I guess this has been longer ago, but the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge takeover by the Bundys was essentially a militia challenging the government to armed conflict. I'm well aware that the case against these people ended in a mistrial because of exculpatory evidence that was withheld. That doesn't change the fact that conservatives have threatened violence in recent political protest.
another thing that immediately came to mind after the capitol rioting was the standoff with Cliven Bundy and an article I saw a few years ago[1]. I even remembered that at the time there were people on Fox who were downplaying this as some sort of patriotic resistance against the government. Imagine if someone started a caliphate on US territory, I'm sure we'd be hearing the same kind of arguments /s
"Cliven Bundy and sons cleared in case of 2014 armed standoff, a major defeat for the federal government that critics fear will empower far-right militia groups"
> The federal property, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend, the Oregonian reported.
> Ryan Bundy told the Oregonian that the group isn’t holding hostages and doesn’t want to resort to violence but will not rule it out if authorities attempt to remove the occupiers from the property. He said many of the occupiers would be willing to fight — and die — to reclaim constitutionally protected rights for local land management, according to the Associated Press.
Except, they do not have constitutional rights to the federal owned lands where the persons they're fighting for committed the arsons and the federal-owned building they're occupying right now.
The situation in Oregon is larger than just this single incident. I recommend reading the report[1] put together by the SPLC on the previous incidents.
Page 9 of the report has photos of these militia scofflaws pointing rifles at federal and local law enforcement[2]. That show of force did get law enforcement to back off at the time. As for why the people involved still haven't been charged with - at a minimum - assault with a deadly weapon is another matter entirely that really needs to be remedied before those militia nutjobs escalate their tactics into a a reenactment of the Whiskey Rebellion..
When you strip away the usual political rhetoric an other distractions, the primary reason the Oregon stand-off didn't turn into a (possibly Waco-style) raid immediately is because the militia members are both white and conservative. We saw what happened to unarmed non-conservatives when the police started using CS gas on various Occupy Wall Street groups (e.g. the battles in Oakland). If the militia members were black or Muslim, the media would be calling them "terrorists" and the swat teams would have gone in shooting within the first day or two.
You cite the conviction of a couple "low-level" people who only trespassing, but there were certainly people who were violent. Multiple people died. They threatened to kill the vice president and members of congress. If they weren't stopped, surely government officials would have died. It might be a strong word, but I don't think it is entirely unwarranted.
It’s bad faith to compare a nonviolent protest by 300 people to an insurrection by thousands. No lawmakers were in fear of their life in the Kavaugh protest and the floor of the Senate and the House remained protected. Also the goal was not to overturn the Presidential election. That these two events are incomparable is obvious.
Regardless of whatever happened in the past the fact remains that the government was almost overthrown on January 6 and the instigators (the top leaders) have not been brought to justice.
> You don't control a country by controlling a single building.
This isn't some random building, it's literally the Capitol, with Congress in attendance. This was also not an isolated incident.
In 2020 Ammon Bundy of Malheur standoff fame led an armed mob which forced its way past the State Patrol into a session of the Idaho State House of Representatives. After occupying the gallery above the House they were "allowed" to stay and observe the session, with their guns.
On January 6th itself an armed mob forced its way past the gate at the governors house in Washington state.
Also on January 6th attempts were made to enter the capitols in California, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oregon. Some of these involved armed mobs and gallows.
On January 9th an armed mob showed up outside the Kentucky State Capitol.
Consider the connection between Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City to see how this escalates.
> And worst case, you send the military and the crisis is over in a few hours.
That worst case involves the mob actually reaching the representatives, killing them and claiming power. In that case the military can't just magically set everything right. If hostages are involved nothing is getting done "in a few hours". The military isn't going to undo any damage.
A successful attack on Congress that incapacitated, killed, or persuaded enough representatives absolutely could lead to control of the country.
> If you believe that this was an insurrection, that was the most peaceful insurrection ever in History.
A woman was killed by the Secret Service after breaching a barricade in pursuit of the Vice President. Members of the mob used chemical weapons on police. Call it whatever you want but it wasn't peaceful and it wasn't innocent.
Sorry, were the protestors who burned down a police station or occupied a block of Seattle unarmed? I'm pretty sure they had rifles, compared to our insurrectionists which had.. flagpoles?
Or is trespassing on federal property worth a death sentence now?
This is absolute nonsense. You are trying your damndest to espouse the HN screed of "Free Speech" but it's got nothing to do with why conservatives have raided the Capitol. Conservatives have raided the capitol for the same they raided Wilmington in 1898, the courthouse in Colfax and why they attacked Ellenton. And that reason is because they feel that white hegemony is under attack, and since democracy can't be used to secure it, it has to go.
Depends on who you ask. The right-wing media called them terrorists. And since conservatives claim to be "half the country", we can safely say that half the country agreed with that sentiment.
I will say that none of them attacked the Capitol to overturn a fair election after being egged on by a sitting president based on a lie that every relevant court in the land has thrown out as utter nonsense. This particular incident is far more serious. It'll be studied in the history books 100 years from now.
Meanwhile when right wing terrorists took over federal property in the same state nothing happened to them and they’re now threatening neighboring states, including invading state government buildings in Idaho.
Do you actually believe that graffiti and a couple small fires rise to the same level of criminality as an armed takeover of federal land? It's fully possible to believe the federal government should put a stop to armed takeovers of federal land and not be involved in graffiti on non-federal property without it being a partisan thing.
The problem is that people believe the protests in Portland are violent riots. They aren't. As long as people are manipulated so easily, I guess real policy discussions aren't going to happen.
Yep, Ruby Ridge and Waco were fiascos which led directly to the bombing of the Murrah Building. McVeigh explicitly called out those events as his motivation for the bombing.
The lessons learned were apparent in the government’s approach to the 2016 wildlife refuge standoff. Rather than dash in guns-blazing, the government simply established a perimeter and waited for the occupiers to run out of Clif Bars. Took the ringleaders into custody with a minimum of force when they attempted to leave. Of the 30-40 occupiers, only one was shot as he reached for his gun. No law enforcement officers were harmed. World of difference compared to Waco, where 4 ATF officers and 82 Branch Davidians were killed.
And again you're using language dishonestly. They didn't "storm" anything. They had every right to be there, protesting peacefully, and it's legal to carry guns at the Michigan state capital.
I don't know if they were "very good people", but I haven't heard any reason to think otherwise.
And your own source makes it clear that the government wasn't intimidated by these peaceful protests:
> lawmakers were meeting to debate an end to the emergency order... Despite the pressure, Whitmer extended the order, which was due to expire at the end of Thursday.
Even if that's true, that doesn't prove the incorrect assertion that "BLM protestors stormed the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse with weapons while chanting about killing their representatives". The dog-piling and deflection is very cool though, definitely keep doing that if you want to be taken seriously.
OK, fair enough. That doesn't speak to motive or intent. From the filing[0]:
MUNCHEL and Eisenhart made no secret of their intentions in
traveling to Washington: they told a reporter for The Sunday
Times that they made the trip because they “wanted to show
that we’re willing to rise up, band together[,] and fight if necessary.
Same as our forefathers, who established this country in 1776.”
Notably, MUNCHEL told the Times reporter that he had left
his guns in Tennessee because of the “strict” guns laws
in Washington—the implication being that MUNCHEL would have been
armed with a firearm had Washington’s gun laws not been in place. And,
as described below, there is evidence that MUNCHEL and
Eisenhart were armed with firearms when they came
to Washington for the rally.
So they were not simply protestors operating on the spur of the moment without a plan.
And that still leaves all of the planning done on social media, and the communications captured by the government. To claim that no one at the Capitol that day went there with the intent to disrupt the certification of the election of Joe Biden would be incorrect.
To be clear, I don't blame the federal government for break up that dangerous cult. But I think they deliberately went about it in a way they knew would result in a lot of violence. The siege had already been underway for weeks when those reports of abuse reached Janet Reno; the reports of abuse precipitated the final assault, not the siege itself. The siege started with arrest warrants for weapons charges.
First, Jan 6 is not relevant to the broader claim, and second is that most of the people on Jan 6th came there to protest, and did not in fact invade the Capitol building. The larpers and other assorted idiots who did pretty surely have lawsuits pending against them for obvious reasons. The vast throng may have been deluded, but did not choose to make their point with arms.
reply