I don't think it will, nor do I think it will end in a deadly inferno like Waco. — Hanover

Especially when the officials well know the Bundy family. They made a similar stance years ago, right? Nobody got hurt. Yeah, the government backed down. What a huge victory for the Bundy's. The Bundy's didn't face long prison sentences, as they surely aren't now escaped convicts.

Really. Bunch of people occupy a wildlife refuge building out in nowhere. Ohh... has the revolution begun?

Even now the government surely takes it seriously. Likely the government is surveying the people that come to building (or the protest) that they don't know already. And likely they have their informants and undercover agents already there. When a rich country has the money to put into the "fight against terrorism", you bet that anybody coming close to the Bundy family is going to be screened very well. Domestic terrorism is there with ISIS, so of course all the "Don't tread on me"-people will be watched alongside the "Occupy"-people.

I'd bet this comes at nothing. Of course some tragedy might occur, but it's very unlikely.

The worse injuries were neurological -- from the "pig brain blaster" that was used to extract brains from pig skulls for use in Korean stir fry — Bitter Crank

Mmm, stir-fried pig brains.

Ammon Bundy bears a startling resemblance to Torgo from Manos: The Hands of Fate a movie dear to the hearts of fans of MST3K. I wonder if they would best be besieged, as it were; nobody in and nobody out, until there is a resolution. — Ciceronianus the White

One of my favorite MST3K episodes.

But Torgo had a heart of gold, when he wasn't trying to get the "Master's" brides.

Yes, I'll take that bet. If they were black or Muslim and in a remote Oregon outpost arguing that some ranchers got unfair treatment, then there would not be a response greater than what we see here. It'd be confusing no doubt given the strange demographics for the region, but I don't see a dissimilar response.

Here's where you say "it would too be different," and I say "no it wouldn't." We then would go back and forth calling each other out of touch for a little while and then we'd go on talking about something else.

To the extent that you want to change the facts to include an urban area or an argument over some other cause, then we'd have dissimilar, inapplicable facts. — Hanover

I think you'd lose that bet. Every GOP politician and absurd conservative pundit (i.e., all of them), along with Fox News would be calling for a death strike against the thugs and/or terrorists.

But some white welfare ranchers who support sedition and arson on my public lands - we're supposed to treat them with kid gloves.

These freaks need to be surrounded and arrested, and if they don't go peacefully, they should be shot dead. They are armed insurrectionists who represent a much greater threat to the US than some ISIS maniacs. These guys threaten the rule of law.

I don't own any shares in this group out west, but why do call them "welfare ranchers"? Most farmers receive some kind of government benefit, either for not raising something, for not raising anything (soil bank or set asides), for price stabilization, and so on. Granted, big farmers (of which there aren't all that many, since they are very big) get a lot more largesse from the government than people farming 200 to 1,000 acres, milk a small herd (100 cows), mix crops and animals together, and make an OK living in good years.

Quite right -- the ranchers do not "get" that government lands are public lands, and actually the ranchers mostly do get to use the grass that grows on the people's land to raise their cattle. One news story pointed out that most local governments would not want to be the receivers of all this land (in many western states "the public' owns around 50% of the land) because its income is nowhere close to what it costs to manage the land and its resources (like, protect from fire and other hazards).

We both know what would have happened if 150 brown people went to some federal building armed with assault rifles and occupied it by force. There's a hypocrisy here that's part of a greater narrative, which, constrained by the racial aspect itself, is this: the American state is afraid of white people. Seriously, the American state rarely ever does anything against white people that organize politically if they are right-wingers. They let you walk around with assault rifles anywhere you go, they arrest your activists instead of just executing them on the spot (e.g. Dylan Storm Roof), they give into most of your demands (e.g. Tea Party)... being white, right-wing and politically active in America is a dream come true for any politically minded person! It's a pity that the organized ones in America are bible thumping constitutionalists, otherwise everyone would be living in some communist utopia dreamland by now instead of trying to extend the rights of some millionaire ranchers. — discoii

Why you would suggest that "we both know" an unknown outcome, if the point of my reply was quite the opposite of what you were and are suggesting? I disagree with how you presented your OP when you include race as one of the deciding factors in how this issue will be resolved, which hasn't been as of yet, nor do I expect it to be. Ranchers by and large rarely take up a position that garners any attention unless they feel as though they have genuinely been wronged. The Hammond father and son, did as they said and turned themselves in, a second time, as requested by the Government. They never said they were above the law, they fought the charges of arson, lost their case and did the amount of time first determined and have since turned themselves in for a second go. Now if you think that $400 of damage, as the result of a legal controlled burn getting out of control is worth putting two men behind bars for 5 years, then we have a different sense of what justice is. I am quite sure that the insurance companies who paid for the damage to the town of Ferguson's businesses, city property and houses of Worship would have much rather paid the $400 in damage to grazing land out in Oregon.

What you are missing is proportionality and good old common sense. The first Federal Judge to hear the Hammond case called a minimum sentence of 5 years "grossly disproportionate" to the offense. Again, the fire the Hammond family members started was a legal controlled burn, not a deliberate action taken to cause harm and damage to the very land they graze cattle on. What happened in Ferguson was intentional, meant to cause damage to the businesses that operate there and harm to the government in place to keep the peace.

You're not aware that BLM leases to ranchers on public lands are at below market value and represent a taxpayer subsidy to the "ranching lifestyle", one that degrades public lands and externalizes the costs to the taxpayers? I guess you're not very informed on the subject. — Landru Guide Us

The BLM leases public land, BACK to the ranchers that have been there since before the BLM. Does that not sound a bit illogical to you?

These freaks need to be surrounded and arrested, and if they don't go peacefully, they should be shot dead. They are armed insurrectionists who represent a much greater threat to the US than some ISIS maniacs. These guys threaten the rule of law. — Landru Guide Us

The problem with taking a position that you clearly don't believe in is that no one will take you seriously when you say it, but maybe it was fun to say it anyway.

I think they should kill everyone everywhere. That way, there'll be no more violence.

There is some legitimacy to the ranchers case from what I've learned about this issue although it's hard to have much sympathy for them considering the fact that one of their leaders, Cliven Bundy, is an ignorant racist (at least judging by the one car crash of an interview I saw involving him). It's also true their predominantly white male status is probably to their advantage in this dispute. But, as has been pointed out, the situation is too different to Ferguson to make it a basis for charges of significant discriminate treatment on the basis of race. And it's just too easy to jump on that bandwagon. Yes, you're at a disadvantage in just about every interaction with the law if you're black in the US but the Bundy case just isn't all that relevant to that. The more interesting thought experiment is the Muslim one. Muslim's are the new "other" in the US at the moment. Despite the fact that they're the second largest religion in the country now (if you lump all the Christian denominations together) they have almost zero political clout, and they are about the only group (with the possible exception of atheists) that it's absolutely OK to discriminate against. In the present environment, I very much doubt a Muslim anywhere in the US would get very far with any show of force involving weapons of any sort and, luckily, I'm pretty sure they know that.

For the record, I don't necessarily find the actions of these people entirely despicable, at least in principle. The Bureau of Land Management itself has pretty oppressive, and also racist, roots and this isn't the first time some group in America has clashed with the BLM. Furthermore, I'm actually glad some group is correctly exercising their second amendment rights in the form that it was originally intended, at least theoretically, in idealist lala-land: to make sure that people have guns to fight the government. In actuality, the second amendment was meant to be a reason to arm these militias in their attempt to complete the white man's mission for the complete genocide of the natives, as well as fending off the Old World colonial powers. The second amendment was actually quite a brilliant move, on both counts.

But other than that, I can't really bring myself to sympathize with the rest of these Yeehawist ideas.

There's an interesting argument that was just made in the Atlantic which I share some sympathies with, too. And, yeah, I could care less that they occupied a park with weapons. That part doesn't bother me. The part that bothers me is that if black people had done it, they'd be dead.

The more interesting thought experiment is the Muslim one. Muslim's are the new "other" in the US at the moment. — Baden

You'll need to complete your thought experiment with some additional facts. Why exactly have these Muslims seized this federal outpost? Are they trying to start a Muslim state, or are they just cattle ranchers who happen to be Muslim? It would seem that if their objective is to start a theocracy in the rugged hills of Oregon, then there'd be a reason to take that threat more seriously (especially in light of ISIS) than a bunch of pissed off ranchers who want better access to grazing land.

Everything the same, just call them Muslim, mention the word "guns" and the hysteria would begin. (Of course, a posse of Muslim ranchers is pretty much a fantasy so we're not likely to get to test an exact analogy. The main point I want to make is that it's seemingly OK to openly express hostility to Muslims in the US at the moment in a way that doesn't apply even to other traditionally discriminated-against groups.)

What was important to the Established Order was suppressing workers rights. — Bitter Crank

What hurts workers wages and their work conditions isn't an Established Order of Illuminate who control the levers of society. It's not them. It's you. You're the bastard. Look in the mirror and own it.

You want cheaper food, cheaper clothes (just a guess, but I'm thinking you've got a pretty shabby wardrobe), cheaper books, cheaper movies, cheaper everything. Every time prices rise, you scream about your right to a reasonable life at your income level being infringed upon. Every time those prices drop to quell your screeches, the workers start to rise up and offer their screams at their dwindling wages. That the workers screaming has been silenced only means that you've been successful in silencing them.

To be fair, it would take some time to count the many ways we are all hypocrites. I recently bought a laptop and a phone and I haven't thought too much about who or what went into the making of them. I do know that combined they only cost me about a week's wages and I wasn't complaining about that then nor am I now. (Suggesting that @Bitter Crank is anything but the snappiest of dressers though is totally uncalled for.)

The BLM leases public land, BACK to the ranchers that have been there since before the BLM. Does that not sound a bit illogical to you? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Typical of gun nuts, now you're just making stuff up.

The problem with taking a position that you clearly don't believe in is that no one will take you seriously when you say it, but maybe it was fun to say it anyway.

I think they should kill everyone everywhere. That way, there'll be no more violence. — Hanover

I am deadly serious. People like Bundy are attacking our democracy. ISIS just attacks buildings and people. The former is a real threat. The latter just a tragedy. ISIS is not going to destroy the US. But the rightwing mentality of militias might.

Surround the area, give them five minutes to surrender. If they don't, wipe the scum out.

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night. Hanover was a scab crossing a picket line while telling him to blame that cheap bastard, Bitter Crank.

You'll need to complete your thought experiment with some additional facts. Why exactly have these Muslims seized this federal outpost? Are they trying to start a Muslim state, or are they just cattle ranchers who happen to be Muslim? It would seem that if their objective is to start a theocracy in the rugged hills of Oregon, then there'd be a reason to take that threat more seriously (especially in light of ISIS) than a bunch of pissed off ranchers who want better access to grazing land. — Hanover

The Bundy types do want to start a theocracy, and more to the point, they want to claim my public lands and not pay for it, so they are trying to take over land, and more to the point, they want to destroy our democracy and replace it with a rightwing style gang state, best described as fascism.

So by your own standard, we should be shooting these creeps with snipers while Fox news cheers the shooting on. But of course, they're white guys, so that won't happen.

Typical of gun nuts, now you're just making stuff up. — Landru Guide Us

What exactly am I making up in my post?

And as an aside? Your constant need to label other people gets rather tiresome after awhile. I have overlooked it one to many times and on more than one occasion I have walked away from a response to you, because of your uncalled for names and unjustified labels. It is no different than another forum member using cross slang on another member for being an Atheist, every freakin time, someone that you have decided is an Atheist.
I have never once claimed to be a gun lover, a gun owner nor a person who can legally own a firearm. In other words the only skin in the game I have, is the right to bear arms, period. FULL STOP. So back off on the broad brush strokes and kindly stop cross contaminating threads with your self drawn, baseless conclusions.
Thank you

The part that bothers me is that if black people had done it, they'd be dead. — Moliere

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it might be that you've selected an arbitrary characteristic (e.g., skin colour) as the distinguishing feature. Perhaps white people have more friends in law enforcement (and this itself might be institutionalized racism) and so when a situation like this occurs it's not the colour of their skin that saves them but the personal connections they have to prevent the escalation. In cases where violence erupts, there might be a variety of causes and singling out skin colour is not entirely productive, even if it is somewhat (mostly) appropriate.

So by your own standard, we should be shooting these creeps with snipers while Fox news cheers the shooting on. But of course, they're white guys, so that won't happen. — Landru Guide Us

Another reason it won't happen (although I'm not really conceding the well thought out point that it's only their whiteness that is acting as their shield) is because they took over a shed deep in the wilderness that no one really cares about other than the media and those who see it as an analogy to something great big and important, as opposed to it really just being a shitty old shed in the freezing ass woods of Oregon.

What exactly am I making up in my post? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I love it when conservatives can't remember what they just posted.

The land is public. Always has been. Your idiotic claim that the welfare ranchers have always owned it and now they've been dispossessed by the mean federal government (i.e., our democratic government) is a typical conservative meme. That is, a lie.

Gunnuttery is the kool aid of the Right.

Another reason it won't happen (although I'm not really conceding the well thought out point that it's only their whiteness that is acting as their shield) is because they took over a shed deep in the wilderness that no one really cares about other than the media and those who see it as an analogy to something great big and important, as opposed to it really just being a shitty old shed in the freezing ass woods of Oregon. — Hanover

Again, as others have pointed out, if Muslim extremists or the Black Panthers took over an isolated area, the GOP would be demanding air strikes. So you're really not dealing with the issue of how big a role race plays in this.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it might be that you've selected an arbitrary characteristic (e.g., skin colour) as the distinguishing feature. Perhaps white people have more friends in law enforcement (and this itself might be institutionalized racism) and so when a situation like this occurs it's not the colour of their skin that saves them but the personal connections they have to prevent the escalation. In cases where violence erupts, there might be a variety of causes and singling out skin colour is not entirely productive, even if it is somewhat (mostly) appropriate. — Soylent

I really think skin color in this case is merely an index for an ideology of privilege and anti-democratic agitprop.

Conservatives, even on this forum, are sympathetic to the goons because they represent them on various levels - most importantly an anti-democratic mentality that is basically adolescent (I should get what I want, and if I want to break the rules and light fires on public land, then tough luck for other people, who are stupid!).

Conservatism has genuinely conflated the Other with democracy and rule and law, and so it thinks of whiteness in terms of their own privilege and immunity from following the rules. The result of various self-serving narratives (like the one Bundy is pitching - it's our land - and ArguingWAristotle repeating here mindlessly). Totally puerile. But that's what modern conservatism is: an ideology of adolescent boys with guns.

That's why these militia goons are much more dangerous than ISIS. ISIS can just kill people. Conservatism can put the US into the thrall of mindless self-serving narratives.

In other words the only skin in the game I have, is the right to bear arms, — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The Kool Aid has been drunk deeply.

ISIS can just kill people. — Landru Guide Us

Below is a rhetorical question and there's no need to respond:

Doesn't ISIS spread mindless self-serving narratives AND kill people? I might be wrong because I don't know ISIS principles and an effort to find out might draw suspicion upon myself (yay democracy!).

Again, as others have pointed out, if Muslim extremists or the Black Panthers took over an isolated area, the GOP would be demanding air strikes. So you're really not dealing with the issue of how big a role race plays in this. — Landru Guide Us

Had it been the Black Panthers staging a sit in at a Housing and Urban Development building, refusing to leave until changes were made to policies affecting housing for African Americans, no, there wouldn't have been air strikes. If it were Muslims demanding fair treatment, I'd say the same. Of course, we can tinker with the facts and change the outcome, like if people were being held hostage or if demands were being made that the US accept Islam as its official religion. That is to say that all the variables make a difference, with race only being one of them, and not dispositive of whether there would be air strikes, where the term "air strike" is defined as any sort of over the top crazy response where people get slaughtered.

If the general point is that blacks have it tougher than whites in the US, where if you could pick your skin color, you'd be prudent to choose white, I suppose I could agree. Of course, that revelation is hardly provocative and exciting. If you're asking, though, whether this Oregon situation is proof of anything important, it's really not, other than showing that folks are at the ready to race bait at the drop of a hat.

The BLM leases public land, BACK to the ranchers that have been there since before the BLM. Does that not sound a bit illogical to you?

I'm sure what you mean by this, Tiff.

I'm no expert on the history of Oregon, but know it to be relatively new as a state. Before becoming a state it was a federal territory, of course, but as such was formed by my understanding from land possessed by Native Americans who were breezily disregarded by the U.S. and Great Britain as they alternately disputed and resolved their claims over the land. The federal government, I believe, legally owned what is now Oregon until it began giving and selling its property to white settlers. It didn't sell all its land in Oregon, however. It retained land, including that which is now this wildlife refuge. Under a law which in 1908 authorized the president to designate federal lands as such a refuge, Teddy Roosevelt created Mulhear Wildlife Refuge by Executive Order, that year.

So, my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that no rancher ever owned this property. Whether they were "there" before the BLM I don't know; it's a fairly new federal agency. I don't know whether they were there before Oregon became a territory either, though I doubt it. If they were, however, their presence would make no difference as far as legal ownership of the property is concerned, no more than the presence of the Native Americans long before any white person settled on the land made any difference. It belongs to the federal government; only the federal government can lease the land, and it has every right to do so. What the ranchers may think about title to the land is not relevant. The federal government has no reason to recognize any ownership claim of the ranchers.

This dispute is about money, which is being manipulated for their benefit by people who want more money.

Doesn't ISIS spread mindless self-serving narratives AND kill people? I might be wrong because I don't know ISIS principles and an effort to find out might draw suspicion upon myself (yay democracy!). — Soylent

Sure ISIS does, but nobody in the US takes them seriously (except some disturbed individuals).

In contrast, conservatives defend the goons in the Bundy Militia and think their ideas are just peachy. The GOP presidential candidates have all lauded Cliven Bundy for his standoff with the BLM last year or so where he refused to pay his lease fees for use of federal land. Bundy threatened to shoot federal agents. Rand Paul visited him and heaped praise on him. So there's a vast difference. The loony ideas of the gun nuts basically afflict a third of our population that considers itself conservative. That's a threat to democracy ISIS isn't.