Posted on 01/03/2016 9:31:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
Liz = Laz
Curse you autocorrect
I don’t. However, I can suggest.
JUST in time for Obama's gun power-grab. GO figure.
You keep agitating for a fight, right now. Repeatedly.
Let me tell you a little history: Here in the Alabama Militia, we regularly get “new recruits” who immediately begin agitating to bomb something federal. A building. An agent. A vehicle. Etc.
Invariably, every one of these new recruits over the past 30 years have turned out to be:
#1: young FBI agents paid to go undercover, or
#2: locals who are on parole, parroting what their parole officer tells them to tell us.
A few years back, one such agent convinced 2 of our legit (but idiotic) newbies to hold some hand grenades and map out plans for an attack on a federal building (in Huntsville).
In that case, the undercover agent deliberately avoided all of our seasoned militia and hung out privately with two of our new, young recruits.
Boom! They’re still in jail. And when they are released on parole, the feds will *force* them to do similar undercover work against some other militia or unpopular (with Feds) group.
The cycle never ends.
...but the cycle doesn’t change a whole lot, either. Those advocating for violence against federal targets always ... ***ALWAYS*** turn out to be Feds.
With the above in mind, you need to immediately cease advocating for violence against federal targets.
SMH
I still gotta stand by Hildy. She’s frustrated, bro. We all are.
When the day passes, perhaps a cooler temperment will surface. I don’t see her actually advocating for bloodshed anywhere. I do see her asking questions of we who advocate for restraint, but I attribute that to frustration. I don’t see advocacy in her comments.
I haven’t read thru this total thread, but all the 3% and affiliated groups have denounced what’s going on ...FWIW
Then why is Hildy questioning if *you* get to decide when the time is right to fight back?
Nope. Hildy is advocating for violence. Right now.
Yup. When our good guys, the III%’ers say this is a bad move, I listen.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I know Hildy pretty well, so I don't think I am.
(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap40-sec844.htm
The rabble-rousers don't want to hear sanity being preached. They are ignoring what the locals are saying...and to Hildy: the Bundy's aren't local to Oregon.
I think that painting is fanciful, trying to incorporate many dramatic elements. Here are a bunch of buffalo jump images.
Go to my link, posted earlier. Getting to tired to find it for you. I actually agreed with you (or another poster) and I found a link that the 1996 AntiTerrorism Act specifically amended subsection (f) to EXCLUDE a prosecution under color of terrorism. It did, however, increase penalties to 5 years at minimum.
That’s my only point. I am not only in agreement with your analysis, but bolster it with the finding that a claim of terrorism is specifically and pointedly excluded.
OK, how does the “ file re-sentence witin 14 days” fit in with the “missed deadline to file 8th amendmemt/double jeopardy claim”
I don’t “need” to do anything. Right now I am more embarrassed about you than I am about the Bundy’s. I don’t know, nor care what happens with Alabama militia wannabe’s. I am talking about ranchers who are having their lives and land stolen from them. You have idea how silly you sound.
By the failure to adhere to the mandatory minimum sentence. I don’t like that mandatory minimum, but as far as the raw legality, it is there.
Of course, lots of laws existed in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union, too.
Let me ask you all something. Do you think every liberal agrees with the tactics of the Black Lives Matter movement or the Occupy movement? They advocate for killing cops. You don’t see all the hand wringing do you? Think about who is winning this war. And then tell me again what I should say, think or do.
Getting toward the end of a long day, but here’s your link
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1445-discussion-selected-section-844-offenses
It’s a DOJ manual, not the statute itself which I was linking to. I also linked to the full antiterrorism act.
In any event, the carve out is to application of the law to ‘institutions and organizations receiving Federal assistance’. Here, it was real property of the United States, so the carve out doesn’t apply.
And note that they indicate that the 9th Circuit ruled as far back as 1980 that this was the proper statute to use in Federal arson cases. (I haven’t looked at the cited case so I have no position one way or the other on that point at this time.
Part 2 9 minutes - various comments
Part 3 4:45 Minutes mostly traffic parade of supporters
Part 4 4:41 minutes - roll call of where supporters came from
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.