But I thought they were just a bunch of asshats.

[Savannahmann]

Over the last two days I have been asking why so many want a war that nobody will win. I've been accused of spreading FUD, and of spreading nonsense and of being terrified of things that were not there. Many said these were just a bunch of idiots who were going to run at the first sign. I've argued and used links to liberal sites and government sites and have made no headway in my argument.

Well, act two of things that aren't there is getting fired up. A purported 50,000 militiamen in Oklahoma has announced that they will take up arms against the Federal Government to protect Ranchers and family lands.

He said, “It’s up to the feds. The ball’s in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We’re going to resist you!”

Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.

Shaw said, “Just look around the country, they are doing it everywhere. If they can do it in Nevada, they can do it in Colorado, Texas. I mean, what’s to stop them from coming to Oklahoma? The only thing to stop them is ‘We the People’.”

So what? They probably don't have 50,000 members. Hell, let's knock that down to a mere 5,000 members, a mere 10% of the claimed total number. That is just in Oklahoma remember, there are 49 other states. Many posters in the other thread pointed out that only the Government has helicopters and tanks and all that sort of scary thing. There are a finite number of those scary things, and moving them to Oklahoma would strip them of other locations, like Texas.

So what is the Oklahoma Militia upset about besides Bundy? The BLM is reportedly eying 90,000 acres of land in Texas. It's becoming a campaign issue in Texas, and it's the next cause celeb for the RW.

Now, remember that we reduced the claimed members of the Oklahoma Militia by 90%. From 50k to 5k. Oklahoma has 3.8 million people in it. Texas has 26.4 million according to Census estimates for 2013. Does anyone think that Texas doesn't have at least five times as many people ready to fight the Government? We know they're nuts, and we know they had Democrats and we know they hate Obama. What makes you think that they don't hate enough to try a revolution?

Oh the Military, or something. How many people are in a Brigade? Answer, less than 5k. So we'll need at least one brigade for every state that does this sort of thing, more for other states like Texas, just to have a military on par with the revolutionaries. We don't have that many military people friends, including the National Guard. Especially when you consider at least ten percent of the Military will defect to the other side because they are RW lunatics themselves who believe in this states rights crap and won't fight against Uncle Frank and Dear old Dad. We have covered law enforcement already. In short there is roughly one cop, that includes Federal, State, County, and Local for every 394 people. If only one in ten is a potential threat, that still leaves each cop facing 39 people.

Right Wing Watch says that the Right Wing is talking about the Right Wing Spring. How fired up are they going to be?

Before you all start to complain that I'm suggesting we surrender let me say Pfui. I'm saying back down a little, give them room to vent their spleen, give these lunatics time to calm down and wonder home where they are again potentially dangerous, and get through the summer and try to hold onto the Senate in November. When possible, arrest the leaders for whatever crimes they are committing, seditious conspiracy like we did for the Blind Shiekh, and try them as criminals. Don't try and take them on, because that is a win for them. You make them a Martyr, and as we've learned with Osama bin Laden, a Martyr is much larger in death than they were in life.

I want us to play this smart, and avoid Civil War 2.0 because that will be a bloody disaster for everyone. I want to see the elections go and I would love to see us hold the Senate. We should be playing for time, and space to maneuver, because that gives us the best chance for victory in the long run. We aren't trying to win one news cycle, we're not trying to win one battle, we're trying to win a war before it even starts, we're trying to prevent a revolution here gang. Because when an argument goes to the contest of arms, there is no telling how it will end, only that many people will die, and the suffering will be universal.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. If and when these nuts aggregate in order to terrorize

...they'll voluntarily go to jail to get a meal after they've been surrounded and starved out for a sufficient period of time.

[Bettie]

2. Deciding to coddle a bunch of whack jobs

and remove federal enforcement of laws is foolish.

Would you prefer there be no federal government? That we all be at the mercy of the guy with the most guns and most strident viewpoint in a bunch of city-states?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "That we all be at the mercy of the guy with the most guns..."

We already are --

Would you prefer there be no federal government?

All law is predicated on violence. Is it worth killing people over cattle grazing on uninhabited, untended scrub land?

So far the only people saying "Yes" have as a reason is some appeal to authority which is nothing more than the textbook definition of authoritarianism. Others say, "No" in which case they admit the law is moot.

There is no value in provoking a confrontation over this issue. Back in college I protested "No blood for oil!" I'll just as eagerly proclaim "No blood for desert scrub land!"

[Bettie]

8. So, you would prefer that there be no national government

Oh, and your picture is from local law enforcement, not Federal.

Sorry, I do not agree that laws should not be enforced simply because a bunch of armed whack-jobs don't want to follow them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. False dichotomy.

Sorry, I do not agree that laws should not be enforced simply because a bunch of armed whack-jobs don't want to follow them.

Which laws would those be? The laws that gave the mine owners and National Guard the authority to commit the Ludlow massacre? The miners responded by taking up arms. It wasn't the only time either. The best parts of American history are the ones wherein the people collectively said, "I refuse." Labor, civil rights, the Underground Railroad, war protests; all are predicated in disobeying the law.

Not all laws is based on tyranny but all tyranny is based on law.

It's desert scrub land. If the BLM abandoned the land completely the negative consequences would be exactly: NONE. Wherein is the compelling state interest in leveling deadly force?

[snooper2]

11. Except for the turtles, but you wouldn't care about that, let the fucker do what he wants!

Actually, I have an idea!

Lets reroute water from Lake Meade that is drying up anyway to bundyfuckers general area and make huge sand/mud pits for 4wheeling!

[Bettie]

12. The man should pay his fees

Other ranchers pay their fees. Why is this man such a special little snowflake?

So, should we abandon all federal land to whoever chooses to use it for whatever purpose they choose?

Should we stop getting the minimal payments for mineral rights and oil rights to federally owned land?

Should we simply turn all federal land over to whoever has the largest private army?

I think the BLM did the right thing by backing down with no loss of life, but now, there need to be consequences. The man should be investigated, his earnings garnished to pay the fees he owes.

Honestly, he should be arrested. I certainly would be if I pointed guns at federal agents or even local police.

Just because he's a rich guy, he doesn't deserve more rights than the rest of us, nor does he deserve to ignore his responsibilities simply by saying "I don't wanna".

This isn't revolutionary, unless you consider a rich guy demanding special treatment to be revolutionary. We see this every day with Wall Streeters and others of their ilk.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "should we abandon all federal land to whoever chooses to use it for whatever purpose they choose?"

Barring a compelling state interest: Yes, absolutely.

Should we stop getting the minimal payments for mineral rights and oil rights to federally owned land?

This would be moot if the federal government were restricted to no land except what it needs for a specific purpose, i.e. military base.

Should we simply turn all federal land over to whoever has the largest private army?

No. It should be deemed the property of the state in which the land resides and left to the people of that state to dispose of as it decides is best.

Honestly, he should be arrested. I certainly would be if I pointed guns at federal agents or even local police.

I doubt this is an ironclad, no-mitigating-circumstances, no-exceptions declaration as there were numerous labor disputes where the workers collectively took up arms not to mention slave rebellions and other episodes where we would be sympathetic with the citizen over the authorities.

I would also hasten to add that if this were under Bush's tenure people would be viewing this with a healthy dose of skepticism. We have lulled ourselves to sleep. It isn't a matter of IF we ever get another RW executive branch, merely a matter of WHEN. It would be best if we decide how far we want to lower the boot to our neck before such a person is ever elected.

Just because he's a rich guy, he doesn't deserve more rights than the rest of us, nor does he deserve to ignore his responsibilities simply by saying "I don't wanna".

Many of the founding fathers were materially well-off. While Bundy is no James Madison or Thomas Jefferson a person's material wealth doesn't exempt them from throwing the BS flag on government thuggery. Nothing in the Bundy case was worth deploying snipers. The goons were run off and that's good for all of us.

[Savannahmann]

15. No, I said in the post that I wanted to back off for now.

I want to wait until they are alone, and then take the leaders into custody when they head to the grocery store or the pharmacy or whatever. I want to take these people into custody when there is the least chance for violence possible. I said I wanted them tried as criminals, and I explained why.

I don't understand where you get the idea I don't want the Federal Government, nor where you would get the idea that I am in favor of ignoring federal law. I am opposed to many things, but not the Federal Government.

I would have assumed that my description of the desired outcome, the arrest and trial of these individuals, would have been about as obvious as possible. I just don't want a Wounded Knee, or worse a Little Big Horn.

I read somewhere that there were some 200 Federal agents at the Bundy Ranch. There were at least that many protesters and militia types. Probably far more. Bullets fly both ways you know, and there is an old saying. When the enemy is in range, so are you. In other words, I doubt that the protesters would have stood around and let themselves be shot without firing back. IF the Federal Agents were successful in breaking up the protest and even killing all the militia types, do you think that they would have done so without some casualties? How many Federal Agents would have died? How many would have been wounded? A dozen? Perhaps two dozen?

Resources are finite, there are only so many barrels of oil in the ground. There is only so many trees to help absorb CO2. There is a finite number to everything, including Federal Agents. At some point, you run out. If the Federal Agents had lost, what do you do then? Call out the National Guard and send in the tanks? What do you do in Oklahoma or Texas? At some point you start to run short of National Guard. Then you run out of Active Army. But by that time you are in a full blown civil war. The more of the militia you kill, the more that join the movement. That's the lesson of every rebellion in history. Even if you are successful in putting it down, there is always the risk that it will flare back up in the near future.

Jaw Jaw is better than War War. In a couple weeks, these militia types will go home thinking themselves victorious. In a month they'll be relaxed and happy. Then you swoop in while they are telling lies at the coffee shop and arrest them. The stated goal is achieved, you have them in custody. It's done without losing any Federal agents and without giving them the bloody battle they desire. What is wrong with that?

If you are wondering what might happen if the cops are outnumbered, look at this as an example.

A crowd that was either mildly supportive of the protester or even apathetic became enraged. There was little choice for police but to run for their lives. Think about it.

[Bettie]

16. And the BLM backed off

As they should have.

I agree that the leaders should be arrested.

What I don't agree with is the idea that force can never, ever be used or the idea that this guy should get off without paying just because he's a rich guy.

The fact is, his cattle are grazing on federal land. It, supposedly, belongs to 'all of us', but you can bet your ass you or I would be shot dead if we took one step onto 'his' land.

I also fear that this is a test for some individuals who would love to stop paying their own fees, oil leases, etc.

If this guy gets away with this, there will be more.

Your posts are written as if the federal agents are the only bad actors in this, as if they went there with the intent of causing bloodshed.

This man has been allowed to get away with all of this for over 20 years. It isn't right.

[sharp_stick]

3. They are a bunch of asshats

and they don't have 50,000 or 5,000 fellow fuckwits in the State of Oklahoma. They couldn't even get 500 fuckwits together because most of those haven't left their homes in months out of fear that some Government agency is going to come and try to steal one of the fridges off the dirt patch in front of the fortified single wide.

[mindem]

4. It's amazing they are so quiet about the pipeline

or maybe it is alright with them that a Canadian company is grabbing American citizens land using eminent domain. Nope, not a peep.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. I understand and agree with your intentions but I don't think your method is ultimately helpful.

Those cheering for other people to do the fighting and dying to quell their political enemies only see this as part of the pissing contest they want to see happen. Telling them there are 50,000 militia only deepens the fantasies of glorious battle against an epic foe. They seriously believe the President can order a few drone strikes and have done with the matter.

Those cheering for a military response are as diseased as those they presume to fight and for the exact same reason and they are just as unreachable.

[Bettie]

9. I don't think this needs to be a military fight

But, since the man hasn't responded to reason, then he should be quietly arrested the next time he leaves his compound.

But saying "OK, you don't have to pay fees if you don't want to" begins a dangerous precedent.

Saying "There is no way to enforce federal law, so we're not going to" also sets a dangerous precedent.

[snooper2]

6. "I want us to play this smart" ROFL, really, how do you propose we do that?

Should we send the BLM an email so they can create a DU account and then discuss strategy with them?

[WhiteTara]

13. Sounds like

you're reading the government's play book. That's what is happening. Meanwhile, I keep hearing people around say the guy should pay his taxes.