal in exchange for concurrent sentences and remaining free prior to sentencing.

They claimed the deal also bound the federal government to accept their sentences, but the 9th Circuit found that the prosecutor had “preserved” the right to challenge the shorter prison terms.

http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140207/ARTICLE/140209881/1318

Interesting article that seems to show a federal prosecutor with an agenda rather than justice.

I also found that that in 2006 the he Harney County District Attorney reviewed BLM's accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

I'll find citations for this and post.

In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in Prison.

Something doesn't smell right.

Cheers
Labour

 

Graphics

Klicken Der Foto ​

Please look at the map and share if you do not see the problem

The Federals were only suppose to control their, Federal City.
There is no Constitutional excuse for the Federals owning over 20% of any State.
East of the Rockies, it is hard to find a State where the Federals own over 10%, let alone 5%.
West of the Rockies, it is hard to find a State where the Federals own less than 30%, if not over 50%.

Please, look at the map and share the Constitutionality of it all.

Lord Bless the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment
Our duty is to keep them!
Not the Lord's.
Okay the Whole Bill of Rights ​

Moi
Every State Is A Bonnie Blue Flag
that Bares A Single Star


r > g

No
Don't Let It Happen Here​

 

Then what the you people call the Battle of Athens? You guys would be losing your minds and for the ones who don't recall. Mayor rigged the election, using his sheriffs as his brute force closing down the polls. Citizens got tired of it, formed a militia and took back their local government from a tyrannical bunch. This is a example why we have the second amendment. Militia back then had balls, bunch of WW2 vets, made a assault on the court house by setting demolition charges to the doors, shooting it up until the mayor gave up. When any form of government local,state, federal abuses it's position of power, and becomes tyrannical. The 'People' have the right to form a militia and stand up what they believe what is right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9tUQxsrQGw

Also reading all majority of these idiotic comments, calling them 'Domestic Terrorist' and need to be taken out. It is absolute sicking reading what people are saying on here. Where you guys calling Ferguson, OWS, Black lives matter domestic terrorist? So easily manipulated by the mainstream media it's pathetic even more sad you guys have the INTERNET to find out the truth.

 

I'm saying the same standards aren't applied. That should be obvious.

 

No, YOU'RE saying that.

I'm saying when unarmed black people gather, the state jumps to and brings out the hammers, When armed whites gather, it's as quiet as the crickets in Nowhere, Oregon.

 

Arson is a serious felony.

Why exactly are conservatives defending this felon?

 

Do you know why they started a fire to begin with? It was a backfire intended for the use of another rogue fire headed in their direction. They did what they did to protect their home and livelihood. It was the BLM and FWS who have been in bitter struggle for their property for decades who used this as an excuse to charge them with arson. Do you think that was right or do you believe they should have just let the fire destroy what they had?

 

LMAO...Think Waco and Ruby Ridge for what will actually happen to them, not some idiot Hollywood fantasy.

 

Accuse me of something with zero evidence and then expect me to defend something that doesnt exist. All so you dont have to discuss the topic.. They call that something. Rhymes with rolling.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you dont practice what you preach. So much for "Tolerance". If you were not a Progressive this board would be screaming bigot..

- - - Updated - - -

You left out the looting one has to wonder why.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep this goes way back..

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

 

And your reponse was;

What we can take away from this is that you have no qualms about this militia threateing violence against anyone who tries to disperse them. You have yet to condemn it. You are hiding behind verbal judo but it's a futile effort. If you can't call out these guys as at least being domestic disturbers of the peace (let alone terrorists), it means all your anti-Muslim views are based simply on the fact they are a different religion, and not on their actions.

I state again; if 100 Muslims had set ablaze property, and had held up in a building - threatening to use force the law tried to remove them, you would be calling them terrorists. Here's your credibility -

 

Post 30 Already stated while i am for their right to protest i dont support this.

Stop trying to be clever and making it personal. Read what people post and perhaps you can actually debate something.

Edit

Strangely enough post 30 was in response to YOU. Seems you just want to harass me at this point.. Discuss the topic.

 

Let's look at post 30, shall we ?

This militia has members who either set ablaze or supported the burning of 130 acres to cover up poaching violations, and then took over a building and threatened to use force against anyone who tried to remove them. How the hell is this still a 'peaceful protest' ? It's not. The fact is, you seem to find it difficult to label certain people terrorists based on their beliefs, culture, and faith. Terrorism is based mostly on ACTION - and this militia has done things that Muslims would be called 'terrorists' for if they had done it.

 

Wow. You really don't know what's going on do you?

The possible arson was committed by two people who have nothing to do with the guys taking over the info center at a wildlife refuge. The people taking it over are protesting on behalf of the two who did set the blaze. One story is a backfire to protect their property from a wildfire. One story is it's as you stated.

At first, no charges were filed. Then some charges did get filed, the judge sentenced them to a certain amount of time, which they served, and now another judge is deciding to sentence them to more time after they already did the time required.

So these guys, who again are not associated with the two fire setters, have taken over an unoccupied info center in the middle of nowhere to protest the second sentence.

So to sum up, the "militia"(they say they aren't) didn't burn anything, they haven't poached anything, and have not really done anything but get the dander up of sensitive people and those who haven't really followed the story and get simple facts wrong.

 

Read again what I said - "This militia has members who either set ablaze or supported"

 

They are supporting not going to jail twice for the same thing. Maybe you should read what they are actually there for and not put your opinion into it.