[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Which doesn't matter because in Oregon they aren't breaking any laws by being armed.

Again the double standard. You seem to think cops are frequently justified shooting (almost exclusively) black kids for wielding knives from fairly safe distances, or even unarmed kids if they dare to look threatening or try to walk away from being arrested, but your like-minded white folk can seize government property like an invading army and make explicit statements of intent to resist arrest and use force against law enforcement whilst armed with numerous weapons and that somehow doesn't constitute any threat of violence in your mind? Why don't you put your badge on and pay them a visit? See if you feel threatened.

The threat is as imminent as their arrest/eviction btw so the timetable they have left to the authorities, in case you decide to fixate on the word imminent for whatever reason.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Again the double standard. You seem to think cops are frequently justified shooting (almost exclusively) black kids for wielding knives from fairly safe distances, or even unarmed kids if they dare to look threatening or try to walk away from being arrested, but your like-minded white folk can seize government property like an invading army and make explicit statements of intent to resist arrest and use force against law enforcement whilst armed with numerous weapons and that somehow doesn't constitute any threat of violence in your mind? Why don't you put your badge on and pay them a visit? See if you feel threatened.

Complete horseshit. The reason why you've seen me comment on those things is because our resident race baiter (almost exclusively) talks about instances involving black people in his thread. We rarely hear about whites because it doesn't fit his agenda. Do you understand the difference between words and actions? Do you? Do you think we should just go scoop up all the people in this country who are saying "**** those pigs", "kill the police", or "kill white people"? Because there was a shit-ton of that going on in 2015, and I'm sure some of those people own guns.

The threat is as imminent as their arrest/eviction btw so the timetable they have left to the authorities, in case you decide to fixate on the word imminent for whatever reason.

Want rid of them? Stop letting them receive care packages, stop letting them come and go as they please. Why should I have to be the one to let the feds know how siege warfare works? Unless they harm someone, let them protest.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Two of them set fire to national land.

So their family/friends/idiots are protesting their arrest by also abusing national property, interfering with other citizen's rights to use it.

To be fair its really two separate groups.

The Hammonds abused their contract with the BLM and were pretty flagrant about it. They should be in prison for sure but they did get it up the ass rather hard because of manditory sentencing meant for eco terrorism.

The Bundys and their ilk are inbred nut jobs looking to provoke a confrontation with the feds because they see themselves are freedom fighters. Those guys should be charged with a litany of other crimes including sedition.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The entire reserve/national forest system is a load of crap. The gov't owns 1/3rd the country, that's not right.

Of course it is. Congress created that right since the Civil War era.
The ranchers and loggers who want the land now played no part in negotiating, purchasing, or forcing by gun barrel that land from the countries that previously owned it. Furthermore I would trust the federal government to be more judicious in allocating water rights to the entire region than I would individual states or counties who would benefit from hoarding resources.

Plus, its a premise that is supported by the voting majority of the people that make up each individual states. https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotA...86cf332fc9.pdf

Its these dumb ass "patriots" and Mormon cultists that have it backwards.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Complete horseshit. The reason why you've seen me comment on those things is because our resident race baiter (almost exclusively) talks about instances involving black people in his thread. We rarely hear about whites because it doesn't fit his agenda. Do you understand the difference between words and actions? Do you? Do you think we should just go scoop up all the people in this country who are saying "**** those pigs", "kill the police", or "kill white people"? Because there was a shit-ton of that going on in 2015, and I'm sure some of those people own guns.

Talk about deflection.
They can say anything they want, and in the comfort of their own property they can wave their guns around too. In small groups carrying placards or signs they can do this on public property as well. Its not about owning guns, its about gathering people, specifically armed people, committing a crime, trying to screen it behind a bullshit cause.
They literally issued a call to arms to aid in the commission of a crime. Which to me sounds like conspiracy to commit a crime along with whatever infringement occupying a federal building counts as. So these "patriots" are now criminals whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Want rid of them? Stop letting them receive care packages, stop letting them come and go as they please. Why should I have to be the one to let the feds know how siege warfare works? Unless they harm someone, let them protest.

I would have assumed they were already stopping any more people or goods getting in. Or at least trying to.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Talk about deflection.
They can say anything they want, and in the comfort of their own property they can wave their guns around too. In small groups carrying placards or signs they can do this on public property as well. Its not about owning guns, its about gathering people, specifically armed people, committing a crime, trying to screen it behind a bullshit cause.
They literally issued a call to arms to aid in the commission of a crime. Which to me sounds like conspiracy to commit a crime along with whatever infringement occupying a federal building counts as. So these "patriots" are now criminals whether you like it or not.

You don't get to decide what's "bullshit" (in fact you don't get to decide anything in this, frankly). If you get down to it, most demonstrators are criminals, but it's by social contract that we accept that people have the right to air grievances, to express themselves in a non-violent manner. They aren't harming anyone, at least not yet (if ever), and until they do, they have the same rights as any other group to do what they're doing. You hate guns, you find them scary. So what? Their presence doesn't change that these protesters haven't hurt anyone. I'm sure it galls you that they haven't, because you think that if a gun is present someone is going to get hurt, if not get killed, but it doesn't work that way. This isn't your country.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Obviously not, since I just cited that they "directly interfered with emergency services".

Is there any situation where traffic can be blocked by demonstrations then?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I'm not sure how occupying a log cabin in the middle of nowhere is the same as causing traffic jams in a major city?

The bolded is irrelevant to the law. If anything it's indicative of how big the balls these guys have.

As far as how the two are related, well, obviously both are being used as forms of protest and both include the disruption of daily activity. I'm not pretending the two have equal impact, if that's what you're after. However, if anything, that undermines what they're trying to achieve. Right now the peculiarity of what they're doing (and how poorly they're doing it) is what's feeding the media frenzy.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is there any situation where traffic can be blocked by demonstrations then?

Completely blocked, so that EMS can't get through at all? No.

The bolded is irrelevant to the law. If anything it's indicative of how big the balls these guys have.

As far as how the two are related, well, obviously both are being used as forms of protest and both include the disruption of daily activity. I'm not pretending the two have equal impact, if that's what you're after. However, if anything, that undermines what they're trying to achieve. Right now the peculiarity of what they're doing (and how poorly they're doing it) is what's feeding the media frenzy.

It isn't Washington at Monongahela, but it is kinda ballsy. The problem is, their plight only matters to a small number of people, few understand what it's like to be in their situation, because most people don't own very much property, if any at all.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

To be fair its really two separate groups.

yep, got that now.

I heard they were going to shut off the power... which would mean it would be a mite tad chilly out there.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Took `em long enough. The agents on this suck, apparently until yesterday they were still letting UPS & FedEx make deliveries.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It isn't Washington at Monongahela, but it is kinda ballsy. The problem is, their plight only matters to a small number of people, few understand what it's like to be in their situation, because most people don't own very much property, if any at all.

I so want to make a joke about "sounds like the situation with slaves 150 years ago", but nah, way overkill.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Took `em long enough. The agents on this suck, apparently until yesterday they were still letting UPS & FedEx make deliveries.

They've been handling them with kid gloves because these guys are itching to make a scene.

Now, how does anyone think things would go if BLM tried to do the same thing? Definitely location dependent, but I think a SWAT team would have tear gassed them long ago. ...and I can't fathom if they were armed, too.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I so want to make a joke about "sounds like the situation with slaves 150 years ago", but nah, way overkill.

If you mean everyone is essentially a gov't slave, you're right. They own the most land, not citizens.

They've been handling them with kid gloves because these guys are itching to make a scene.

Now, how does anyone think things would go if BLM tried to do the same thing? Definitely location dependent, but I think a SWAT team would have tear gassed them long ago. ...and I can't fathom if they were armed, too.

I don't see any tear gas.

[Chongo]

Miss Hall expounding on the federal government's lack of authority to posses land other than DC, ports or bases.

KrisAnne Hall, a constitutional attorney, discusses what's going on in Oregon and she is ON POINT!!

https://www.facebook.com/tiffany.hou...0795146273987/

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I don't see any tear gas.

But what we did see was the passage of the Mulford Act by the California State Legislature quick, fast, and in a hurry ... backed by the NRA ... and signed by conservative icon Gov. Ronald Reagan ... which repealed a law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a loaded firearm in public.

Civil-rights activists, even those committed to nonviolent resistance, had long appreciated the value of guns for self-protection. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied, but from then on, armed supporters guarded his home. One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage.

The Panthers, however, took it to an extreme, carrying their guns in public, displaying them for everyone—especially the police—to see. Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherf*cker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.

Don Mulford, a conservative Republican state assemblyman from Alameda County, which includes Oakland, was determined to end the Panthers’ police patrols. To disarm the Panthers, he proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California CITY. (OAW: aka "urban" and NOT "rural" areas.) When Newton found out about this, he told Seale, “You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to the Capitol.” Seale was incredulous. “The Capitol?” Newton explained: “Mulford’s there, and they’re trying to pass a law against our guns, and we’re going to the Capitol steps.” Newton’s plan was to take a select group of Panthers “loaded down to the gills,” to send a message to California lawmakers about the group’s opposition to any new gun control.

THE PANTHERS’ METHODS provoked an immediate backlash. The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of Mulford’s gun-control proposal. Mulford himself pledged to make his bill even tougher, and he added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol.

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

The Secret History of Guns - The Atlantic

The double standard at play here is self-evident, and quite frankly ... blatantly obvious. Not that I expect you to acknowledge it. That's just not what you do now is it?

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But what we did see was the passage of the Mulford Act by the California State Legislature quick, fast, and in a hurry ... backed by the NRA ... and signed by conservative icon Gov. Ronald Reagan ... which repealed a law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a loaded firearm in public.

Oregon will likely do the same because of this. Does the Mulford Act only affect blacks? No.

The double standard at play here is self-evident, and quite frankly ... blatantly obvious.

Indeed. When blacks protest they can tear a city apart and get away with it.

[Chongo]

I remember when this gentleman showed up outside an Obama "healthcare" event here in Phoenix. I don't recall the police beating him senseless and carry him off, nor did the legislature repeal our concealed carry permit law. In fact, you no longer need to have one. If you can legally open carry, you can carry concealed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_...oncealed_carry

Arizona residents at least 21 years old can carry a concealed weapon without a permit as of July 29, 2010.[5] Arizona is only the third state in modern U.S. history (after Vermont and Alaska) to allow the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit, and it is the first state with a large urban population to do so.[6]

Arizona is classified as a "shall issue" state. Even though Arizona law allows concealed carry by adults without permit, concealed carry permits are still available and issued by the Concealed Weapons Permit Unit of the Arizona Department of Public Safety for purposes of reciprocity with other states or for carrying firearms in certain regulated places. Requirements for issuance include taking a training class (provided by a licensed third party) or hunter education class, submitting a finger print card, and paying a $60 fee. Applicants must be at least 21 years of age. New permits are valid for five years. Permits issued before August 12, 2005 are valid for four years.[7] Renewing a permit requires only an application and finger print card. However, effective December 31, 2007 the finger print card requirement for renewal is scheduled to end.[8] Arizona recognizes all valid out-of-state carry permits.[9]

UPDATE: The Second Amendment Foundation reacts, Politico.com cites NewsBusters and gets MSNBC response.

On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial overtones....white people showing up with guns." Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.

Following Brewer’s report, which occurred on the Morning Meeting program, host Dylan Ratigan and MSNBC pop culture analyst Toure discussed the supposed racism involved in the protests. Toure argued: "...there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president....we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that." Ratigan agreed: "...then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks."

Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Arizona Republic reported: "A man, who decided not to give his name, was walking around the pro-health care reform rally at Third and Washington streets, with a pistol on his hip and an AR-15 (a semi-automatic assault weapon) on a strap over his shoulder. ‘Because I can do it,’ he said when asked why he was armed. ‘In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.’" A picture accompanying the article showed the man was African-American.

- See more at: MSNBC: ObamaCare Protesters ‘Racist,’ Including Black Gun-Owner

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Miss Hall expounding on the federal government's lack of authority to posses land other than DC, ports or bases.

She is a self declared "constitutional" attorney.
From what I can see she hasn't practiced law in this decade and only was an attorney for about 6 years prior to that. Her major accomplishment as one was being assigned as an assistant prosecutor to some backwater region of FL before she got fired.

So no, I wouldn't rank her up there with any of this generation's great legal minds. In fact her analysis is terrible. I've seen 2L's with a better understanding of Con Law. This woman seems to hinge her thesis on the fact that all of the previous case law on federal land management is invalid. Its not. And the fact that that concept has been reinforced by some seriously conservative Supreme Courts in the last 150 years shows just how misguided this bitch is.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

She is a self declared "constitutional" attorney.
From what I can see she hasn't practiced law in this decade and only was an attorney for about 6 years prior to that. Her major accomplishment as one was being assigned as an assistant prosecutor to some backwater region of FL before she got fired.

So no, I wouldn't rank her up there with any of this generation's great legal minds. In fact her analysis is terrible. I've seen 2L's with a better understanding of Con Law. This woman seems to hinge her thesis on the fact that all of the previous case law on federal land management is invalid. Its not. And the fact that that concept has been reinforced by some seriously conservative Supreme Courts in the last 150 years shows just how misguided this bitch is.

If Obama can call himself a constitutional law professor, she can herself a "constitutional" attorney.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Oregon will likely do the same because of this. Does the Mulford Act only affect blacks? No.

But it was clearly aimed at armed blacks in response to the Black Panthers, the fact that it impacted people of all colors was a price people seemed willing to pay. You backed yourself into a corner with this example.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If Obama can call himself a constitutional law professor, she can herself a "constitutional" attorney.

He can, because he was teaching constitutional law for about 12 years. He was offered tenure several times, but declined.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But it was clearly aimed at armed blacks in response to the Black Panthers, the fact that it impacted people of all colors was a price people seemed willing to pay. You backed yourself into a corner with this example.

What? No. You think that because you don't know the history of the legislation and what else had been going on in California at the time (and your own perception is skewed). The BPs marched to protest the bill, it had already been written before then. It was penned soon after the infamous `65 Highway 101 sniper attacks by Michael Andrew Clark (white), and the copycat attacks that followed, which terrified the entire state. Don't believe the propaganda.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What? No. You think that because you don't know the history of the legislation and what else had been going on in California at the time (and your own perception is skewed). The BPs marched to protest the bill, it had already been written before then. It was penned soon after the infamous `65 Highway 101 sniper attacks by Michael Andrew Clark (white), and the copycat attacks that followed, which terrified the entire state. Don't believe the propaganda.

And this good people is what we call just pulling something out your ass. Take a moment and follow CTP's link above and look at the "Aftermath" section of this sniper shooting. Do you see any mention of the Mulford Act? Do you see it mentioned ANYWHERE in the article? This legislation was introduced in 1967. Does that strike anyone as "penned soon after" an incident that took place two years earlier? And WTF does a 16 year old kid taking potshots at highway motorists have to do with a repeal of open carry legislation?

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And this good people is what we call just pulling something out your ass. Take a moment and follow CTP's link above and look at the "Aftermath" section of this sniper shooting. Do you see any mention of the Mulford Act? Do you see it mentioned ANYWHERE in the article? This legislation was introduced in 1967. Does that strike anyone as "penned soon after" an incident that took place two years earlier? And WTF does a 16 year old kid taking potshots at highway motorists have to do with a repeal of open carry legislation?

And that good people is what comes from Regressive brain damage. What in the hell are you babbling about? How long do you think bills take to gain support and go through both houses of a legislature? Not to mention how much pushback a bill like this would have caused? Did you even read the articles about the BP demonstrations? Oh yeah, the bill was totally written to keep blacks from open-carrying... despite the fact the historic display at the California State Capitol came after the bill was even written. Geez.

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Your twisted perspective on everything (OMG, racism!) has made you a trainwreck.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Your twisted perspective on everything (OMG, racism!) has made you a trainwreck.

You should really read up on the bill: the protest in front of the state capitol was a reaction to the Black Panthers “police patrolling” the streets of California — armed. During these patrols and other occasions, they strictly complied to existing laws (e. g. knowing that they were fully within their rights to carry as long as they didn't point weapon at people in a threatening manner and that during a police stop they had to id themselves).

And yes, they protested the bill, because it was targeting them and their patrols: it only forbade open carry “on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory”.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You should really read up on the bill: the protest in front of the state capitol was a reaction to the Black Panthers “police patrolling” the streets of California — armed. During these patrols and other occasions, they strictly complied to existing laws (e. g. knowing that they were fully within their rights to carry as long as they didn't point weapon at people in a threatening manner and that during a police stop they had to id themselves).

And yes, they protested the bill, because it was targeting them and their patrols: it only forbade open carry “on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory”.

As should you, the bill had been in construction since the Hwy 101 sniper (though the BPs likely helped with getting it passed).

[OAW]

CTP ... you are simply making things up because you just can't bear to admit the truth.

That point OreoCookie made about the Mulford Act being introduced in direct response to the Black Panther's doing armed police patrols? It's quoted and highlighted in that Atlantic article I cited above. So I know you want to delude yourself into thinking that you are "correcting" me about the Mulford Act being introduced prior to the State Capitol protest but that part was quoted and highlighted in the article I cited as well. Had you actually bothered to read it before trying to contend with me on this topic you wouldn't be making yourself look downright foolish right now.

Furthermore, don't think we all haven't noticed that you completely ducked this fundamental question ...

Originally Posted by OAW

And WTF does a 16 year old kid taking potshots at highway motorists have to do with a repeal of open carry legislation?

The only one making a connection to the 1965 sniper incident on Highway 101 and the Mulford Act is YOU! The source you cited makes no mention of this legislation whatsoever. And you won't post any other source because it doesn't exist. Again, you are pulling this out of your ass because your denial runs so deep that you are just fundamentally incapable of acknowledging the obvious double-standard WRT to gun control and open carry legislation.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

CTP ... you are simply making things up because you just can't bear to admit the truth.

That point OreoCookie made about the Mulford Act being introduced in direct response to the Black Panther's doing armed police patrols? It's quoted and highlighted in that Atlantic article I cited above. So I know you want to delude yourself into thinking that you are "correcting" me about the Mulford Act being introduced prior to the State Capitol protest but that part was quoted and highlighted in the article I cited as well. Had you actually bothered to read it before trying to contend with me on this topic you wouldn't be making yourself look downright foolish right now.

Furthermore, don't think we all haven't noticed that you completely ducked this fundamental question ...

The only one making a connection to the 1965 sniper incident on Highway 101 and the Mulford Act is YOU! The source you cited makes no mention of this legislation whatsoever. And you won't post any other source because it doesn't exist. Again, you are pulling this out of your ass because your denial runs so deep that you are just fundamentally incapable of acknowledging the obvious double-standard WRT to gun control and open carry legislation.

The irony is amazing. Your faith in modern sources is absurd, we live in an age where revisionist history is too common. I'm looking at an Independent Press-Telegram article from 1967 and though it does mention the BPs being the cause that the bill passed, the reason it was written in the first place was due to the "Freeway Sniper" (the only such sniper in Cal during that time was Michael Andrew Clark). What's more likely, a tiny number of armed blacks (usually 2-4) patrolling black neighborhoods in Oakland, who to their credit never harmed anyone, or a mass murderer (seen several times previously toting a rifle) on the main freeway outside Los Angeles?

You, like so many others (blacks and whites alike) need racism to be up front and prevalent in all things, because it makes the problems within the black community so much easier to explain. This is why I hate identity politics, and why we're unable to fix the worst issues surrounding them.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The irony is amazing. Your faith in modern sources is absurd, we live in an age where revisionist history is too common. I'm looking at an Independent Press-Telegram article from 1967 ....

Uh huh. Which you just so happened to have laying around. Yeah. Sure you are.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Uh huh. Which you just so happened to have laying around. Yeah. Sure you are.

Yep, I have disks containing nearly every US newspaper from the last century (1900-2000), but more importantly, I don't care what you think. You want to believe what you want, to you everything is racially motivated.

[reader50]

Captain, are those disks available for sale to the public? They sound useful, but I keep hearing about the 20th century public-domain black hole caused by endless copyright extensions. Without copyright expiring, I'd expect newspapers to charge by the issue for back issues. Making full archives impossible for the average citizen to obtain.

I'd love to hear differently.

[Chongo]

Many large city libraries have the local newspapers on microfilm. The main library here in Phoenix has the the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette on microfilm. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they have been digitized.

[Chongo]

Sad to say I haven't renewed my library card in years. I don't know how far back the newspapers go. Magazines go back to 1990.
eLibrary Online Magazines and Newspapers

[Chongo]

Snip

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yep, I have disks containing nearly every US newspaper from the last century (1900-2000), but more importantly, I don't care what you think. You want to believe what you want, to you everything is racially motivated.

You see good form would have been to simply post a screen shot of the article you claim exists that links the the Highway 101 sniper shootings to the Mulford Act. It is a debate forum after all and actually backing up what you say with facts is something that really ought to go without saying. Believe me I'm not the only one around here who thinks you are full of sh*t on this issue. But instead of just following the mantra of "put or or shut up" instead you make it about me. As if OAW authored the Atlantic article that I cited along with the thousands of other articles that say the same damned thing. But instead you claim to have this grand archive of original newspaper articles that somehow disproves all readily available articles and common knowledge about the origins of the Mulford Act ... but you "don't care" what I and apparently anyone else thinks about your unsubstantiated claims. How convenient and typically arrogant of our Resident Forum Internet Expert.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Captain, are those disks available for sale to the public? They sound useful, but I keep hearing about the 20th century public-domain black hole caused by endless copyright extensions. Without copyright expiring, I'd expect newspapers to charge by the issue for back issues. Making full archives impossible for the average citizen to obtain.

I'd love to hear differently.

When the Nolichucky regional library ordered theirs, I placed an order for a set as well. The quality of most of the scans are fine (PDF format), though many from 1900-1940 border on illegible (and unfortunately those were the ones I wanted most) and don't include many full-page ads. Given the way history is so often distorted by various agendas (ie. Wikipedia is overrun with blatant lies presented as historical fact) period newspapers may just be the only way to accurately preserve it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You see good form would have been to simply post a screen shot of the article you claim exists that links the the Highway 101 sniper shootings to the Mulford Act. It is a debate forum after all and actually backing up what you say with facts is something that really ought to go without saying. Believe me I'm not the only one around here who thinks you are full of sh*t on this issue. But instead of just following the mantra of "put or or shut up" instead you make it about me. As if OAW authored the Atlantic article that I cited along with the thousands of other articles that say the same damned thing. But instead you claim to have this grand archive of original newspaper articles that somehow disproves all readily available articles and common knowledge about the origins of the Mulford Act ... but you "don't care" what I and apparently anyone else thinks about your unsubstantiated claims. How convenient and typically arrogant of our Resident Forum Internet Expert.

Speaking of distortions. "1000s of articles", which in reality means 1000s of repeats of the same article, and circular references to the same sources (if I had a seed for every time that tactic was used on Wikipedia alone, I could regrow the Brazilian rainforests). None of your constant appeals (argumentum ad populum) matter. "I'm not the only one" "And this good people is what we call..." "don't think we all haven't noticed" ... and that's just the last few posts. Do you know why you do that? I do. As I've said numerous times before, I'm not here to change your mind (I don't think anyone can) and what you think of me is entirely irrelevant.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Speaking of distortions. "1000s of articles" ... blah blah blah. As I've said numerous times before, I'm not here to change your mind (I don't think anyone can) and what you think of me is entirely irrelevant.

And your unsubstantiated claims remain just that. As expected. We'll just leave it at that.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And your unsubstantiated claims remain just that. As expected. We'll just leave it at that.

Also as expected, don't forget to check in with your flock.

[The Final Dakar]

Nice guys.
Sheriff handling Oregon standoff denounces intimidation of law enforcement | OregonLive.com

There are continual reports of law enforcement officers and community members being followed home; of people sitting in cars outside their homes, observing their movements and those of their families; and of people following them and their families as they move around the community. While not direct physical threats, these activities are clearly designed to try to intimidate.

Specifically, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, which manages the refuge, has told me that while their employees are physically safe, this is clearly a distressful situation for all involved. As this issue has developed over the past week, employees and their loved ones have reported a number of uncomfortable incidences in which unknown individuals from outside our community have driven past slowly or idled in front of their homes, observing the residents and their activities. In addition, self-identified militia members have attempted to engage employees and family members in debates about their status as Federal employees. Many of these confrontations are taking place as their employees are grocery shopping, running errands with their families and trying to lead their day-to day lives.

[Waragainstsleep]

Did everyone see the video they posted about the 'hate mail' they've been getting? It was a friend of mine who sent them the bag of dicks.

[el chupacabra]

I saw it. I think the guy should get a cookie for each time he uses the word patriot.

These people are a bunch of simpletons so they dont even know who their master is...
Here's a good article I just found on their plight. Something I haven't been following at all so am probably quite behind on the subject.
malheur-militants-are-picking-wrong-beef-feds

These ranchers wouldn't survive in Texas. Here our government didnt manage the lands and almost all of it is private at this point. It's an environmental disaster on so many levels and considered a mistake by most which can never be undone. So if you want to be a rancher in Texas you have to OWN the land. There is very little free land from the feds to let your cows roam. And yet ranchers are profitable here. My point is if TX can operate this way so can OR.

And as the article points out the main problem isnt the "government land" (which is really just 'public' land...). It's the fact the price of beef has gone down for the rancher, in part because there's too many of ranchers; and the corporate complex has a death grip cartel like hold on the industry just like with many things. But either way, all my rancher friends say the industry is highly lucrative without using public lands.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Did everyone see the video they posted about the 'hate mail' they've been getting? It was a friend of mine who sent them the bag of dicks.

Those are great, just like gummi bears. I've had those mailed to me, I made a point of eating them all, "Your rage fuels me, bitches!"

[andi*pandi]

One of them has shot another one in a dispute (drunken?), and one just got arrested for stealing a federal truck to sneak out and get snacks.

The illuminati they ain't.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Yeeeah... time to just throw a net over the whole thing and send them home.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

one just got arrested for stealing a federal truck to sneak out and get snacks.

He was the second one taken into custody.
Bundy Bodyguard 'Fluffy Unicorn' Arrested in Arizona

[Captain Obvious]

At least three down. One permanently

[The Final Dakar]

Letting them go in and out of compound freely may have been a shrewd move in the end. They arrested Ammon on a traffic stop, meaning the leader is out of the picture without having to approach the compound.

Next question: Do the rest of the idiots try to liberate him somehow or do they scatter like cockroaches?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Next question: Do the rest of the idiots try to liberate him somehow or do they scatter like cockroaches?

Who cares.
Its going go be a awesome watching the radicalized Mormons and Black Lives Matter movement using the same arguments to try and appeal to the public's hearts and minds.

https://www.oathkeepers.org/breaking...o-fbi-custody/

lol... check out those comment! Its a great time to be alive

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

At least three down. One permanently

I don't think it's in good taste to celebrate the death of another human being, even if he was a criminal.

[Captain Obvious]

Debatable. Everyone is pretty glib when law enforcement/military guns down a terrorist.

Depending on one's perspective this could qualify
Also you should keep in mind my position on Tea Party types of which these were much aligned with.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Debatable. Everyone is pretty glib when law enforcement/military guns down a terrorist.

I don't want to be among that crowd.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Depending on one's perspective this could qualify
Also you should keep in mind my position on Tea Party types of which these were much aligned with.

I don't think they are terrorists, just like many other things that get called terrorism is just an ordinary crime. To me, this aspect was only important to show the disparity in the use of the word terrorism. (Hence, my contributions to this thread earlier.)

[OreoCookie]

That's the last interview of the guy who has been killed: I think it's clear why he died.