The Gaming Den

How is it that Ammon Bundy and those other fucks are still dicking around on federal land, tearing down fences, and generally being idiots? Is there a reason the feds haven't stepped in and done something? I'm interested in any sort of background on this that I'm missing, because it seems really weird that our government is letting this happen.

I figure this deserves its own thread because there's probably a lot of history. Are the feds that scared of another Waco happening or is something else going on that's making them think the "wait it out" strategy is a good idea? I think this is eroding faith in the US government a lot more than just rolling in with a SWAT team and arresting those fucks would.

Probably because stopping them would involve deaths, and letting them fuck around on some mostly worthless property doesn't involve any deaths, and eventually they will get tired of Occupy Hunting Lodge and go home.

What they're occupying is some podunk nonsense in the middle of nowhere that nobody really gives a shit about being unable to get to for a while. Sending in SWAT gives them an opportunity to suicide by cop in a highly public manner, which for all we know is what they wanted in the first place - it would explain why they didn't bring enough food. If that happens, they become martyrs to their stupid cause. Ignoring them reduces them to stupid people clowning around stupidly.

Are there any worries that they'll just inspire other backwoods dipshits to do similar things? They took over an entirely unimportant piece of land, but are they not setting a kind of dangerous (or at least annoying) precedent that dudes with guns can do whatever they want and we'll ignore them?

I'm not scared of them so much as I'm thinking this will cause other, similarly stupid people to do other, similarly stupid things.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Are there any worries that they'll just inspire other backwoods dipshits to do similar things? They took over an entirely unimportant piece of land, but are they not setting a kind of dangerous (or at least annoying) precedent that dudes with guns can do whatever they want and we'll ignore them?

I'm not scared of them so much as I'm thinking this will cause other, similarly stupid people to do other, similarly stupid things.

Cats out of the bad, we've been letting dangerous crazies with guns occupy federal land as long as they don't shoot anyone for decades.

Kaelik wrote: Cats out of the bad, we've been letting dangerous crazies with guns occupy federal land as long as they don't shoot anyone for decades.

I did not know that. Has this happened a lot since Waco? When I search for it everything just fills with Oregon stories.

Well, "dangerous crazies with guns" basically covers every asshole who decides he needs to take his gun to the fucking post office in case terrorists leap out of the PO box or something. So I know some federal areas screen for weapons and won't let you through (courts, White House), I assume this is not a universal thing.

http://gawker.com/angry-militia-leader- ... 1752580458

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Are the feds that scared of another Waco happening

Yes. Yes they are. Federal institutions are, in a sense, extremely conservative enterprises. Taking a highly aggressive action such as calling in a Federal SWAT unit (there are several) and ordering the place stormed means some specific official has to push hard for it to happen and that said official will end up taking the huge amount of inevitable blowback when that would happen. Nobody actually wants to do that.

Okay, which of you mailed them the bag of edible dicks?

Also, yes, the Feds are extremely adverse to additional Wacos. They've significantly changed their policies since then. Still, I feel like they should set up some form of perimeter and not, you know, let Y'allQuaeda bring in reinforcements until they've got enough people, guns, and stupid on hand to go attack somewhere else. Which seems to be where things are trending.

They also let the guys come and go as they please. I have, admittedly, no fucking experience in law enforcement tactics, but I would think they should either siege the fuckers, or arrest the ones who go out for Walmart or mail runs.

The ones that go on walmart runs probably bring their guns. Laying siege increases the chance of shots being fired. They aren't going to gain more people until they attack elsewhere, they are going to burn through savings and realize they need to go back to work, or get bored.

Soooo, why is the police being all rational and trying to minimize casualities against the crazy crowd with real guns who broadcast they're ready to kill, but when a kid is playing outside with a toy gun, the police just drive by and shoot him full of bullets?

Ah, yes, Yall Qaeda is all white, the kid wasn't.

I bet if brown people tried to do the whole government building takeover , the police would've stormed in guns blazing right away.

Kaelik wrote:They aren't going to gain more people until they attack elsewhere, they are going to burn through savings and realize they need to go back to work, or get bored.

The ones that aren't funding their anti-federal government vacations with federal disability checks at least.

maglag wrote: I bet if brown people tried to do the whole government building takeover , the police would've stormed in guns blazing right away.

I would not bet against you on that.

maglag wrote:Soooo, why is the police being all rational and trying to minimize casualities against the crazy crowd with real guns who broadcast they're ready to kill, but when a kid is playing outside with a toy gun, the police just drive by and shoot him full of bullets?

Ah, yes, Yall Qaeda is all white, the kid wasn't.

I bet if brown people tried to do the whole government building takeover , the police would've stormed in guns blazing right away.

Alternatively, the brown kid was shot by some poorly trained and poorly screened local beat cops who have never had significant oversight, and who spent years without oversight learning they could get away with any racist shit they wanted.

Meanwhile, the people making the decision not to lay siege to a bunch of crazies and start a giant firefight just so that some idiots on a message board can feel better are 1) Not beat cops, but high up in the chain, 2) actually subject to non-zero oversight by their bosses, 3) Federal law enforcement, who have broader, more sensible goals, are recruited from a better pool of applicants, and are trained better and monitored better.

"How come my high school football team can't complete a 40 yard pass but the [NFL team] can run a much more advanced playbook and complete 2-3 deep bombs a game?"

Because oftentimes Aircraft carriers are different than tugboats.

name_here wrote:Okay, which of you mailed them the bag of edible dicks?

I remember the writer of Least I Could Do entertaining that idea.

I suspect the cops are going to let them all get bored and go home, then quietly arrest them all one-by-one.

That being said, I hope the Feds actually just send them all summons in the mail and then set bounties when they fail to appear. It'd be rather fitting if Dog the Bounty Hunter had a very special Y'allQuada episode.

I'm not sure what to make of this: http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-or ... ns-oregon/

On the one hand, losing your foster kids sucks. On the other, it's because of bad personal choices. On the other other, these people are basically having more children in order to make a living. They are the prime case of people having lots of children in order to get money from someone else. The only difference between them and the supposed welfare queens popping out babies left and right is who the genetic code came from.

The only welfare queens I've met have all been extremely right-wing. Might have had more to do with where I used to live though.

The only people rorting the welfare system I've ever known have been property owners - landlords who collect rent on multiple houses yet still claim benefits. While I can't be sure of their personal politics, they're the kinds of people of whom Vanilla ISIS would approve.

Maj wrote:The only difference between them and the supposed welfare queens popping out babies left and right is who the genetic code came from.

Also, welfare queens aren't popping out a kid every 2.5 months for 10 years running:

Finicum estimates that over the past decade, more than 50 boys came through their ranch near Chino Valley, Arizona.
"One of them was there for a year, one of the boys was there six months, another eight months, and a month."
...they cared for, on average, eight children per day in 2009.

They've parted ways with at least 47 other children. If they'd cared for 8 children concurrently throughout all 10 years (which they didn't, because they're picking 2009 to point at, as probably the high point, and because they were caring for just 4 until very recently), each child must have spent no more than 1.5 years with them.

They're not "parents" parents, these people are social workers who happen to be a family (because families provide good role models blah blah). Now that this particular family is evidenced to NOT provide a good role model for US citizens, the kids are taken away and hopefully placed with someone less ass.

Interestingly, that memorial I mentioned going to earlier today was for a man who had decided not to have a career and lived on disability and social security. He did things that should have disqualified him from disability for all the time I knew him and decades before then. However, those disqualifying actions were spending ~20 hours a week volunteering at a local food pantry to provide food for people in need. I find it likely that without him, the place would have folded years ago. So, I really can't see a reasonable person objecting.

Starmaker wrote:

Maj wrote:The only difference between them and the supposed welfare queens popping out babies left and right is who the genetic code came from.

Also, welfare queens aren't popping out a kid every 2.5 months for 10 years running:

Finicum estimates that over the past decade, more than 50 boys came through their ranch near Chino Valley, Arizona.
"One of them was there for a year, one of the boys was there six months, another eight months, and a month."
...they cared for, on average, eight children per day in 2009.

They've parted ways with at least 47 other children. If they'd cared for 8 children concurrently throughout all 10 years (which they didn't, because they're picking 2009 to point at, as probably the high point, and because they were caring for just 4 until very recently), each child must have spent no more than 1.5 years with them.

They're not "parents" parents, these people are social workers who happen to be a family (because families provide good role models blah blah). Now that this particular family is evidenced to NOT provide a good role model for US citizens, the kids are taken away and hopefully placed with someone less ass.

I've heard tale that the system that transplants kids in these homes is not very good. While I would hope that these children are placed in a good home a few people I've personally known people who've been through the system say that the oversight for that kind of thing is not very good.

My partner's parents did that gig. Her experience was thus:
If the social workers care, they try really hard. That said, they are super under-funded, and have very limited pools of volunteers. Basically, DSS is begging for assistance, and not getting it.
If they don't care, however, things can get ugly. DSS tries pretty hard to restore kids to their biological families. When the case worker doesn't care, or pay attention, or whatever, kids go back to neglect and abuse.
And when that happens, the foster parents start to burn out. They can only watch kids get sent back to horrible homes so many times before they just can't take the system anymore. Which places more burden on what volunteers remain. It's not a pretty system, and far too little attention is paid to it.

USA government stops playing nice, kills one gun maniac and starts arresting the others. I suppose the gun maniacs aren't that brave when the other side shows they're actually willing to fire.

Those who said everybody would just go home and nobody would be shot can go eat their crows.