Oppressed white farmers occupy federal building in Oregon

[Option D]

I don't mind that people don't know either... What I do mind is that people don't care to educate themselves about them before they start saying a lot of things.

I might argue a lot and sometimes I'm stubborn as hell, but I do "try" to educate myself about things before I start going towards one side of anything or the other.

If we did that.....there would be no traffic on getbig outside of the nudie room.

[NarcissisticDeity]

30 years ago, a black anti-government group in Philadelphia, MOVE, were bombed and burned alive for directing their weapons at police.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/13/406243272/im-from-philly-30-years-later-im-still-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-move-bombing

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/04/3735745/move-vs-oregon-standoff/

Wrong again Tim. They were bombed , burned alive for shooting at police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

On May 13, 1985, the police, along with city manager Leo Brooks, arrived in force with arrest warrants and attempted to clear the building and arrest the indicted MOVE members.[15] This led to an armed standoff with police,[16] who lobbed tear gas canisters at the building. MOVE members fired at the police

[Kazan]

A=Assault
R=Rifle

 

A= Armalite
R=Rifle

[Yamcha]

A = Anal
R = Rampage

[Tapeworm]

No one remembered to bring food?  Some survivalists.  


These revolutionist bitches are decent looking tho.  After awhile it'd be: Hey, hubby.  Why don't you stfu about the federal government for one night and liberate my twat, you know?

[The Scott]

Tim sounds miserable.   

[chaos]

Throw guns into the mix of a BLM protest and what happens?

They all shoot each other


Couldn't resist.

[Twaddle]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this story.  From what I've read so far, a group of privileged ranchers are pissed because the BLM has taken back federal land, because the ranchers stopped paying dues?  Also, 2 of the ranchers were sentenced to prison for committing arson and poaching on BLM land?  Now a group of tactical cowboys want to take back all of the BLM land for the people, they want it for free, and they want they're demanding the release of the 2 ranchers who are in prison?  

To a normal person, this sounds like a seccession.  

I want some free land too.  

[240 is Back]

whether they have a .22 handgun, or an M-16, they have a firearm while breaking into federal property.  Felony.

The fact it's an AR-15 makes them that much more dangerous... they can very quickly place 30 shots into a target at 100 yard fairly easier... bad news for law enforcement.  

I'm not about labeling guns, I'm just about putting lawbreakers in jail.

[240 is Back]

they already get a 93% discount on the land.   They want a 100% discount.

this will give them a competitive advantage so they can grow their personal wealth.  They also want to assign fracking, mining, and hunting rights of the land to their buddies also.  For a fee? Who knows.

[mr.turbo]

A statement from the mormons (the sect these fine upstanding gentlemen belong to)

While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-regarding-oregon-armed-occupation

#yeehawd

The Bundys’ challenge to federal authority has deep roots in the church’s history. After an angry mob lynched Mormon’s founding father Joseph Smith in 1844, every man entering the church swore an “oath of vengeance” against the United States, which refused to recognize Smith’s new religious awakening.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-has-roots-mormon-fanaticism/QLgIkrNZipFjtbn4AyUZFJ/story.html

[drkaje]

They all shoot each other


Couldn't resist.

Beef would break out, LOL!

[TuHolmes]

A=Assault
R=Rifle

 

This is not correct.

Armalite Rifle.

Armalite was the original designer of the weapon. Who sold it to Colt.

[mr.turbo]

statement from the Sheriff

[SF1900]

This is not correct.

Armalite Rifle.

Armalite was the original designer of the weapon. Who sold it to Colt.

A=Air
R=Rifle

Air Rifle? 

[The Scott]

Anal

Retentive

[mr.turbo]

fyi (the law considers certain variants of AR 15 "assault weapons")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_States

During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California

If the rifle was owned before Jan 1, 2000 and registered with the state, it is a Registered Assault Weapon (RAW) under California law. No new registrations are permitted. RAW rifles can have features which are prohibited in unregistered rifles. This category is the only one which allows for the use of the name "AR-15" on the firearm itself, which is owned by the Colt Manufacturing Company. California has banned the AR-15 rifle specifically by name. Therefore, no other rifles are legal to possess with such a name without having first been lawfully registered as an assault weapon with the DOJ. Otherwise, one is in felony possession of an unregistered assault weapon for which no legal remedy exists if kept beyond the previously granted DOJ assault weapon registration grace period.

[mr.turbo]

shenanigans from 2014

watch the cops tase ammon bundy

haha

[TuHolmes]

fyi (the law considers certain variants of AR 15 "assault weapons")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_States

During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California

If the rifle was owned before Jan 1, 2000 and registered with the state, it is a Registered Assault Weapon (RAW) under California law. No new registrations are permitted. RAW rifles can have features which are prohibited in unregistered rifles. This category is the only one which allows for the use of the name "AR-15" on the firearm itself, which is owned by the Colt Manufacturing Company. California has banned the AR-15 rifle specifically by name. Therefore, no other rifles are legal to possess with such a name without having first been lawfully registered as an assault weapon with the DOJ. Otherwise, one is in felony possession of an unregistered assault weapon for which no legal remedy exists if kept beyond the previously granted DOJ assault weapon registration grace period.

As has already been stated, an "Assault Weapon" is a made up word for politicians.

Before 1989 there was no such word or weapon as an "Assault Weapon".

[mr.turbo]

As has already been stated, an "Assault Weapon" is a made up word for politicians.

Before 1989 there was no such word or weapon as an "Assault Weapon".

It's no longer a meaningless term if you're guilty of a felony for having an AR15 under "assault weapons" law. Try telling that to the judge and let me know how it goes. 

I'm inclined to think it came out of industry to describe new products. new products = new terminology pretty simple. If you ask the gun lobby they may state "it's a made up term" for obvious reasons but I don't see any evidence for that.

here's some discussion on it for reference;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_terminology

[TuHolmes]

It's no longer a meaningless term if you're guilty of a felony for having an AR15 under "assault weapons" law. Try telling that to the judge and let me know how it goes. 

I'm inclined to think it came out of industry to describe new products. new products = new terminology pretty simple. If you ask the gun lobby they may state "it's a made up term" for obvious reasons but I don't see any evidence for that.

here's some discussion on it for reference;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_terminology

I don't see any evidence it was created by the industry.

The industry has always used the term "machine guns".

It is definitely a political term.

[mr.turbo]

I don't see any evidence it was created by the industry.

The industry has always used the term "machine guns".

It is definitely a political term.

I don't know personally but the guy that wrote this book doesn't agree with you. Is the author a politician with some sort of agenda?

 



The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.

About the author (2008)

Phillip Peterson is a full-time, federally licensed dealer with 25 years experience in military firearms and collectibles. A certified gunsmith, he is also a featured columnist for Gun Digest magazine.

[tonymctones]

From your link turbo

History of terminology
Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984.[20]

In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more.[21][22] Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people."[21] The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.[22]

In 2013, The Washington Post wrote of the term: "Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to the Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, California, in January 1989."[5] Sugarmann had written:

[TuHolmes]

I don't know personally but the guy that wrote this book doesn't agree with you. Is the author a politician with some sort of agenda?

 



The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.

Ok.. So let's say that's accurate. Which I'm not inclined to agree with. Considering the book you are posting about was printed in 2008, about 20 years after the term was first created by politicians, but again, let's go with your faulty premise.


The weapons that were considered "Assault Weapons" were fully automatic machine guns. M-16. AK-47s. All Military Fully-Automatic weapons.

The AR-15 is not a fully automatic weapon at all and there is already a ban on fully automatic weapons.

So the terminology is used completely improperly which is the point I'm making in the first place.

[Tapeworm]

Should have all rode up on bulls painted red, white, & blue while playing The Halls of Montezuma.  Show a little pizzazz.  No one wants to join a drab rebellion.