Standoff in Nevada as Militias "mobilize" to support rancher

[Simon_Jester]

I seriously have to question how an armed militia can discredit it self any further than it already does by simply existing. I mean just think about it. There is absolutely nothing sane or remotely normal in even imagining such a movement is acceptable. Even if it does not start doing what these people did. Thus those that support such movements are going to be the same kind of crazies that make them up. So there is nothing much that will dissuade them. And everyone else, that is to say sane and honest people of which I hope there are many think they are crazy anyway.

Look at it like this:

It is comfortably within the Overton window of American politics to be a member of a club of armed men who occasionally engage in paramilitary practice exercises, but break no laws. There are productive members of society who do this, and there are lots of productive members of society who know and accept people that do this. So "being a militia" is a thing that is pretty widely tolerated.

Only a subset of the people who accept this are going to accept said 'militia' going off and threatening federal agents with guns.

Only a subset of that smaller group will accept militia basically taking over a town and holding passersby at gunpoint and detaining them at checkpoints.

So the militia steadily makes itself look less like a group of law-abiding citizens with a strange hobby, and more and more like a bunch of organized criminals oppressing the real law-abiding citizens.

The issue at this point is not how to arrest them. That's easy enough. The issue is how to make sure another one of these does not pop up next week when Joe random decides he wants to not pay for a postage stamp or something because the evil government is stealing his money.

Why?

Just arrest those guys, too. If it takes three or four repetitions to get the message... well, I'd rather spend arrest money on that than on the war on drugs.

This situation simply needs to be handled in a way that sends a clear and unambiguous message to all militias out there that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated ever.

They'll get the message sooner or later. No point in risking an unnecessary bloodbath, as long as the laws are enforced and the common people are not oppressed for any real length of time by these people's behavior.

The problem with that of course is that it can't realistically be done without a lot of blood. Especially since the alternative of simply making militias illegal which any sane nation could and would take (or more likely has already taken) is probably impossible due to the constitutional ramifications of the 2nd amendment.

There is no legal difference between a militia and a shooting club, as long as the militia obeys the laws. Very few "sane" nations outlaw shooting clubs.

[Purple]

Look at it like this:

It is comfortably within the Overton window of American politics to be a member of a club of armed men who occasionally engage in paramilitary practice exercises, but break no laws. There are productive members of society who do this, and there are lots of productive members of society who know and accept people that do this. So "being a militia" is a thing that is pretty widely tolerated.

Only a subset of the people who accept this are going to accept said 'militia' going off and threatening federal agents with guns.

Only a subset of that smaller group will accept militia basically taking over a town and holding passersby at gunpoint and detaining them at checkpoints.

So the militia steadily makes itself look less like a group of law-abiding citizens with a strange hobby, and more and more like a bunch of organized criminals oppressing the real law-abiding citizens.

I understand that. It's just that I think that whole affair is to be perfectly honest absurd. We have the fact that you can form and maintain an armed paramilitary organization and that this is breaking no laws. And people are ok with that.

Why?

Just arrest those guys, too. If it takes three or four repetitions to get the message... well, I'd rather spend arrest money on that than on the war on drugs.

Because just arresting it is curing the symptoms and not the disease. You can just keep arresting every militia that goes crazy and they will just keep popping up. And in the end you will end up in the same mess you are already in when it comes to drugs, gangs, prostitution etc. Prisons full of people and yet no end in sight for the crime.

They'll get the message sooner or later.

Will they? I honestly feel that a lot of the problems in your society can be boiled down to the fact that instead of solving social problems you just arrest whom ever you think has crossed the line and think the others will magically wise up and get the message.

No point in risking an unnecessary bloodbath, as long as the laws are enforced and the common people are not oppressed for any real length of time by these people's behavior.

And what happens when the next group rises up? Or the one after that? This situation should be a massive red light to anyone watching accompanied by a massive flashing neon sign saying "The american government can't enforce it's laws. Because it's people are free to take up arms against it at any time when ever they feel slighted and their government will just back away."

I am no fan of blood here either. But honestly I just have no idea what your government can do to dig it self out of this mess.

There is no legal difference between a militia and a shooting club, as long as the militia obeys the laws. Very few "sane" nations outlaw shooting clubs.

On the contrary they are greatly different. A militia is by definition a paramilitary organization. There is a lot more to that than just shooting some guns. You could at the very least expect any organization whose explicit purpose is to fight back against the evil oppressive government to be high up on some watch list.

[Broomstick]

Militia activities can also overlap considerably with historical re-enactors as well, which is a legal hobby seen in a positive light by most people.

Basically, owning firearms and playing soldier on the the weekend are legal. Where it stops being legal is when these folks actually try to set themselves up as a separate little government within the nation, or actively oppose with violence the true government.

[Simon_Jester]

I understand that. It's just that I think that whole affair is to be perfectly honest absurd. We have the fact that you can form and maintain an armed paramilitary organization and that this is breaking no laws. And people are ok with that.

Do you think it should be illegal to have a club that goes camping?

Do you think it should be illegal to have a club that practices shooting rifles as a sport or competitive activity?

If it's legal for a club to do both those things, it's legal to create a 'militia' that would be functional as a paramilitary organization.

Because just arresting it is curing the symptoms and not the disease. You can just keep arresting every militia that goes crazy and they will just keep popping up. And in the end you will end up in the same mess you are already in when it comes to drugs, gangs, prostitution etc. Prisons full of people and yet no end in sight for the crime.

Not necessarily.

There are crimes that are relatively rare because you more or less have to be literally mentally ill to think it's a good idea. Kidnapping comes to mind in the developed world, because it's prosecuted so fiercely and successfully getting away with a ransom is so hard.

Likewise, in the US it's been roughly ten years since 'militias' were last a serious security concern in the US- the mid-1990s, culminating in the Oklahoma City Bombing after which there was some serious policing of the militias. The groups that were involved in actual crimes (as opposed to basically being guys who camp with rifles) were trimmed back, and many of the others were legitimately shocked by the bombing and scaled back themselves.

The supply of people actually willing to do what the Nevada militias are doing is pretty limited- I suspect that the thousand or so armed men involved in Nevada represent a large fraction of the total population willing to do that in America. And the total population that presents a problem will shrink a lot faster in response to arrests and conspicuous excesses on the militia's part than it will in response to bloody massacres.

Hell, they expect massacres and a brutal crackdown. In their mind-narrative that's exactly how the "Second American Revolution" is supposed to start. So they'll interpret a bloody suppression of the Bunkerville occupiers as their signal to start switching over from militias to actual guerilla/terrorist groups. Expect comparisons to the Boston Massacre and/or Lexington Green.

That is NOT what anyone involved in federal law enforcement wayns.

They'll get the message sooner or later.

Will they? I honestly feel that a lot of the problems in your society can be boiled down to the fact that instead of solving social problems you just arrest whom ever you think has crossed the line and think the others will magically wise up and get the message.

Do you think that killing everyone we think has crossed the line is going to work better in a case like this?

No point in risking an unnecessary bloodbath, as long as the laws are enforced and the common people are not oppressed for any real length of time by these people's behavior.

And what happens when the next group rises up? Or the one after that? This situation should be a massive red light to anyone watching accompanied by a massive flashing neon sign saying "The american government can't enforce it's laws. Because it's people are free to take up arms against it at any time when ever they feel slighted and their government will just back away."

I am no fan of blood here either. But honestly I just have no idea what your government can do to dig it self out of this mess.

Well, if the militias in Bunkerville do not disperse and stop harassing people, I think we can expect a serious response by state law enforcement in short order. If that doesn't pan out, there will be a federal response.

However, since there is not (yet) any immediate threat to life and limb, I am not entirely surprised that things have taken a few weeks to develop. For that matter, I'm not sure how long those checkpoints have existed.

There is no legal difference between a militia and a shooting club, as long as the militia obeys the laws. Very few "sane" nations outlaw shooting clubs.

On the contrary they are greatly different. A militia is by definition a paramilitary organization. There is a lot more to that than just shooting some guns. You could at the very least expect any organization whose explicit purpose is to fight back against the evil oppressive government to be high up on some watch list.

Define which aspects of a 'militia' should make that organization outlawed, if you please.

Do you outlaw them for possessing weapons? For practicing with them? For having political opinions? What, exactly?

[Purple]

Do you think it should be illegal to have a club that goes camping?

Do you think it should be illegal to have a club that practices shooting rifles as a sport or competitive activity?

If it's legal for a club to do both those things, it's legal to create a 'militia' that would be functional as a paramilitary organization

It's not about what they do but how they act in doing it. The difference between a shooting club and a militia is that the former is a gathering of firearms enthusiasts with the intent to have fun where as the later publicly expresses a certain rhetoric and uses it to recruit like minded individuals into a paramilitary force. How is that hard to understand?

It's kind of like say the difference between a political party and a ultranationalist political party.

Not necessarily.

There are crimes that are relatively rare because you more or less have to be literally mentally ill to think it's a good idea. Kidnapping comes to mind in the developed world, because it's prosecuted so fiercely and successfully getting away with a ransom is so hard.

And yet there are plenty of other activities like drug trafficking or prostitution where the same approach has yielded little or no results.

Likewise, in the US it's been roughly ten years since 'militias' were last a serious security concern in the US- the mid-1990s, culminating in the Oklahoma City Bombing after which there was some serious policing of the militias. The groups that were involved in actual crimes (as opposed to basically being guys who camp with rifles) were trimmed back, and many of the others were legitimately shocked by the bombing and scaled back themselves.

You say ten years as if it is some sort of long time period as opposed to barely behind you historically.

The supply of people actually willing to do what the Nevada militias are doing is pretty limited- I suspect that the thousand or so armed men involved in Nevada represent a large fraction of the total population willing to do that in America.

You would know this better than I do.

And the total population that presents a problem will shrink a lot faster in response to arrests and conspicuous excesses on the militia's part than it will in response to bloody massacres.

This I am unsure off. Ultimately crazy people might simply decide that the government is being oppressive and cowardly/communist shipping them off to prisons underhandedly instead of facing them in combat. Meaning that the government is a dictatorship that needs overthrowing.

Hell, they expect massacres and a brutal crackdown. In their mind-narrative that's exactly how the "Second American Revolution" is supposed to start. So they'll interpret a bloody suppression of the Bunkerville occupiers as their signal to start switching over from militias to actual guerilla/terrorist groups. Expect comparisons to the Boston Massacre and/or Lexington Green.

That is NOT what anyone involved in federal law enforcement wayns.

But on the plus side it would make them switch over to full revolution mode, get promptly massacred and end the threat permanently.

Do you think that killing everyone we think has crossed the line is going to work better in a case like this?

Honestly, I think that there is nothing that would work and be acceptable in the modern world. The obvious solution would be reexamining the social model of a society that glorifies rugged individualism, violence and the myth of revolution and has a constitution that underlines firearms ownership for the explicit purpose of fighting the government... But that is not going to work in your case for obvious reasons.

Well, if the militias in Bunkerville do not disperse and stop harassing people, I think we can expect a serious response by state law enforcement in short order. If that doesn't pan out, there will be a federal response.

However, since there is not (yet) any immediate threat to life and limb, I am not entirely surprised that things have taken a few weeks to develop. For that matter, I'm not sure how long those checkpoints have existed.

I really don't see why as you put it "immediate threat to life and limb" is more rather than less critical than "immediate undermining of government authority and open armed resistance."

Define which aspects of a 'militia' should make that organization outlawed, if you please.

Do you outlaw them for possessing weapons? For practicing with them? For having political opinions? What, exactly?

The formations of armed paramilitary organizations with the explicit purpose of openly challenging the government through force of arms who openly talk about this, recruit for this purpose and plan to perform such acts. Since that's pretty much a domestic terrorist organization that's not even pretending to be a gun club.

Yes, banning them is likely to just drive them underground. But at least it would make it more difficult to recruit people and make people less likely to sympathize with them.

[Elheru Aran]

Hell, they expect massacres and a brutal crackdown. In their mind-narrative that's exactly how the "Second American Revolution" is supposed to start. So they'll interpret a bloody suppression of the Bunkerville occupiers as their signal to start switching over from militias to actual guerilla/terrorist groups. Expect comparisons to the Boston Massacre and/or Lexington Green.

That is NOT what anyone involved in federal law enforcement wayns.

But on the plus side it would make them switch over to full revolution mode, get promptly massacred and end the threat permanently.

Permanently? Hell no. You underestimate the stubborn idiotic resolve of the American right wing. Massacre people who, despite their avowed treason, remain American citizens (unless you want to justify said treason by declaring them combatants of a foreign power)? Not only would it bring a blitz of media condemnation upon the administration-- from the right mostly but somewhat on the left-- but many on the right wing would unilaterally decide that this means their greatest fears, an overbearing government controlling the private citizens, are coming to pass, and you would see widespread strife. At the very least, you would have people prepared for the event of armed violence, and that's not conductive to public peace and safety. At all.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not about what they do but how they act in doing it. The difference between a shooting club and a militia is that the former is a gathering of firearms enthusiasts with the intent to have fun where as the later publicly expresses a certain rhetoric and uses it to recruit like minded individuals into a paramilitary force. How is that hard to understand?

It's kind of like say the difference between a political party and a ultranationalist political party.

So, we ban them not because of any specific thing they do, but because of their political views that they hold while doing those things?

That is also illegal in the US. For that matter, it's illegal in pretty much all civilized countries.

And yet there are plenty of other activities like drug trafficking or prostitution where the same approach has yielded little or no results.

Yes; it's about the balance between the difficulty of committing the crime, the danger of getting caught, and the profit to be had. Fighting a revolution is very hard work and spectacularly dangerous, so most people don't do them unless they get desperate.

Likewise, in the US it's been roughly ten years since 'militias' were last a serious security concern in the US- the mid-1990s, culminating in the Oklahoma City Bombing after which there was some serious policing of the militias. The groups that were involved in actual crimes (as opposed to basically being guys who camp with rifles) were trimmed back, and many of the others were legitimately shocked by the bombing and scaled back themselves.

You say ten years as if it is some sort of long time period as opposed to barely behind you historically.

[blinks]

Actually, I just had an epic calculation fail; the mid-90s are twenty years ago, not ten.

And yes, twenty years is relatively long in my opinion. It's not realistic to expect to be able to reduce the incidence rate of domestic radicalism to zero by "fixing" some policy.

And the total population that presents a problem will shrink a lot faster in response to arrests and conspicuous excesses on the militia's part than it will in response to bloody massacres.

This I am unsure off. Ultimately crazy people might simply decide that the government is being oppressive and cowardly/communist shipping them off to prisons underhandedly instead of facing them in combat. Meaning that the government is a dictatorship that needs overthrowing.

But on the one hand, the excesses discourage people from recruiting. And on the other hand, widespread arrests make an organized response harder- compared to, say, having a big bloody battle in central Nevada between all the militia and a National Guard regiment.

Hell, they expect massacres and a brutal crackdown. In their mind-narrative that's exactly how the "Second American Revolution" is supposed to start. So they'll interpret a bloody suppression of the Bunkerville occupiers as their signal to start switching over from militias to actual guerilla/terrorist groups. Expect comparisons to the Boston Massacre and/or Lexington Green.

That is NOT what anyone involved in federal law enforcement wayns.

But on the plus side it would make them switch over to full revolution mode, get promptly massacred and end the threat permanently.

That results in explosions and tens or hundreds of thousands of people dying. Many of them innocent because in "full revolution mode" a lot of those militia would become indistinguishable from terrorists.

THAT IS NOT A PLUS SIDE. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING?

Do you think that killing everyone we think has crossed the line is going to work better in a case like this?

Honestly, I think that there is nothing that would work and be acceptable in the modern world. The obvious solution would be reexamining the social model of a society that glorifies rugged individualism, violence and the myth of revolution and has a constitution that underlines firearms ownership for the explicit purpose of fighting the government... But that is not going to work in your case for obvious reasons.

So, who is responsible for "reexamining a social model?" Should we report to the Department of Social Models?

Well, if the militias in Bunkerville do not disperse and stop harassing people, I think we can expect a serious response by state law enforcement in short order. If that doesn't pan out, there will be a federal response.

However, since there is not (yet) any immediate threat to life and limb, I am not entirely surprised that things have taken a few weeks to develop. For that matter, I'm not sure how long those checkpoints have existed.

I really don't see why as you put it "immediate threat to life and limb" is more rather than less critical than "immediate undermining of government authority and open armed resistance."

One results in paperwork. The other results in disemboweled corpses.

Why are you having a hard time deciding which is worse?

Define which aspects of a 'militia' should make that organization outlawed, if you please.

Do you outlaw them for possessing weapons? For practicing with them? For having political opinions? What, exactly?

The formations of armed paramilitary organizations with the explicit purpose of openly challenging the government through force of arms who openly talk about this, recruit for this purpose and plan to perform such acts. Since that's pretty much a domestic terrorist organization that's not even pretending to be a gun club.

Yes, banning them is likely to just drive them underground. But at least it would make it more difficult to recruit people and make people less likely to sympathize with them.

No, you missed the point.

What, specifically, about these organizations should be banned?

Is it their political opinions?

Or is it some concrete, specific thing they do?

[Beowulf]

Do you think it should be illegal to have a club that goes camping?

Do you think it should be illegal to have a club that practices shooting rifles as a sport or competitive activity?

If it's legal for a club to do both those things, it's legal to create a 'militia' that would be functional as a paramilitary organization

It's not about what they do but how they act in doing it. The difference between a shooting club and a militia is that the former is a gathering of firearms enthusiasts with the intent to have fun where as the later publicly expresses a certain rhetoric and uses it to recruit like minded individuals into a paramilitary force. How is that hard to understand?

It's kind of like say the difference between a political party and a ultranationalist political party.

Freedom of association? Protected political expression? The US can't ban political parties it doesn't like. Up until they actually conspire to commit a crime, you can't toss people in jail for disagreeing politically. That's one of the definitions of a police state.

[Purple]

So, we ban them not because of any specific thing they do, but because of their political views that they hold while doing those things?

That is also illegal in the US. For that matter, it's illegal in pretty much all civilized countries.

Yes; it's about the balance between the difficulty of committing the crime, the danger of getting caught, and the profit to be had. Fighting a revolution is very hard work and spectacularly dangerous, so most people don't do them unless they get desperate.

Or crazy.

Actually, I just had an epic calculation fail; the mid-90s are twenty years ago, not ten.

And yes, twenty years is relatively long in my opinion. It's not realistic to expect to be able to reduce the incidence rate of domestic radicalism to zero by "fixing" some policy.

Twenty years is just enough time for the next generation of idiots to grow up on the stories of the last.

But on the one hand, the excesses discourage people from recruiting.

Do they really? I would expect a lot of crazies who are on the fence out of fear to jump in if they know the government won't fight them.

And on the other hand, widespread arrests make an organized response harder- compared to, say, having a big bloody battle in central Nevada between all the militia and a National Guard regiment.

Which is why you outlaw and arrest them.

That results in explosions and tens or hundreds of thousands of people dying. Many of them innocent because in "full revolution mode" a lot of those militia would become indistinguishable from terrorists.

You your self just said that there aren't that many crazies crazy enough to actually go that far. That is contradictory with the statement that they could cause that much damage.

THAT IS NOT A PLUS SIDE. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING?

The plus side is that order is restored, the terrorists are dead and society can continue businesses as usual.

Mind you, I newer said that the net result would be positive. Only that one of the results is. The bloodbath still turns the balance negative in the end.

So, who is responsible for "reexamining a social model?" Should we report to the Department of Social Models?

That's not a bad idea overall. But barring that a sanity check here and there should suffice.

One results in paperwork. The other results in disemboweled corpses.

Why are you having a hard time deciding which is worse?

No, one of them ends in a few disemboweled corpses. The other results in anarchy, social collapse, and lawlessness.

No, you missed the point.

What, specifically, about these organizations should be banned?

Is it their political opinions?

Or is it some concrete, specific thing they do?

The concrete and specific act of propagating, supporting and organizing an armed group with the explicit intent of opposing the government through violence. It's basically conspiracy to commit obstruction of law right there.

Freedom of association? Protected political expression? The US can't ban political parties it doesn't like. Up until they actually conspire to commit a crime, you can't toss people in jail for disagreeing politically. That's one of the definitions of a police state.

Aren't you stretching the definition a bit too much? Functional democratic nations can ban organizations intent on rebellion even if they don't actually start shooting.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I understand that. It's just that I think that whole affair is to be perfectly honest absurd. We have the fact that you can form and maintain an armed paramilitary organization and that this is breaking no laws. And people are ok with that.

Well, it is like this. There are some people who like guns and who take their guns to a shooting range.
There are others who dress in camo, take their guns to one of many isolated wilderness areas, and do various paramilitary training exercises. On its own, that is neither harmful, nor scary. They are strange, to be sure, but they are basically camping with guns in an organized way, which is an accepted American Pastime because out country is slightly insane at baseline. The difference comes with whatever ideology these groups organize their camping trips around.

Training for Extraterrestrial Invasion: Not dangerous, just balls-slappingly funny.

Actual Zombie Apocalypse (as opposed to euphemism for race wars): Same.

Collapse of Civilization(they all have their hobby horses with respect to cause, from asteroid strike to nuclear exchange): Not particularly dangerous, not even necessarily all that insane given most of them grew up in the cold war when that was a legit threat.

Evil Federal Government: Oh Dear

Winning the Race War: Oh Dear

And what happens when the next group rises up? Or the one after that? This situation should be a massive red light to anyone watching accompanied by a massive flashing neon sign saying "The american government can't enforce it's laws. Because it's people are free to take up arms against it at any time when ever they feel slighted and their government will just back away."

I am no fan of blood here either. But honestly I just have no idea what your government can do to dig it self out of this mess.

There is a balance between "Creating Martyrs" and "Emboldening Crazies". When this just started, mass arrests would have been counter-productive. A sufficient portion of the population was, if not in agreement with the crazies, then sympathetic if only out of ignorance. Kind of like Waco, where the population as a whole did not know the depth of the crazy that cult represented, and only saw a bunch of innocent people getting killed. Go after them then, and a lot of people would have thought "Hey, you know what, maybe the federal government is over-reaching and maybe those anti-government militias have a point". New recruitment would have been inspired, and perhaps some of the Alien Invasion/Zombie/Civ Collapse militias would have gone over into the Evil Federal Government or Race War Militia camps.

So, they need to be discredited in the eyes of the public, or the government needs to wait for them to discredit themselves. The racist rant helped. Armed checkpoints and paramilitary occupation of Bunkerville also do the job.

After that point however, if the government waits to long, it is a sign of weakness. A sign of weakness that will embolden the Bad Crazy into actually taking action, thinking they can get away with it. Crush them like insects, and the Bad Crazy knows that the federal government has the capacity and the political will to crush THEM like insects as well.

There is no way, at this point, to avoid a blood bath. It is going to happen. The only question is whether the terms of the blood bath are set by the federal government bringing in SWAT teams and the national guard to put down what amounts to a local revolt (because this exactly what the Bundy Militia is), or set by some nutjob with a truck and ton of fertilizer blowing up the FBI branch office in Boise (or wherever).

[Broomstick]

It's not about what they do but how they act in doing it. The difference between a shooting club and a militia is that the former is a gathering of firearms enthusiasts with the intent to have fun where as the later publicly expresses a certain rhetoric and uses it to recruit like minded individuals into a paramilitary force. How is that hard to understand?

I've been to shooting ranges a couple of times. You have people on both extremes of the political spectrum there. If it's just talk, though, they're just as free to shoot their mouths off as shoot their guns off. It's not until they ACT that the law can come down on them.

The most extreme folks most likely to act on this bullshit is also not the loud mouth espousing his fear of concentration camps and the Obamapocalypse. The real threats are going to be engaged in low-key recruiting in public, feeling people out before inviting them to the party.

There are crimes that are relatively rare because you more or less have to be literally mentally ill to think it's a good idea. Kidnapping comes to mind in the developed world, because it's prosecuted so fiercely and successfully getting away with a ransom is so hard.

And yet there are plenty of other activities like drug trafficking or prostitution where the same approach has yielded little or no results.

That's because drugs and sex have demand pressures that revolt in a wealthy and largely unoppressive nation does not.

Likewise, in the US it's been roughly ten years since 'militias' were last a serious security concern in the US- the mid-1990s, culminating in the Oklahoma City Bombing after which there was some serious policing of the militias. The groups that were involved in actual crimes (as opposed to basically being guys who camp with rifles) were trimmed back, and many of the others were legitimately shocked by the bombing and scaled back themselves.

You say ten years as if it is some sort of long time period as opposed to barely behind you historically.

It was actually 19 years ago, not 10. Nearly a generation, which would be about right for a radical/extreme idea to be recycled.

Ultimately crazy people might simply decide that the government is being oppressive and cowardly/communist shipping them off to prisons underhandedly instead of facing them in combat. Meaning that the government is a dictatorship that needs overthrowing.

There has been an undercurrent of that throughout US history, all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790's (At least that one ended with no one hurt).

Hell, they expect massacres and a brutal crackdown. In their mind-narrative that's exactly how the "Second American Revolution" is supposed to start. So they'll interpret a bloody suppression of the Bunkerville occupiers as their signal to start switching over from militias to actual guerilla/terrorist groups. Expect comparisons to the Boston Massacre and/or Lexington Green.

That is NOT what anyone involved in federal law enforcement wayns.

But on the plus side it would make them switch over to full revolution mode, get promptly massacred and end the threat permanently.

No, it wouldn't. They'd attract more followers being the brutally suppressed underdogs, whether or not they were in the right.

Well, if the militias in Bunkerville do not disperse and stop harassing people, I think we can expect a serious response by state law enforcement in short order. If that doesn't pan out, there will be a federal response.

However, since there is not (yet) any immediate threat to life and limb, I am not entirely surprised that things have taken a few weeks to develop. For that matter, I'm not sure how long those checkpoints have existed.

I really don't see why as you put it "immediate threat to life and limb" is more rather than less critical than "immediate undermining of government authority and open armed resistance."

The "rebels" are also citizens of the US and while the US Feds have at times been complete bastards as a general rule they don't really want to start shooting their own citizens, at least not until the bullets start flying from the other side, first. I don't have a problem with the notion of attempting to find a peaceful solution before we go to lethal force.

So far the "armed resistance" has been merely pointing guns (bad enough) but not actually pulling a trigger. Until it does, let's think about the various alternatives before we act.

Define which aspects of a 'militia' should make that organization outlawed, if you please.

Do you outlaw them for possessing weapons? For practicing with them? For having political opinions? What, exactly?

The formations of armed paramilitary organizations with the explicit purpose of openly challenging the government through force of arms who openly talk about this, recruit for this purpose and plan to perform such acts. Since that's pretty much a domestic terrorist organization that's not even pretending to be a gun club.

Most of these folks are talking about self-defense more than government overthrow. Organizing for self-defense, even with fire arms, is a right in the US.

Yes, banning them is likely to just drive them underground. But at least it would make it more difficult to recruit people and make people less likely to sympathize with them.

Um... not really. A lot of folks in the US would get a thrill out of being part of an "underground" organization.

[Beowulf]

Freedom of association? Protected political expression? The US can't ban political parties it doesn't like. Up until they actually conspire to commit a crime, you can't toss people in jail for disagreeing politically. That's one of the definitions of a police state.

Aren't you stretching the definition a bit too much? Functional democratic nations can ban organizations intent on rebellion even if they don't actually start shooting.

It has to rise above the level of just talk, into conspiracy to commit a crime. Just because they're prepared to take advantage of a rebellion once one starts, does not indicate an intent to actually start one.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, I just had an epic calculation fail; the mid-90s are twenty years ago, not ten.

And yes, twenty years is relatively long in my opinion. It's not realistic to expect to be able to reduce the incidence rate of domestic radicalism to zero by "fixing" some policy.

Twenty years is just enough time for the next generation of idiots to grow up on the stories of the last.

Honestly, in this case I don't think that's what's going on, because there aren't really any stories here, just a permanent sea of far-right propaganda that's been brainwashing the same people continuously since, oh, the 1990s.

But on the one hand, the excesses discourage people from recruiting.

Do they really? I would expect a lot of crazies who are on the fence out of fear to jump in if they know the government won't fight them.

Yes, but you're also... um, insensitive to the fine points of basic human psychology?

Most people are not psychopaths and aren't just waiting for an opportunity to get away with Really Heinous Shit. They want society to be relatively normal and stable, and for a minimum number of people to suffer and die. Major acts of violence against the establishment within their own society tend to shock them and alienate them, unless they already hate the establishment for some reason.

Thus, the number of people who hold far-right views and might consider joining a militia is large. But the number of people who will remain content with a militia that blows up a federal office building complete with daycare center is small, as we found out in 1995. Likewise the number who are going to be happy with militia who openly draw guns on people and demand to see their ID, just the way they want the police to NOT behave.

It creates dissension and confusion in the movement. And dissension and confusion in the ranks of a prospective armed enemy are exactly the tools you want in your toolkit if you are trying to prevent bloodshed.

And on the other hand, widespread arrests make an organized response harder- compared to, say, having a big bloody battle in central Nevada between all the militia and a National Guard regiment.

Which is why you outlaw and arrest them.

...This makes no sense.

First of all, "outlaw" isn't even a thing you can do in countries with serious constitutions.

Second of all, now you're talking about arresting people instead of violently suppressing them- which means you have to wait for them to disperse. If you want to force a group like these militia to disperse you have to at least credibly threaten them with superior force, which results in a risk of an actual battle breaking out.

That results in explosions and tens or hundreds of thousands of people dying. Many of them innocent because in "full revolution mode" a lot of those militia would become indistinguishable from terrorists.

You your self just said that there aren't that many crazies crazy enough to actually go that far. That is contradictory with the statement that they could cause that much damage.

THAT IS NOT A PLUS SIDE. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING?

The plus side is that order is restored, the terrorists are dead and society can continue businesses as usual.

It really only takes a few thousand of potential terrorists (plus all the people galvanized to fight the 'sacred war' by the 'heroic sacrifice' of the first few thousand) to get a lot of people killed.

And the point is, I cannot fathom how you think "order is restored" is a good enough outcome that "thousands of corpses" is just something irrelevant to step over on the way from A to C.

Also, it seems insane and ignorant for you to think "society can continue business as usual" after a bloody suppression of a political minority that results in thousands of people dying or being dragged into prisons for their political views. Civil society in a free country does not work that way. There are long term consequences, a lasting change in the political atmosphere that can take a generation or more to go away.

Nobody ever feels quite as safe again, once the state has gone to the extent of trying to exterminate a particular point of view.

So, who is responsible for "reexamining a social model?" Should we report to the Department of Social Models?

That's not a bad idea overall. But barring that a sanity check here and there should suffice.

Describe what a Department of Social Models should look like. What would be its functions, powers, and means of implementing its stated role?

One results in paperwork. The other results in disemboweled corpses.

Why are you having a hard time deciding which is worse?

No, one of them ends in a few disemboweled corpses. The other results in anarchy, social collapse, and lawlessness.

See... you have this weird thing going, where you seem to not grasp the idea that there is a middle ground between "all laws enforced swiftly and brutally" and "anarchy."

There is.

No, you missed the point.

What, specifically, about these organizations should be banned?

Is it their political opinions?

Or is it some concrete, specific thing they do?

The concrete and specific act of propagating, supporting and organizing an armed group with the explicit intent of opposing the government through violence. It's basically conspiracy to commit obstruction of law right there.

So, if a group does not say "we're going to go out and oppose the government with violence," they're OK?

Because, and I get that you don't know this, militias by and large don't come out and say this.

For that matter, even then, declaring the intent to commit a crime is not necessarily a crime. Threatening to commit it can be, but saying "we are a society of people who run red lights" is not a crime. It varies.

Also, people can reasonably argue that you're trying to ban a point of view here- because you're really targeting these groups for hating and fearing the government, not for any specific action they've already committed.

[TimothyC]

If the point about checkpoints is true (and It wouldn't surprise me if it was), then the arrest of those doing so should be executed forthwith.

The question I have is, are there any independent reports of checkpoints that don't link back to the letter the congressman sent?

[Elheru Aran]

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2014/0 ... -on-guard/

Repost from the LA Times. They set up a checkpoint on at least one road.

[Borgholio]

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2014/0 ... -on-guard/

Repost from the LA Times. They set up a checkpoint on at least one road.

Sorry, might be blind...but I did not see anywhere in that article where it says they had blocked a road and set up a checkpoint. They did name their base camp "Patriot Checkpoint", but I did not see any reference to them stopping cars and checking papers on a public road.

[Elheru Aran]

Fair enough, however the Las Vegas Sun also reports that police say there have been complaints and reports from the area and are investigating. So obviously there's more going on than just some militia boys playing summer camp. I will grant that it was fairly vague-- "complaints and reports" may just be the local residents calling the sheriffs and being all "get these thugs out of our backyard"-- but most people don't really care as long as such doesn't affect them directly, which means that the militia are probably interfering in local residents' lives to some degree.

It does make one wonder how complicit the local constabulary are in this whole Bundy mess. One presumes that they may have had the power to intervene earlier on with the whole "not paying fees" mess.

[Borgholio]

the Las Vegas Sun also reports that police say there have been complaints and reports from the area and are investigating. So obviously there's more going on than just some militia boys playing summer camp.

Oh yeah I believe it. I seriously doubt the militias are just sitting around a campfire eating s'mores.

"complaints and reports" may just be the local residents calling the sheriffs and being all "get these thugs out of our backyard"

I'd be bitching too. Hell I'd probably do what they did to the feds and make sure they knew a rifle was trained on them if they were anywhere near my property.

[Irbis]

So, we ban them not because of any specific thing they do, but because of their political views that they hold while doing those things?

That is also illegal in the US. For that matter, it's illegal in pretty much all civilized countries.

Congratulations, you just disappeared huge part of non-US world. Europe included. Yes, this might be a shocker, but 'political views that they hold while doing those things' can be ground to ban of even theoretically harmless activities.

Frankly, whenever someone utters phrase 'this wouldn't happen in civilized country' he ought to be smacked and asked to write detailed essay on the countries he thinks it applies to and why he is terribly wrong. It's just virtually never right, same as 'when I was a kid everyone politely respected elders and now just look at the manner-less youth scum'.

But on the one hand, the excesses discourage people from recruiting.

Like, say, Kristallnacht discouraged people from joining Nazis? Or Golden Dawn beating on immigrants made it less popular in Greece? Or even here, that pathetic show with thermobaric bombs filled with helium dropped from second helicopter discouraged that psychotic Smolensk conspiracy groups?

Excesses discourage people who would never join the groups anyway, they do nothing to undecided middle ground people who might join group they see as 'strong' because no one is making a stand against it.

That results in explosions and tens or hundreds of thousands of people dying. Many of them innocent because in "full revolution mode" a lot of those militia would become indistinguishable from terrorists.

Like they were in say 1863?

US militias are a curious case. I wouldn't think they would adopt Al Qaeda's tactics, their modus operandi would be a lot closer to say, Alamo. Fortified group making a stand against evil regime. At least at first. That's what happened in this case, no?

And frankly, while I am against any form of dictature, groups of people insane enough to band for armed resistance against universal healthcare, grazing fees, or a comma in 300 year old document would IMHO be pretty much asking for it. It's one thing to make a stand against dictator, it's another trying to terrorize free society into accepting your nutter demands making everyone else less free.

So, who is responsible for "reexamining a social model?" Should we report to the Department of Social Models?

Here, in Eurocommie Yurop, there are things called 'public universities'. Some of them were late in adopting US model of 'beg private sector for grants' and still have such unprofitable, money wasting departments as philosophy and sociology. And yes, these do tend to 'waste taxpayer money' on such unimportant things as analysing social fabric and suggesting improvement policies to the government. Weird, I know.

One results in paperwork. The other results in disemboweled corpses.

Why are you having a hard time deciding which is worse?

Funny thing, quite a lot of countries, Germany in 1930 included, were given that choice.

To paraphrase Churchill, they picked paperwork, yet got both. In much larger quantities.

What, specifically, about these organizations should be banned?

Is it their political opinions?

Or is it some concrete, specific thing they do?

Sometimes, yes, political opinions that need to less freedom for the whole countries are banned. And you cannot even compare USA to Europe, because political backgrounds are entirely different. In Europe, you don't have random armed bands that can form at drop of the hat, paradoxically leading to more, not less leeway in such things.

Threatening words sound very differently if metaphorical person saying them has really big stick. Also, even out nutters are saner, here they would just say demand less taxes, not threaten to shoot random irrelevant people to get that despite already having much smaller taxes. When they do it, like say OAS, countries stomp them really hard.

So don't act surprised when people say something comparably much more dangerous can warrant much harsher action than one in the rest of the world. You can't just point somewhere else and say 'such action would be unthinkable there!' because sadly the threat would be much smaller, and besides, as I said above, no, it wouldn't be unthinkable. Had USA reacted to the militias like de Gaulle did to OAS or Italy does to Mafia, about only things comparable to militias in Europe, you'd already see possibly two digit number of bodies.

[Simon_Jester]

So, we ban them not because of any specific thing they do, but because of their political views that they hold while doing those things?

That is also illegal in the US. For that matter, it's illegal in pretty much all civilized countries.

Congratulations, you just disappeared huge part of non-US world. Europe included. Yes, this might be a shocker, but 'political views that they hold while doing those things' can be ground to ban of even theoretically harmless activities.

I'm sorry, you're right.

I'd honestly forgotten all those laws in place that outlaw people who hold certain political views from performing otherwise legal actions in various countries that are, naturally, far more democratic and respectful of people's rights than mine.

But on the one hand, the excesses discourage people from recruiting.

Like, say, Kristallnacht discouraged people from joining Nazis? Or Golden Dawn beating on immigrants made it less popular in Greece? Or even here, that pathetic show with thermobaric bombs filled with helium dropped from second helicopter discouraged that psychotic Smolensk conspiracy groups?

Excesses discourage people who would never join the groups anyway, they do nothing to undecided middle ground people who might join group they see as 'strong' because no one is making a stand against it.

Like the Oklahoma City bombing encouraged lots of people to join far-right militias in 1995 in the US?

Except, wait, it didn't. It actually do that, and said militia groups grew steadily weaker and weaker for years after the attack.

US militias are a curious case. I wouldn't think they would adopt Al Qaeda's tactics, their modus operandi would be a lot closer to say, Alamo. Fortified group making a stand against evil regime. At least at first. That's what happened in this case, no?

"Last time," within a year or two there was some nut from one of these movements that was willing to truck-bomb a federal office building.

And frankly, while I am against any form of dictature, groups of people insane enough to band for armed resistance against universal healthcare, grazing fees, or a comma in 300 year old document would IMHO be pretty much asking for it. It's one thing to make a stand against dictator, it's another trying to terrorize free society into accepting your nutter demands making everyone else less free.

And yes, this is kind of my point. If these groups come out into the open and really fight for what they believe in, they will swiftly be revealed as lunatics so far from the mainstream that it will discredit everyone who sounds even vaguely like them.

So, who is responsible for "reexamining a social model?" Should we report to the Department of Social Models?

Here, in Eurocommie Yurop, there are things called 'public universities'. Some of them were late in adopting US model of 'beg private sector for grants' and still have such unprofitable, money wasting departments as philosophy and sociology. And yes, these do tend to 'waste taxpayer money' on such unimportant things as analysing social fabric and suggesting improvement policies to the government. Weird, I know.

Do they get to change social models? Purple seemed to think that was involved.

I mean, you can be as snide as you want, but in a free society the statement "well, then we should change people's values" is fatuous nonsense coming from someone like Purple.

One results in paperwork. The other results in disemboweled corpses.

Why are you having a hard time deciding which is worse?

Funny thing, quite a lot of countries, Germany in 1930 included, were given that choice.

To paraphrase Churchill, they picked paperwork, yet got both. In much larger quantities.

One minute you're saying that right-wing militias in the US probably wouldn't become terrorists. The next you're making analogies to Nazis.

Make up your mind already.

[Thanas]

So, we ban them not because of any specific thing they do, but because of their political views that they hold while doing those things?

That is also illegal in the US. For that matter, it's illegal in pretty much all civilized countries.

Congratulations, you just disappeared huge part of non-US world. Europe included. Yes, this might be a shocker, but 'political views that they hold while doing those things' can be ground to ban of even theoretically harmless activities.

I'm sorry, you're right.

I'd honestly forgotten all those laws in place that outlaw people who hold certain political views from performing otherwise legal actions in various countries that are, naturally, far more democratic and respectful of people's rights than mine.

Do you really want to get into a discussion of who respects people's rights more, the USA or Europe? Because that won't end so well for the USA. I get that you are aggravated at Irbis snide but there is no need to respond with such snark of your own especially if you were factually wrong in the first place. Don't descend to his level.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Here, in Eurocommie Yurop, there are things called 'public universities'. Some of them were late in adopting US model of 'beg private sector for grants' and still have such unprofitable, money wasting departments as philosophy and sociology. And yes, these do tend to 'waste taxpayer money' on such unimportant things as analysing social fabric and suggesting improvement policies to the government. Weird, I know.

You often annoy me Irbis, but I will give credit where credit is due here. This is perfect. Absolutely perfect.

Like they were in say 1863?

In the US Civil War, the rebel scum had parity in terms of technology, logistics and manpower. For while. They could expect to not immediately lose an open conflict, this is not true for the militias today.

US militias are a curious case. I wouldn't think they would adopt Al Qaeda's tactics, their modus operandi would be a lot closer to say, Alamo. Fortified group making a stand against evil regime. At least at first. That's what happened in this case, no?

It is, but if they become sufficiently confident--or pissed off--to initiate hostilities, there is ample precedent for aggressive acts. The Oklahoma City Bombing comes to mind.

Except, wait, it didn't. It actually do that, and said militia groups grew steadily weaker and weaker for years after the attack.

They actually had an upsurge in recruitment immediately following Oklahoma City. It was not until the DOJ got fed up with their shit and decided to crush them like insects--with notable incidents in 1996 at Justus Township, 1997 and Fort Davis. These were long standoffs that resulted in peaceful surrenders, and it is the model the feds should use in this case. Other militia groups did not want to be crushed, so they started ejecting their radical members. Some of these formed their own groups, but those groups are much smaller and easier to deal with, and they become weaker thereby.

[Simon_Jester]

Do you really want to get into a discussion of who respects people's rights more, the USA or Europe? Because that won't end so well for the USA. I get that you are aggravated at Irbis snide but there is no need to respond with such snark of your own especially if you were factually wrong in the first place. Don't descend to his level.

Oh, it's perfectly clear Europe wins, and that bans on radical political factions can be a healthy part of democracy.

Why should I need to be sarcastic, in order to say that? It's a clearly factual statement. If you read irony into that, then perhaps it's a good sign.

It reminds me of something from Dune, Paul Atreides talking about personal greatness, but perhaps it can be generalized to people's experience of national success.

"The person who experiences greatness... must have a strong sense of the sardonic. This is what uncouples him from belief in his own pretensions. The sardonic is all that permits him to move within himself. Without this quality, even occasional greatness will destroy a man."

Europe is currently going through something I'd honestly call a golden age- things aren't perfect but they could be infinitely, infinitely worse, and have been before. Being able to actually perceive the contradictions inherent in the system, rather than just laughing them off, shows that one's brain is working.

Heaven knows I routinely sense the irony and contradictions in the American system.
_____________

Of course, it's a fascinatingly thorny problem, this challenge of figuring out how to ban dangerous and potentially violent right wing militias. Because we surely don't want to give the government the power to point to a 'dangerously socialist' political movement that might turn violent* and use some form of Red-baiting to silence the movements that (in the US) might actually force reform on the system.

Actually, you know, this really does make me uncomfortable. I mean... how many governments do you WANT to have permission to decide that people who adhere to political ideology X are forbidden from organizing? Do you want my government to have that power? Purple does, and he's the one I was replying to before Irbis stuck his oar in.

*In the US context, this actually happened in the '60s and '70s with certain radical movements.

Here, in Eurocommie Yurop, there are things called 'public universities'. Some of them were late in adopting US model of 'beg private sector for grants' and still have such unprofitable, money wasting departments as philosophy and sociology. And yes, these do tend to 'waste taxpayer money' on such unimportant things as analysing social fabric and suggesting improvement policies to the government. Weird, I know.

You often annoy me Irbis, but I will give credit where credit is due here. This is perfect. Absolutely perfect.

It's based on a comical misunderstanding of my point.

I was talking to Purple. When he says "we need to reexamine our social model," it's pretty clear that he does not mean "we need sociologists to understand this model." He means "we need to change it."

So I asked him, in the context of that statement, what that would entail. Who is responsible for 'changing' a national cultural model and somehow curing America of the cowboyism Purple decries? How is a democratic government supposed to tell people their values are wrong, especially on an issue that does not reduce neatly to "majority, stop oppressing this minority?"

Irbis entirely missed the point and pointed out that social science departments exist in Europe... which is kind of irrelevant, though it surely underscores Irbis's core goal of trumpeting European superiority.

The point remains. Suppose the people of a particular nation hold some particular value, and Purple-as-wannabe-technocrat resents that value and finds it pernicious. Who, precisely, is supposed to tell the nation on Purple's behalf that they should stop valuing things like citizens' right to bear arms?

Except, wait, it didn't. It actually do that, and said militia groups grew steadily weaker and weaker for years after the attack.

They actually had an upsurge in recruitment immediately following Oklahoma City. It was not until the DOJ got fed up with their shit and decided to crush them like insects--with notable incidents in 1996 at Justus Township, 1997 and Fort Davis. These were long standoffs that resulted in peaceful surrenders, and it is the model the feds should use in this case. Other militia groups did not want to be crushed, so they started ejecting their radical members. Some of these formed their own groups, but those groups are much smaller and easier to deal with, and they become weaker thereby.

This is pretty much the process I'm talking about. Once it becomes clear that the fringe of the militia is actively willing to provoke open war with the government, while the government itself is actually NOT being blatantly oppressive to the nation as a whole, we can expect a lot of right-wingers to distance themselves from the actual violent domestic terrorists.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Source

The FBI is investigating the armed standoff on federal land between the U.S. government and Southern Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters, CNN has confirmed.
The government is looking into the possibility that federal laws were broken in the April 12 standoff, including threats against law enforcement officers and the use of illegal weapons. Federal authorities are also concerned about the possible involvement of anti-government groups.

While authorities are interested in not inflaming the situation, reports of people pointing weapons at law enforcement need to be investigated, a federal official told CNN.
Las Vegas television station KLAS reported that pictures and videos from the standoff are being examined and law enforcement personnel involved are being questioned by the FBI to determine if Bundy supporters broke any laws.

An estimated 300 people, many toting weapons, joined Bundy when the federal government began to round up his cattle after he refused to vacate federally owned land and pay more than $1 million in fees. The faceoff that began last month is the culmination of a two-decade-long fight between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management, which says Bundy illegally tends his cattle on taxpayer-owned land about 100 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Bundy became a conservative symbol of government overreach as some high-profile politicians, including Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, flocked to his defense. But after he repeatedly made racist remarks, his clout diminished among the political class.
The Bureau of Land Management halted the cattle roundup and is considering what to do next, including arresting Bundy for failing to follow the law, seizing his assets through the Treasury Department or sending the case to the Department of Justice.

Small update. Not unexpected but it is nice to hear that this is being looked into.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Do not know if this counts as an "Update", but people from the previous stand off are out breaking the law YET AGAIN

Dozens of people rode their ATVs and motorcycles on an off-limits trail in southern Utah in a protest against what the group calls the federal government's overreaching control of public lands.

Related Stories

BLM faces another Western standoff, now with four-wheelers Christian Science Monitor
Trail ride challenges federal control of Utah land Reuters
Federal land worker threatened on Utah highway Associated Press
Bundy Supporters Drove ATVs Through Native American Ruins The Atlantic Wire
This Land Is Your Land—Wanna Bet? The Daily Beast
San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge said from 40 to 50 people, many of them waving American flags and some carrying weapons, drove about a mile down Recapture Canyon near Blanding Saturday and then turned around. Hundreds attended a rally at a nearby park before the protest.

"It was peaceful, and there were no problems whatsoever," the sheriff told The Associated Press.

About 30 deputies and a handful of U.S. Bureau of Land Management law enforcement personnel watched as protesters drove past a closure sign and down the canyon located about 300 miles southeast of Salt Lake City.

San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman, the protest's organizer, has said it was designed to show that the federal agency isn't the "supreme authority" and local residents have a right to have their opinions heard.

"We're not proponents of breaking the law," Lyman told The Salt Lake Tribune before the ride. "Just because BLM owns the property, that doesn't mean they own the right-of-way that exists."

View galleryATV riders cross into a restricted area of Recapture …
ATV riders cross into a restricted area of Recapture Canyon, north of Blanding, Utah, on Saturday,

Recapture Canyon is home to dwellings, artifacts and burials left behind by Ancestral Puebloans as many as 2,000 years ago before they mysteriously vanished.

The riders may have damaged artifacts and dwellings that "tell the story of the first farmers in the Four Corners region" of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, BLM Utah State Director Juan Palma said in a statement.

"The BLM was in Recapture Canyon today collecting evidence and will continue to investigate," Palma said. "The BLM will pursue all available redress through the legal system to hold the lawbreakers accountable."

The group's act of defiance marks the latest illustration of growing tension between angry rural Western residents and the federal government over management of public lands.

The protest occurred nearly a month after Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters, some of them armed militia members, thwarted a BLM roundup of his cattle near Bunkerville, Nevada, 75 miles northeast of Las Vegas. Bundy, a states' rights advocate who refuses to acknowledge the authority of the federal government, owes more than $1 million in fees and penalties for letting his cattle use government land over the past 20 years.

As a Kane County sheriff's deputy watches from a horse, ATV riders make their way into Recapture …
Some of Bundy's children and militia supporters also took part in the protest in Recapture Canyon.

"This is where it's happening Saturday," Bundy backer Ryan Payne of Montana told the Las Vegas Sun. "This is a continuation of the Bundy affair."

BLM officers recorded and documented protesters who traveled into the closure area, Palma added.

The agency warned riders all week to stay out, vowing prosecution against those who ignore a law put in place in 2007 after an illegal trail was found that cuts through the ancestral ruins. The canyon is open to hikers and horseback riders.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert also urged people to uphold the law.

A 14-mile section of trail in the canyon is closed to motorized vehicles, BLM officials said, but there are more than 2,800 miles of trails open to them on public lands around Blanding.

Environmentalists and Native Americans criticized the protest ride, saying the ban is needed to preserve fragile artifacts. Mark Maryboy, a former Navajo Nation Council delegate, called it disappointing that the group had no respect for Native American culture.

"The American tradition of civil disobedience doesn't change the fact that the rule of law needs to mean something," Josh Ewing of the conservation group Friends of Cedar Mesa told The Tribune. "I'll be very disappointed in my government if it doesn't follow through on upholding the law."

Motorized access to Recapture Canyon and other areas in Utah's wilderness has been a source of tension for decades. ATV riders rode another off-limits trail in 2009 in a protest. The Bureau of Land Management gave information about the riders to federal prosecutors, but no charges were filed.

So yet again we have these idiots going "We don't 'want' to break the law, But we Totally are going to do it anyway!"
I mean YE GODS how idiotic are these people going to get?