That could work.
However, we should simultaneously build walls around the ghettoes to keep the thugs inside to stop them from messing up the lives of the people trying to live properly and do the right thing. We could start with a whole section of southside Chicago where more people were killed last weekend than were killed by any of the legally-armed protestors / militiamen.
If this happened in South Chicago, pretty sure they wouldn’t be letting them just sit there in the building. I can tell this is going to degenerate fast…
The idea of fencing them in was to turn the tables on the Bundys who think that they are holding us hostage by refusing to leave the building.
When they realize they are, in fact, prisoners they will then be so confused they will just have to plan their own escape.
It is a page right out of Sheriff Andy Taylor’s manual for keeping calm in Mayberry. Maybe we can drop them a picnic basket from Aunt Bea everyday.
Take away the media ( please) and you suddenly have a non event. Arrest them quietly when they give up.
It is basically what others have suggested. Turn off the lights. Show’s over.
@intparent or if they were a different skin tone…
Good grief, folks. You really lose all credibility when you decide to shove this into your racial agenda.
Just to keep things in perspective, this is the residential portion of “Bundy Ranch.”
http://s3-origin-images.politico.com/2014/04/18/140418_bundy_gty_328.jpg
Good grief, sax. You’re fooling yourself if you think black or brown people doing this would be treated so courteously.
History, especially very recent history, shows that black and brown folks openly carrying weapons (in a federal building no less!) does not end well.
HarvestMoon1, Bundy lives in that house?
Ugh, but its not Romani. It’s about a couple of idiots out in the middle of nowhere. There is no need to bring this situation to a screeching halt by immediately storming the building with federal agents in a Wild West showdown no matter what their skin color or religion.
You just assume if these guys were not white this exact situation would be handled differently.
Your agenda tires me out. It’s like the kid who cried “wolf”. I am no longer hearing you…
That can’t be what you want.
Yes, apparently he does.
Are you kidding? If they were black we’d be celebrating the deaths of thugs who raided a government building.
An interesting description that I read. I think this sums of the over-reaction of people quite well.
(Do not think allowed to post link since it is a blog)
Even more interesting is the reaction to an empty building being occupied with no deaths is the call for the National Guard by journalists, Roland Martin for one.
Hm… the National Guard for people who are lawfully carrying guns and protesting the government? But no National Guard in Chicago where 2500+ people were shot last year with over 500 killed, all with 95%+ of the guns being illegal and the perpetrators should not have guns and should be in jail for having them? Why no the National Guard to round up those true lawbreakers we know exist and who are actually physically harming others out in the open?
So the logic goes like this - white people lawfully carrying guns and protesting require the National Guard, even though they have harmed no one, but black thugs run amok with illegal guns are just fine to continue killing.
Overall, the takeaway is so what if black people kill themselves in Chicago, Los Angeles, NY City, and Baltimore with illegal guns, no need to stop that with brute government force. But no way will we let any white people with legal guns even get the chance to hurt any other white people. Quite hilarious actually, as the reaction is akin to a white people protection act to make sure white people do not get hurt.
[The Ninth Circuit decision on the Hammonds](http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds%20Appeal%209th%20district%20court.pdf)
The court says definitively that the Hammonds were convicted of “maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire” and the minimum sentence for that crime is five years in prison.
@HarvestMoon1, I don’t know what to make of that house. Do you have a point by posting these pics?
Who called those criminals in Ferguson protesters? I’d have no problem with the ones in Oregon if they weren’t aiding and abetting criminals. Also, they’re all/mostly all armed, hence the need for the National Guard.
Both in Oregon and in Ferguson, there was a large group of peaceful protestors, and a smaller rabble that took advantage of the situation to pursue their lawless aims.
They’re planning to use the guns. They’re saying they are willing to kill or be killed. Don’t forget that part.
Here’s the tweet from the Oregonian reporter who talked to the Bundys on the phone:
https://twitter.com/iankullgren/status/683524884484390912
Sounds disturbingly familiar to the MO of that group that shot up Paris a couple of months back. I just can’t remember their name…
Because there haven’t been hundreds of mass shootings by white people in the last year alone?
Interesting choice of words. These “people” did not protest the government in open, public space. They took over a federally owned building with the intent of defending it to the death and killing anybody who tries to force them out. They said so themselves and, per your logic on the Syrian refugee thread, we should always believe and take threats of this kind seriously.
And FYI, if brute government force was all it takes to solve the Chicago problem, it would’ve been solved long ago. The black “thugs” of Chicago aren’t all hankering down in one warehouse waiting for the police, they’re living among the population. Brute force can not logically be applied to the situation, unless of course you suggest imposing martial law in urban areas with high crime rates.
The difference between this encounter vs thuggery or terrorism: there’s no intent to engage w the public.
@dstark my point was that another poster referred to Cliven Bundy as a multimillionaire and I think that is misleading. I have no idea what the market value of his land might be or how it is arrived at - but the majority of the land is probable not really even “saleable” as there are no utility or water lines. If he needed to raise capital by selling land his only takers would likely be other ranchers who probably don’t have the resources either.
In the numerous lawsuits with the government he represented himself and unwisely so. I think if he had vast resources he would have chosen differently.
While I do not agree with the tactics of his sons, I do view this as a “David and Goliath” sort of situation.
