DogofWar1

A crackdown is necessary. I'd prefer them to just sit in prison for life on treason and domestic terrorism convictions over killing them, but indeed, the Bundys need to be made an example of. It was one thing when it was their property and ranch, and the like, but now they're in a completely different state, taking over federal installations. They are literally a roving rogue state, attempting to undermine the United States of America. They are no different than any other group that would attempt to establish their own state within the United States by force of arms, and should be put down as an armed rebellion. Letting bygones be bygones is only going to embolden them. Life sentences for each and every one of them. Maybe even throw the Bundys in Guantanamo, just for the fun of it. And if they're stupid enough to shoot first, well, our armed forces know what to do.

Holy crap, he IS a cartoon villain.

Snacks, they say...

CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are all showing the terrorists giving a press conference. I changed it away, because that actually royally pisses me off. HIMYM is much better. These are a bunch of people who openly committed a federal offense, took control of a federal building, and have threatened to use lethal force if necessary. They are committing treason and domestic terrorism. And our media can't help but jump all over themselves to give these guys a press conference. And of course they're labeled "activists." Wouldn't breaking, entering, and occupying a building at least get the label of "rioters" in other situations, if not worse? But nope, "activists." And people wonder why race relations in this country sucks so damn much.

That's one of the funniest aspects of this saga. They got all annoyed that FB warriors didn't show up. Do they not understand how the internet works? How the G.I.F.T. works? Never go full IRL. See these guys, they went full IRL, and now they're terrorists. Never go full IRL.

I understand where you're coming from on the civil protest part, but once they took over a federal installation, I think they went outside the bounds of their constitutionally protected right of protest.

I mean, if you want to broadcast anything, just put on the Biebs. Standoff over, total surrender in under 6 hours, guaranteed. Unless they secretly like the Biebs, in which case they'll maintain the takeover, but then everyone will know they like the Biebs. Which will completely delegitimize their movement.

Indeed, a peaceful solution would be the best solution. Barring that, the method that causes the least collateral damage should be used. This whole thing started from some morons committing arson. Whatever does the least damage to the land around the facility makes the most sense here, else there'd be some irony. Right, and if this was resolved quickly peacefully, I think there's a reasonable case for leniency for many of the people down the chain. Most public protests aren't criminal all the way down, if at all. This one, being on federal property, ought to be treated as a crime for at least the top people, the building isn't public, but I definitely see reason to give leniency down the chain, assuming things don't escalate. I don't think the Feds should initiate any violence either. They probably won't have to, if violence happens. The Feds do need to arrest a number of people, and not back down. If things stay peaceful, I'd argue for a catch-and-release policy. Bring in everyone, release the lesser ones unless there's a reason not to.

So everyone involved in a protest where illegal activity occurs, or where a group is tied to someone committing illegal activity the whole group is culpable? No, that's not how it works. Again, if it was, you'd have millions of far right people in jail. The fact that they walk free and constantly post garbage to places like Stormfront is proof of that. Specific individuals have been arrested and charged who were involved in the riots/protests you speak of. That IS how it works. You arrest the specific individuals who are committing the actual crimes.

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.

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.

Clerical error would be if the judge's clerk put 1 year instead of 10 years, and someone noticed the error a year later. This sounds like they challenged the constitutionality of the 5 year mandatory minimum, won at the trial level, lost on appeal, and were denied cert. While it was a constitutional mistake to rule in favor of the defendants on the issue of the 5 year mandatory minimum, I don't think that would be a clerical error.

Do I have this right? 2001: Guy and son kill some animals, illegally, on federal land. Guy and son burn federal land to cover up said gaming violations. Guy and son lie about where fire started to cover up arson. 2006: Son commits another arson on federal land (though this one seems less malicious than the 2001 one). 2012: Guy and son have trial for arson. Between then and now they are found guilty and sentenced, and need to turn themselves in. Now, there's a bunch of people opposing those guys having to turn themselves in, and they took over a federal facility and are holing up there? Yeah, there's a line to avoid crossing on this kind of stuff. They've definitely crossed it. Starve them out, and get the indictments all typed up. And if they want to be violent, well they should recognize that between their rhetoric and weapons, that doing anything will put them right up at the top of the use of force continuum.

I think Lawler won it in the last round. Was maybe a tad behind, but landed some nice blows. Both of them were totally gassed, but it looked like Condit ran out of gas a little before Lawler and let in just enough hits for Robbie to win.

Details are scarce right now for the most part. It sounds like the main gist of it is an expanded definition of "dealer" which might in turn expand who has to perform background checks. CNN also mentioned something about increased funding to agencies to enforce current laws.

Prosecutors and Officers usually work hand-in-hand to get all the people the officers arrest put in jail, so it's not surprising they'd switch their usual side to defend their co-workers. It's why it's important, frankly, to take it out of the hands of local prosecutors for grand juries of officers. I'll bet that officer and prosecutor are on a first name basis just from their everyday interactions. I know a number of them are in Fairfax.

On Brady's money, it's certainly possible that there's something going on with that contractor, who knows. Worth investigating, but I don't think his playing salary vs. house cost is an issue. Giselle Bundchen is worth something like 386M. She's loaded, and can afford whatever house she wants.

And fine James Harrison.

That DA should be canned along with the cop. I mean, really? There's about 3 seconds from the arrival to the shot, and the policeman had to aim really high to hit the guy. Butte County taxpayers should be totally FURIOUS. They're going to be paying for that, and it's messed up as hell.

Definitely will be. Should just put Rousey v. Holm 2 on the same night.

Guys, I blinked. What happened? Seriously, that's...crazy. First punch, and match.

Tonight is gonna be awesome. DnD with my bros then UFC. This is gonna be so great. I think McGregor can win, but I just can't not favor Aldo. Though I'd like McGregor to win. He's just so much fun. In sorta outside news, Rousey went to the Marine Corps Ball. Glad she came through.

Universal versions of those. Essentially closing the private sale loophole. Making sure you can't sidestep it like in Larry's story. Even for private seller to private seller transactions, going through a licensed 3rd party to make sure that the parties to the transfer are legally allowed to own firearms. Repealing the PLCAA would be helpful too. There are also lots of things at the federal level that are not enforced as strictly around the country. Total ban on violent felons from owning firearms, same with convicted domestic abusers. Those are illegal at the federal level, but out in the wild it doesn't always happen. Because the 2nd Amendment uses clearer language than the 1st. Duh. Wait...

Plenty of things can be done that wouldn't infringe on the Constitution, the Supreme Court has already interpreted the 2nd as not unlimited. It is broader than mere militias, but not unlimited. Universal background checks and waiting periods would almost certainly fall under that umbrella, just as a basic start.

The No Fly List has lots of problems. It's a good tool in theory, but is cast wide and yet still has holes. That being said, the fastest path to making the No Fly List better would be to ban those on it from buying guns. The NRA would get that thing working right and efficiently REAL quick.