Slateman

That's what I want to happen. (Just wait till they leave).

Not because I support their loony notion that the US Constitution says the federal government cannot own real estate.

But because I don't see any way to get them out short of lethal force, and I don't see them doing anything that justifies lethal force.

Surround em, wait em out, arrest em, and charge em.

Yeah, that option will cost money. But I suspect the Feds have the money.

Could literally take months. Supposedly, they brought supplies.

Having money doesn't not mean that it's prudent to spend it that way. They didn't bring spouses or kids in, no reason not to Waco the place.

No, your media sources are pure garbage, if your clinging to your belief this is a clerical error is any indication.

 

BLM is both an organization and a movement.  The organization has kept their nose clean, but the movement is open ended on membership.  Someone could walk into a bank, hold it up, scream "I'm BLM" but that doesn't make them part of the actual organization, and the actual organization shouldn't be held accountable for that.

 

Not to mention, if we're going to be holding groups accountable for the actions of individual radical members, then there'd probably be a few million or more far right people in jail than there are now.

Really? Please tell me what specific individuals were responsible for stopping traffic? Obstructing the process of several emergency vehicles responding to calls? Initiated violence in Ferguson? Started riots in Baltimore? Who are these "specific individuals?"

If you don't think that BLM was not only aware but encouraged such behavior, you're crazy.

No, specific individuals who may or may not have actually had ties to BLM committed those actions, and if they caught those specific individuals they'd be going through the legal system like normal.  Just as all of these people wouldn't have gotten charged for the actions of the arsonists.

 

That is, until they took control of a federal facility.

If you actually believe that, I'm not sure how to respond. Because that is pure garbage.

You and I butt heads on plenty of issues, but we're in full agreement here. It's quite scary how easily these people are manipulated by the far-right media machine. The ease with which they are able to rile up a group of people to pick up guns and take over federal land and property, and basically create a standoff with the federal government is scary...

Could you imagine if the Black Lives Matters protesters did this? Some of the same people sticking up for this nonsense are complaining about that protest group disrupting a mall... Or what if some Muslim group did something like this to protest the political ideas floating around right now (ban Muslim immigration, shut down mosques, surveillance on mosques, Muslims database, and whatever else I've missed)?

It's no wonder some of these people were on watch lists with the IRS. I don't know what you have to do for the government to finally treat you like domestic terrorists, but occupying federal land/buildings with guns and threatening the government with guns seems like enough for me...

BLM committed arson, destruction of property, robbery, and larceny. Nothing happened.

That's exactly what happened Larry, he's either grossly misinformed or purposefully twisting things for whatever personal reason he has.

He knew about the minimum sentence and heard, and agreed with, arguments about the constitutionality of the minimum sentence.

It went through the appeals process.

This is how the system is designed to work.

Maybe you should reconsider where you get your news from? You seem grossly uninformed/misinformed here.

Okay. Still falls under an "oops." Point is, old Bundy still owes more time and is trying to claim Double Jeopardy

A judge's ruling.

Whether it's a good one or not may be a matter of opinion. But the phrase "clerical error" refers to "oops". (Or perhaps, it's more famous cousin, "Aw ****!") Not what I think of as appropriate to use, to refer to a judge on the bench, offering a ruling about the constitutionality of a law.

Uh, it definitely falls under an oops. Unless you're saying the judge knew about the minimum sentence and chose to ignore it.

How so? It was part of their trial, they argued it was unconstitutional and won. They then lost in appeals and exhausted their options.

How is any of that a clerical error?

Because they were released prior to having completed their sentence.

Yeah, I don't think serving the time which the judge sentenced them to, in full knowledge that it was less than the statutory minimum, should be labeled as a "clerical error".

(Unless somebody's trying to say that the judge ruled that way because his clerk handed him the wrong law book, or something.)

What else is it?

So what part is the 'clerical error'?

This isn't about second amendment. This is about welfare ranchers being thugs by grabbing guns and challenging the federal government because they know the government is reluctant to do anything. They don't want the public backlash. Waco was not exactly a good moment.

So they get to act like this. They're petulant little ****s.

The part where they served less time than the minimum

What part of arguing the minimum sentence is unconstitutional, winning that argument at trial, having an appeals court over rule and reinstitute the 5 year minimum as the law says, and SCOTUS rising to hear the case is a 'clerical error'?

Wish the federal government would move in and take these guys down. If they fight, then shoot them. I don't think you can have this bull**** in a civilized society. People should not be allowed to grab guns and threaten the government this way. Especially when their complaint is over such bs.

But they won't because the public would cry if they did. On both sides, even those making jokes about the police shootings.

So these guys will get to be as disruptive as they want, just further encouraging them. Yay.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to threaten the government.

So armed men take over a building? Hopefully they don't get the Tamir Rice treatment

Isn't this something we call "terrorism?"

If we don't call shutting down malls and freeways, blocking ambulances, destroying businesses, burning cities and openly calling for attacking LEOs, "terrorism," why should we call this?

Wait... I'm confused.

Some Ranchers set fire to a bunch of Federal land, then were charged for it. But now the militia says that they shouldn't serve any time?

I must be missing a bunch here.

And I actually believe in militias, etc. But what's the cause???

Anyone ever heard of a company called Washington Cabinetry? They gave me a rather reasonable quote today

I figured this thread would be going again with word about the upcoming executive order expected in the next few days. What are people's thoughts?

Well know one really knows what the Dear Leader will do. Or how long it will be declared legally binding.

$400 to sit and eat the Tour of Italy while ringing in the New Year?   It's cheaper to open  a cold can of Chef Boyardee and sit on the couch. 

But what about Unlimited Breadsticks?

Has anyone in an authoritative position investigated the dispatchers? Vital information was not relayed, that it was possibly a minor & that the gun didn't look real...where's the culpability in regards to them?

And not to argue "dealing with police", but stray bullets kill as well. We are all at risk.

The entire incident was investigated. It's entirely possible that asking about age is not part of the procedure. More over, people are terrible about estimating age. Caller could have said black teenager. That can mean anything from 12 to 19 years old.

Are they trained to drive right up next to a person who supposedly has a gun and could be dangerous? If he had a gun and wanted to shoot them they just gave him the perfect opportunity; sitting in a car right next to him. I'd think they would stay farther away, exit the car and maybe draw their weapons if they think he's a threat and tell him to get down on the ground from a distance. It was the same thing with that guy who got kicked and had his jaw broken by the cops. The police said they thought he was armed and dangerous and yet they went right up to him without guns drawn. That's not very smart.

Hence why I laugh at most police training.

I don't understand how we can have a legal system where citizens are (rightly or wrongly) allowed to own and openly carry guns and yet in the same state police are allowed to shoot a person with a gun without that person having actually fired the gun or actually threatened anyone.  

Because the two are different? Police only need to feel threatened.

and when do they get to show you otherwise? After they lay dying on the ground or is every civilian simply supposed to react to sirens by laying down face first? They drove a car at him and shot him for not reacting correctly under extreme stress in less than two seconds after arriving.

It's like sneaking up on people and shouting in their ears, then shooting all the ones that jump. Only in this case they did it to a child. A 12 year old child in a park.

I didn't say they were right in this instance. I'm only pointing out that it is correct to train police that when going to call where there was a report of a gun, to assume that there is a gun.

BTW, if you think police are "highly trained," you should probably research what goes in to their training.

They responded to a possible gun by assuming there was definately a gun (in an open carry state) and that he was certainly a threat. Those assumptions put everything on Tamir Rice, not a highly trained and armed adult, to respond correctly. Shockingly the terrified child given no time or guidance didn't freeze with his arms up, and they killed him.

That's what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to assume that everyone could be carrying a gun and could be willing to use it on you.

In a country with the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world, as well as one of the highest death by firearm rates in the world, it is reasonable to assume that a 911 call reporting a person with a gun should be treated from the onset as a threat, until shown otherwise.

Let's assume this assertion is true then. Why don't people want to hear about hockey!

This is why I'm so mad. Because the typical American sports fan cares about football and basketball. They love hearing about steph curry and they think freedom of movement aka defensive rule changes are good for the game. They love hearing about golden state win 1000 games on a row and dominate everyone. Baseball is also discussed. But hockey?

Hockey is violent like football. Americans love violence. So why isn't there that love? It's a lot more physical than basketball or baseball that's for sure.

Because people don't like hockey like they like football. Just like they don't like baseball like they like football. Just like they don't like basketball like they like football.

Football is king. Redskins are king in this town. ESPECIALLY since the Skins are going to the playoffs.

Radio is simply a slave to their ratings. If Howard Stern had pulled a 2 share instead of the 10+ share he pulled, we wouldn't know who he is.

The correlation between hockey talk and decreased ratings is unproven. Until you can directly prove that hockey is the reason these networks are losing ratings then it'd a ridiculous accusation to make.

You have to understand the DC media disrespect hockey and don't acknowledge it and so many people think it's only a Canadian sport. Do most Americans know about the world Juniors in Finland right now? No. All they care about is football and basketball and what opponent steph curry blew out for the Warriors 50th win in a row. Hockey is criminally underrated and it should make you sick.

Do you have any evidence to support your position? Because the radio stations are driven almost exclusively by their ratings. So if they can point to a drop every time they talk about the Caps, then it's because they have evidence.

Ahhh .... The paloffs.... We meet again

You have to register to vote. You can not vote in a state where you are not a citizen. You must be at least 18 to vote. Felons lose the right to vote.

 

You said, you are opposed to being restricted in your ability to operate a gun outside your home state. Well, if you live in Virginia you can not vote in Michigan for office there. You haven't said exactly where you lie on age restrictions or mandatory registration of every voter, but do you support that every gun owner must register to own a gun or be of a certain age? You said you do not believe that felons or non citizens should be restricted from gun use, but non citizens can not vote in our local or federal elections.

Many states automatically register you to vote if you have a valid driver's license, regardless of citizenship status.

You can vote in a state where you are not a citizen, because the supposed ban on non-citizens voting only applies for federal elections.

You can actually vote in another state's elections, you just have to be a resident there. The only time you can't is for federal elections.

Not all felons lose the right to vote.

I think you should be allowed to vote if you can be tried as an adult or you're an emancipated minor.

No to mandatory gun and voter registration.

Where did you hear this?   

Please read up on California. They can't even ask you at the polls and they don't require any verification. They simply take whoever has a driver's license and put them on the list.

Frankly, if you're a legal residence in this country, you should be allowed to vote. If you're not, you should be deported.

No, you didn't. You opposed them when I pointed some of the basic ones out.

Several states allow felons to vote.

Citizenship is not enforced for voting.

You can vote out of state, it's called an absentee ballot. Furthermore, you can reside in multiple places in the US and you are allowed to vote in local elections in those places.

Because here are the requirements for voting in America:

1. Show up with ID

2. Cast vote

3.

4. Profit

I lied, I'll respond, then I'm done.  I thought you have to have proof of US residency (which does include non-citizens) then follow the state regulations in place?  

 

I may have mis-read what you were talking about, but was responding in regards to non-US citizens say just traveling here or coming over illegally being able to purchase a gun.

Proof of US residency =/= citizenship.

You see, there are these people who come here. They are from foreign countries. They are not citizens, but the government gives them permission to live here. But the important part is that they are people too, and have rights, just like "us."

But he goes further than that... he doesn't want it to even reach the threshold that we have put on the right to vote. No age restriction, no state restrictions, no registration, no loss of rights for felonies, etc. With this interpretation the right to own a gun may be considered greater and more important than any other right...the right to vote, the right to free speech, etc.

I'd settle for the same restrictions that are put on voting at this point.

And at no point have I put the right to keep and bear arms ahead of any other right.

Are there people in danger of being killed all over the country on a daily basis by the right to vote? You seem to want to treat every single right exactly the same way, but they aren't the same. You're obviously entitled to your opinion but to say the right to vote should be treated exactly the same as the right to have a deadly weapon is ludicrous to me.

Oh yes ... Yes they are. Remember 2000? How many people did voting Bush in kill? Hundreds of thousands.

Sure they are people. But this would be a potential disaster waiting to happen if anyone can just come into our country and start purchasing guns.

But I think you know this, so I'm not going to further argue about this with you or go into any scenarios/examples. Feel free to use your imagination on what could possibly happen if anyone could purchase a gun in the US.

A potential disaster? You don't have to be a citizen in Virginia. Is it a "disaster?"

Slate, are you missing the point? You can buy a gun. You just can't conceal it without a CCP. That is not in any way shape or form infringing on your constitutional rights. Can't get approved to purchase a handgun? Ok, go out and buy 20 rifles/shotguns at a gun show or even a retailer.

You missed the point. Carrying a firearm has been identified as part of the second amendment. The issue is how far should the government be allowed to regulate it. You want to tell me it's $45 to file the paperwork, okay. But I,has serious problems with the government mandating a $500 process just so I can exercise my right. We wouldn't stand for it with,voting. If someone on the right tried to pass legislation on abortion with similar requirements, we'd have to listen to pundits screaming about the war on women for weeks. There would be protests in the street and topless demonstrations.