http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rmed-standoff-oregon-federal-building-n489606 Hopefully the government gives their families the bodies back in one piece.
Seriously, just leave them alone. What are they going to do in there that can't be fixed more cheaply than the fallout from a screwed up intervention? Prevent them from bringing kids in and everything is fine for now.
I agree with you, assuming there is a way to prevent people getting in and resupplying them. If that's the case, well if the FBI decides the world just has too many gun wielding nitwits, I support whatever they feel is necessary.
Well, if Ranchstock breaks out it breaks out. There'll be a lot of poop and stuff to clean up afterwards but it's not like Woodstock killed the town that hosted it. I'll bet Harney County would love to have a few hundred thousand visitors show up and buy the local stores out for a week. The only really bad things that could come out of this would be the result of some kind of armed intervention to stop the protest. It's America. People are allowed to protest. Just let them do their thing until they realize the diminishing returns have set in and walk away themselves. If the protesters begin shooting the place up without the government doing anything, well then you can go in and rout them but until then you're just playing into their hands by creating drama for them to exploit.
Again, this is just creating leverage for the protesters. The protest is based around the concept of an over-bearing government forcibly harming citizens and depriving them of their rights. The response should be to let them protest peacefully in a manner time-honored in American tradition (the sit-in). Some times you have to move the protesters because everything is being dragged to a halt around them due to their actions. In this case nothing is being dragged to a halt. They're occupying a bunkhouse that apparently has no other purpose at this point. If I was in charge I might figure out who to sell the bunkhouse too and let it be their problem moving forward. Agway?
Yes, the time honored American tradition of the sit-in. I'm sure if a band of armed black men took over some government office somewhere everyone would be totally fine with just leaving them be until they get bored and go home.
If they took over an unoccupied bunkhouse in rural America? Sure, let them say their piece and then move on when things get boring. What all protesters want is for their story to become breaking news and stay that way. The simplest way to defuse an armed protest in the absence of bystanders/hostages/whatever is just to let them protest without giving them the big confrontation they want. Sometimes you can't avoid a confrontation but where you can you really should. It's the rational way to approach peace-keeping in a society in which people do have the right to assemble and speak their minds. Now if they want to do something more provocative than that, well you have to keep your options open because once the peace has been broken it is the authorities responsibility to restore it.
Ferguson, Baltimore ring any bells? Those were violent "protests" that lasted weeks. This Bundy character (the son) is a trouble seeking twit and the Hammonds are not angels, but someone needs to look into what the BLM is doing out there with these ranchers. If they're forcing people from their homes so the Government can sell the mineral rights to the land, something is wrong.
