Radical Right

The Vegas Shootings, the Bundy Ranch, and the Splits on the Radical Right

The dynamics of radical politics.

|

No point mentioning those bats, I thought. The poor bastard will see them soon enough.

An interesting detail in the Review-Journal's report on the couple who killed two cops, a shopper, and themselves in Las Vegas yesterday:

"The man told [a neighbor] he had been kicked off Cliven Bundy's ranch 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas while people from throughout the U.S. gathered there in protest of a Bureau of Land Management roundup of Bundy's cattle." Jessica Anderson, 27, said. She lived next door [to the killers].

As always with the first claims that bubble up after a high-profile shooting, you should take this with a grain of salt. Obviously, there's a bit of a telephone game going on here: One neighbor heard something from another neighbor who said he heard it from the shooter, who may or may not be reliable. For what it's worth, the paper reports that "the rancher's wife, Carol Bundy, said the shooting and the April standoff against the federal government were not linked"; it quotes her saying "I have not seen or heard anything from the militia and others who have came to our ranch that would, in any way, make me think they had an intent to kill or harm anyone." That isn't exactly a denial—it says nothing about whether the Vegas couple showed up at the ranch and was told by other activists to leave, which is what the man appears to have been claiming. I expect we'll see more detailed reporting on this in the next few days.

But if this is true, it reinforces a point about the dynamics of radical politics. As I've noted before when writing about the militia movement, violence on the far right often comes from hotheads who have been kicked out of the more mainstream militias. (Is "mainstream" the right word? It's all relative, I suppose.) When actual organizations talk up non-defensive violence, they are often isolated and despised within the larger militia milieu. Yet these divisions are frequently missed in public discussions of the issue, which often lump all the "extremists" together—and, as a result, look in the wrong places for terrorist threats. Even when analysts argue that lone wolves acting on their own are a more likely source of violence than militias acting as groups, there's a mistaken tendency to treat "radicalization" as the problem and to ignore all the cross-currents within a particular radical community. (J.M. Berger offers some strong arguments against that habit here.)

One last thought: I see The Washington Post is already tentatively tying this to other "slayings…linked to hate movements." So it's wise to remember the sociologist Joel Best's comment that "crime waves" often turn out to be "waves in media attention: they occur because the media, for whatever reason, fix upon some sort of crime, and publicize it." Shortly after Obama's election, a flood of stories suggested that right-wing violence was on the rise; a few years later, a study from the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point indicated that incidents of that sort actually declined in that period. So don't assume that a new age of domestic terror is dawning. The Vegas killers seem to have believed they were the vanguard of an uprising, shouting "This is the start of a revolution!" before they opened fire. But I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they were wrong.

Update: Amanda Miller, one of the shooters, has a couple of videos from the Bundy ranch on her YouTube page.

Update #2: In this Google Plus thread cross-posted from YouTube, the other shooter, Jerad Miller, explains his expulsion from the ranch:

I was out there but they told me and my wife to leave because I am a felon. They don't seem to understand that they are all felons now for intimidating law enforcement with deadly weapons. So don't tell you that they need people. We sold everything we had to buy supplies and quit our jobs to be there 24/7. How dare you ask for help and shun us dedicated patriots!

A later post in the thread is even more bitter. "Unlike all those loyal Nazis, I will not tolerate despotic rule over me and my family," he writes. "My family has bled for this nation and our freedoms and I will not let their sacrifice go unanswered without my own sacrifice. So let them call me a criminal. Let them smear my name all over the place. George Washington would be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with me and my wife. Who cares what all these loyalists think." And in a different post, he says: "I was down there. I was shunned by my fellow patriots. Don't go there thinking you will be accepted."

Update #3: Yet more on why the Millers were kicked off the ranch, this time from the Bundys' point of view:

Cliven Bundy's son…told The Associated Press that Jerad and Amanda Miller were asked to leave his father's ranch after being there for a few days this spring.

He said that while details were still sketchy, the Millers' conduct was the problem. He called the couple "very radical" and said they did not "align themselves" with the protest's main issues.

"Not very many people were asked to leave," he said. "I think they may have been the only ones."

NEXT: This is What $100 Trillion Looks Like!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am sure the media is drooling on themselves right now at the prospect of the real right wing terror attack with actual dead bodies they have so fondly been wishing for since Oklahoma City.

    The problem for the media is that far left and far right wing ideology are just two sides of the same coin. Neither of them are for small government and both believe in similarly loopy things. The media of course is too ignorant to understand that and wouldn’t admit it even if they did. So every time they think they have a real “right wing terrorist” they can use to slander their opponents, the guy turns out to hold the usual stew of nutty far left and far right wing views and the narrative of him being just another dangerous tea party type never quite fits.

    1. OK, they spouted “racist anti-government” views according to neighbors.

      Where do you get the left-wing stuff from? Are you making shit up again?

      1. Don’t lock eyes with it and don’t worry if the sun goes down. Retards don’t rule the night.

        1. How do you know this?

          Neither of them are for small government

          See, you are making shit up again. Just admit it. Hell, these two used the Gadsden flag to drape over the dead cops.

          1. I understand this because I literate and know what fascism actually is. Since you are retarded, it is understandable that you wouldn’t understand such.

            1. Jesus, John, don’t try to actually reason with it.

            2. John, it’s not sentient!

              It has no clue what concepts you were discussing. IT merely regurgitates a response to the specific stimulus of the word choice in your comment.

              You are completely wasting your time with it. It can’t comprehend anything being discussed here.

              It’s like a cockroach scuttling along the suddenly illuminated floor running towards darkness with no consciousness of what these things are.

            3. Time for a Turing test!

          2. The “them” he is referring to is the left and right wing ideologies. Another reading comprehension fail by PB.

            1. the guy turns out to hold the usual stew of nutty far left and far right wing views and the narrative of him being just another dangerous tea party type never quite fits.

              John will be proven wrong yet again.

              1. So what? It still doesn’t negate the fact that you read a a first grade level.

              2. Isn’t the left’s usual denunciation of “Tea Party types” that they don’t really believe in small government but just want to keep the gummint’s hands off of their Medicare?

                1. According to a Reason poll that is true. Take it up with Emily.

                  1. 8% true, anyway.

                    BUSHPIGS!!11!!!CHRISTFAGS!!11!!!

          3. Just because they used a Gadsden flag doesn’t mean they are for small government or align with the tea party…which is a group of people that protest high taxation and the size/scope of government.

            You know, those shitheads from the Vietman era carrying peace signs around we’re the same ones that blew up police stations. So can we paint the entire anti-war movement with the same brush we paint Bill Ayers and his terrorist buddies with?

            1. No, because collective guilt only goes in one direction.

              1. Exactly. If there’s any way the media can link violence with the Right, they will do so, but it’s totally unfair to link Occupy-related violence with Occupy, or Bill Ayers with Obama, etc.

                1. All of those rapes and assaults that happened at Occupy camps? That was the right wings fault as we’ll for creating the conditions that caused the people to protest in the first place.

              2. Right, because anybody that ever bitched about the size of government shares Mcveigh’s guilt but from the left, nobody shares the guild for the Weather Underground bombings (including their members apparently), the ELF attacks, the tree-spikers, the greenpeace attackers, the Rome and Madrid bombings, the unions attacks on line-crossers, etc etc etc.

                Fuck idiots like PB. He’s just pissed that his side is starting to lose.

            2. So are you saying that 99.9% of right wingers don’t arm up for 2nd amendment remedies, don’t spout fearful rhetoric, don’t approve of the Bundy type of thing, protest peacefully often, etc?

              The sad fact is that this country – at this point – has MUCH more to fear from the right. Those are the same old authoritarian – and, yes, Fascist tendencies.

              At other times in our history – such as the turn of the 20th century, leftists – often propelled by what they thought was happened in Russia, etc. – were the more dangerous radicals (bomb making, etc.). However, even those were largely recent immigrants.

              The current Right Wing Hate Everything movements are homegrown and very dangerous. This is a fact that even those on the right should be able to accept. After all, as long as it’s not you…why defend it?

              1. The sad fact is that this country – at this point – has MUCH more to fear from the right. Those are the same old authoritarian – and, yes, Fascist tendencies.

                Uh…yeah. ‘Cuz the left is never authoritarian, is it? The simple fact is that with a government as large and intrusive as the present one, the people have much more to fear from whomever is in power. At the moment that happens to be the center left – everything from local urban government and police forces, all the way up to the Feds and “Homeland Security.” Nearly every federal and state agency has its own police force of some sort and nearly everyone of those has its own militarized SWAT team.

                Seems to me that the only ones in fear in this country are the various governments – and they appear to be scared shitless. I wonder why? Don’t suppose it could be guilty consciences, do you?

                1. The simple fact is that with a government as large and intrusive as the present one, the people have much more to fear from whomever is in power

                  The people ALWAYS have more to fear from whomever is in power.

              2. You might consider that Fascism is not right wing. It is a form of socialism where the government has a close cronyish relationship with businesses rather than taking ownership.

                Violent radicals usually are more numerous when the other guys are in power. During Vietnam it was always the left. We might expect more from the right in these days, but it hasn’t materialized. Hmmmmmm.

      2. According to the left, all anti-government views are racist.

        1. That’s right. No one was anti-government until a black man became president. All the people protesting everything Obama does were apparently Bill Clinton’s biggest supporters.

          1. Bill Clinton was the first black president; his opponents were racists, too.

            1. No, his opposition was based on the GOP wanting full control, power and money – which they got with the election of GW.

              I was very politically active during those times and we had very very little of this right winger arm-up kill the pols kind of stuff.

              That’s a new one – which is because of a Black President, but also is helped along by those who get paid for it (Fox News, etc.).

              Basically, these people are low information human beings…it’s not hard for those with money to stir them up and make them blame other things (except their own personal ignorance) for their failures in this life.

              1. Bullshit. The militia movement first became nationally prominent when Clinton was in office.

                1. Simple thing to figure out.

                  Ask the FBI (probably published already) or other orgs that follow them.

                  There have always been those self styled militia. But they never had national spokespersons like Nugent, Hannity, etc. broadcasting 24/7/365

                  That’s a big difference.

                  Looking at some charts:
                  http://desertbeacon.files.word…..chart1.jpg

                  It does show a large amount in the 90’s, but we went way past that now.

                  So, I think we can say that these hate groups rise in response to Democrats as President, but are even more numerous dangerous with a “real” black President as opposed to one who simply likes blacks?

                  Those are amazing charts because they show the cluelessness of such folks – that they would virtually go away as soon as an authoritarian regime such as Cheney/Rumsfeld takes hold.

                  I repeat. These are low information human beings…

                  1. You are full of shit, Craig. People see that the federal government becomes more lawless with each passing administration. Bush expanded upon Clinton’s complete disrespect for the rule of law, and Obama has expanded it further. When the people that are arming every possible bureaucrat and agency also believe that they are above the law, do you not think that people should be concerned?

                    Libertarians are not the ones monitoring all of your communications, indefinitely detaining people, droning people, throwing people in jail for growing pot in places where it is legal, criminalizing gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, etc. Will some hardcore Team Red guys quit bitching if a Republican gets elected? Sure. Does that make Obama’s abuses of power any more legitimate? No way in hell.

              2. That’s a new one – which is because of a Black President,

                It’s not “a” black President, it is THIS black President. You really think there would be conservatives against Clarence Thomas? Thomas Sowell? Walter Williams? Herman Cain? Alan Keyes? J. C. Watts? Ken Blackwell?

                Apparently you see everything through race-colored glasses, and are thus a racist.

                1. As I showed above, it seems to be that they feel a one party system with authoritarian rule is the best way – no other possible reason they would fade into the woodwork when Cheney was King.

                  The black thing adds an extra 50-100% or so, according to the chart. Maybe more – because the chart is a couple years behind.

                  Yeah, so if Hillary had been elected we might have 1/2 the amount of such groups. Big difference.

                  So RACE has a heck of a lot to do with it. Claiming otherwise is simply not backed up by statistics.

                  1. Well, who can argue with a chart that has no source for its claims and no definitions for what constitutes a “hate group” or a “militia?”

                    And even if the chart is accurate, you are falling for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There are a lot of things that have occurred in the last 15 years that can impact these numbers that go beyond just “Obama is black.”

    2. The one-dimensional “left vs. right” distinctions formalized by the dominant political parties are inadequate. Libertarians are lumped in as “conservatives” because they oppose increased government spending, even though we favor throwing out most existing government institutions rather than conserving them. Progressives are “liberal” even though they are focused on defending (and expanding) the top-down model of government activism that has dominated politics in america since the 1930s, and the associated, entrenched bureaucracies that support them.

      It all feeds the two-party system where everyone is a center-right corporatist and the only important differences are whether to teach creationism and where one stands on the legal status of the fetus.

      1. Don’t forget teh gai marruj.

      2. Don’t forget that progressives are, by and large, the most supportive of anti-liberal policies like the police surveillance everyone all the time and do not want people to have 1A, 4A or 5A rights, which liberals have staunchly supported.

  2. The Vegas killers seem to have believed they were the vanguard of an uprising, shouting “This is the start of a revolution!” before they opened fire.

    Maybe they should have taken a page from Jim Morrison and said “this is the end”…of their lives. Nutcases gonna nutcase.

    1. No Episarch. You don’t understand. Every event must have a bigger meaning that advances the proper politics. These people can’t be isolated nuts. They are and must be a symbol for something larger. These people are just symptomatic of the racist and now violent disconnect from society and the greater good of the right wing. This incident is just a symptom of the greater nihilism and racism apparent in the right wing and its ideology. IF we don’t do something to repress this ideology and its hate speech and make its adherents understand that their views are not acceptable or tolerated in this country, the resulting blood will be on our hands.

      Yes, you can expect to see the above paragraph in various forms about three or four dozen times in the coming week or two.

      1. I have little doubt that this will be held up as justification for restarting the Janet Reno-era D.T.E.C. force, or whatever they call it. They’ve already done that, but it’s always nice to have a convenient right-wing-psycho story to help make your case.

    1. Why do I hang out here!? You all are nutcases!

    2. Tarran, I am not an FBI or ATF or any law enforcement offical, federal, state, local or military, nada, none.
      I am just a financial analyst at a major media company.
      If your ever in Hollywood, I can prove it to you at the Frolic room

      Sure, whatever you say Terry.

    3. Aren’t pathetic attempts at being an agent provocateur cute?

      1. Great line from Rosenthal’s book about infiltrating the JDL on behalf of the NYPD.

        “Whereas the NYPD’s penetration of the JDL’s organizational structure was a seduction, the ATF’s attempt was more akin to a forcible rape.

        1. RAPE KULTURE!!11!!!

  3. Two words: BATH SALTZZ!!1!!1onedyoneoneone!1

  4. Also, I hear shrieking. It seems to make up about 8% of the noise in this thread.

    1. Also, I hear shrieking shreeking. It seems to make up about 8% of the noise in this thread.

      FTFY

  5. How can a lone wolf be linked to a larger hate movement? Which is it?

    1. Because the “lone wolf” was inspired by the larger movement’s rhetoric and ideology. Therefore, we must do something to suppress that larger movement and its hateful ideology and rhetoric so that no more lone wolves are inspired by it to do harm.

      See how it works?

      1. Because the “lone wolf” was inspired by the larger movement’s rhetoric and ideology.

        Unless, of course, the larger movement is radical Islam, in which case the lone wolf is just perpetrating workplace violence, nothing to see here, move along.

      2. Except if the lone shooter was someone like SPLC-inspired shooter Floyd Lee Corkins.

  6. Clearly, if the local PD had armored personnel carriers, tanks, and drones, this never would have happened.

  7. So don’t assume that a new age of domestic terror is dawning.

    Awwww….hamburgers….

    /looks down and rubs hands together like Butters

  8. Why couldn’t they have gone after some specific bad cops, like ones that beat homeless people to death, instead of some random flatfoots?

    1. No kidding. It is bad enough they were crazy and homicidal. They apparently had to be retarded as well.

    2. Your point just shows hor fortunate our government is in its enemies. The dumbest thing these people could have done is what they did, just shoot some random cop for no reason. That ensures that people will hate them and there will be no political or moral element to how the public perceives their crime.

      If instead, they had targeted a bad cop, the reaction would have been much different and much more problematic for the government.

      1. Not to mention more beneficial to their cause. If you really want there to be a revolution, dispensing vigilante justice on known bad cops would be a good place to start.

        1. It is. And just killing random cops with no justification is the worst place to start.

          1. Yeah, but it’s a lot easier than going through the trouble of hunting down known bad cops. Personal information on police is difficult to come by, precisely because they fear justified retaliation.

            1. It’s not hard to find bad cops in Vegas. They’re proud when they shoot unarmed “civilians” and get away with it.

              http://www.fox5vegas.com/story…..tified-man

      2. I doubt that public reaction would be much different had they targeted a bad cop.

        If someone has enough information to identify a bad cop, the appropriate course of action is to go public and work through the courts and our established system of justice. Not to appoint oneself judge, jury, and executioner. That is a dangerous road to go down, and one I have no desire to see come to fruition.

        These people were evil, and their actions wouldn’t have been any more permissible had they decided to target a dirty cop.

        1. If someone has enough information to identify a bad cop, the appropriate course of action is to go public and work through the courts and our established system of justice.

          That’s a joke, right? Because a joke is all that happens when people try that.

          I’m not advocating that people go vigilante on cops like the ones that beat Kelly Thomas to death, but I wouldn’t lose any sleep if they did.

          1. No, it’s not a joke. Despite all the crap, we still have a system of government that is responsive to public opinion when it reaches a critical mass. Reform is possible.

            1. Thousands of wrong-door raids and dead puppies everywhere disagree.

            2. Reform is possible.

              No. No, it’s not. Power is a one-way ratchet.

            3. responsive to public opinion when it reaches a critical mass.

              This is a bug, not a feature.

        2. If someone has enough information to identify a bad cop, the appropriate course of action is to go public and work through the courts and our established system of justice.

          How’s that working out?

          1. How’s that working out?

            Not so good.
            – The restless ghost of Kelly Thomas

      3. So who gets to decide is a cop is bad?

        1. Let’s start with people whose dogs have been killed by cops. I think they can decide if that cop is a bad cop.

  9. Militias can’t be in the mainstream?

    1. They’re in the constitution, and therefore not mainstream.

    2. Constitution of the State of Illinois

      ARTICLE XII

      MILITIA

      SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
      The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
      residing in the State except those exempted by law.
      (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

      SECTION 2. SUBORDINATION OF MILITARY POWER
      The military shall be in strict subordination to the
      civil power.
      (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

      SECTION 3. ORGANIZATION, EQUIPMENT AND DISCIPLINE
      The General Assembly shall provide by law for the
      organization, equipment and discipline of the militia in
      conformity with the laws governing the armed forces of the
      United States.
      (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

      SECTION 4. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND OFFICERS
      (a) The Governor is commander-in-chief of the organized
      militia, except when they are in the service of the United
      States. He may call them out to enforce the laws, suppress
      insurrection or repel invasion.
      (b) The Governor shall commission militia officers who
      shall hold their commissions for such time as may be provided
      by law.
      (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

      SECTION 5. PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST
      Except in cases of treason, felony or breach of peace,
      persons going to, returning from or on militia duty are
      privileged from arrest.
      (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

      1. The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
        residing in the State except those exempted by law.

        Is *this* “the Social Contract”?

        1. Used to just be abled bodied men 17-45. Now its everyone able bodied.

          1. Serious question for the legal minds on here: could some enterprising gun-grabber go after these state constitutional amendments under the supremacy clause with an ADA complaint?

            Shit, never mind. DELETE! DELETE!

            1. No – physical and mental capabilities and armed service have a “rational relationship”.

              1. I’m still smarting from you beating me to the google driverless car comment earlier today, so I’ll reserve my thanks until someone corroborates your statement.

  10. When we suggest that thuggish or corrupt cops might indicate a culture of abusive authority, we’re painted as anarchistic teathuglitarians who want to repeal the rule of law and return civilization to the barbaric vigilantism of the (mythical) wild west.

    When they clambor up on a pile of corpses to chastize gunowners/militias/conservatives for the evils of some nut or another, they’re being pragmatic and statesmanlike.

  11. Yet these divisions are frequently missed deliberately ignored in public discussions of the issue

    FIFY

  12. I’m going to just go ahead and assume all the news reports are wrong.

  13. How giddy Mark Potok must have been when he first heard this story. SPLC fundraising for 2014 has its headline now.

    1. But ‘John’ says this guy is a mix of leftist and right-wing views.

      1. I’m gonna guess probably around 8% left-wing views.

        1. I of course am at 99% left-wing views.

        2. Incidentally, where does the “8%” thing come from? I missed the origin of that.

          1. It came about because PB couldn’t figure out how to comprehend polling data that he was citing.

      2. But ‘John’ says this guy is a mix of leftist and right-wing views.

        Doesn’t make any difference shreeky?..for the purposes of fundraising it’s all right wing all the time!

        PS: ITALWAYSNEEDSMOARCHRISTFAG

  14. The linked article talks about their possible links to “white supremacy”. So they shot two…. white guys? WTF? UR DOIN’ IT WRONG

    1. They should have just skipped shooting innocents, and stuck with themselves.

      1. I’m too lazy to search for it, but I believe there’s a fake PSA to the effect “Thinking of going on a shooting rampage? Do yourself first!”

        1. I wish these two had seen it and not guessed at the parody nature of it…

  15. Also FTA (and WTF?!)

    “Marlene Buck works at the Denny’s on Nellis across from Wal-Mart. She said she was impressed with Metro’s quick response.

    “It took less than fifteen minutes,” she said.”

    quick response?

  16. Fielder said she had heard the couple make anti-government statements in the past ? including a desire to overthrow the government and President Obama and kill police officers ? but did not think they were serious

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us…..ee-n125766

    Never bet on anything ‘John’ claims.

    1. Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

    2. STILLNEEDZMOARCHRISFAGSHREEKY

  17. If you really want there to be a revolution, dispensing vigilante justice on known bad cops would be a good place to start.

    Aside from the obvious practical difficulties, the cops will (since there ARE NO GOOD COPS) circle the wagons and weep great bitter crocodile tears over the fallen heroes as they carry them off to their heroes’ resting place.

    If somebody croaked the pigs who killed Kelly Thomas, there would be a full dress parade of thousands of outraged cops to pay homage to the poor innocent victims of the War on Cops. And their paranoia and viciousness will increase.

    1. If somebody croaked the pigs who killed Kelly Thomas, there would be a full dress parade of thousands of outraged cops to pay homage to the poor innocent victims of the War on Cops.

      I seriously wonder what would happen if people showed up to the parade with posters of Kelly Thomas. Likely there would be media there. Would the cops take the signs and kick some ass on live television? If they did, wouldn’t that just confirm what the protesters were protesting?

      1. The sign-taking and ass-kicking would never make it onto people’s TV screens. The newscaster might make a brief verbal mention of anti-government protestors trying to disrupt the funeral.

  18. OT (and this thread needs it): so Susan Rice was bloviating the talking point this weekend about Bergdahl “serving with honor and distinction” before he deserted, if he in fact did desert. She said that service “with honor and distinction” ,eat that he deserved all kinds of support and accolades and blah, blah, blah.

    Somebody needs to ask her if Nadal Hassan also served, in her eyes, with honor and distinction before his Ft hood rampage.

    1. What the fuck are they giving her/holding over her to get her to just double down on the stupidity and lies like that?

      1. You want my honest answer? I think they’re trotting her out to say this gibberish because anyone who disagrees with her can be labeled a racist or sexist. Had Hagel or Kerry spouted that bullshit, they’d be pilloried.

  19. Bed-Wetter Adam Weinstein and his Gawker lickspittles are masturbating over this so hard I hope their tiny cocks pop off.

    Oh, and:

    imeldasnarkosUAdam Weinstein
    Today 10:51am

    Uh…let’s all make a pact that if any of us hear our neighbors talking about this kind of shit, we call the cops.

    1. The degree to which these fucks desperately want any killer or nutcase to be politically aligned with those they hate is pathetic. It’s a weird form of negative projection; if someone that they hate does something bad, it means their “side” didn’t do it, so they must be good. Which results, pretty much, in them hoping for more of this kind of violence in the slim hope that next time, it will be done by someone who they can unequivocally say is on the other TEAM, thereby proving why their TEAM is better.

      Disgusting.

      1. See John. A perfect description.

        1. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

      2. +1

        For examples read literally any one of PB’s posts to this article.

    2. Yeah, the only thing that will fix antigovernment views is to report people who have them to the police, so they can be properly.investigated.

      1. “Under the spreading chestnut tree
        I sold you and you sold me “

  20. In Case You Missed This Wonket Scoop, These Are The Vegas Cop Killers, Jerad And Amanda Miller

    Read more at http://wonkette.com/551104/in-…..ro3rKlG.99

    1. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

    2. That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Considering you have the reading comprehension skills of a first grader, it’s no surprise you’d gravitate to something like that.

  21. Uh…let’s all make a pact that if any of us hear our neighbors talking about this kind of shit, we call the cops.

    SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING.

    Narc Nation, FTW!

    1. We are all Havana neighborhood revolutionary committees now?

  22. Speaking of people frenziedly jerking it over this…

    Shreeek brings Wonkette links to show us how awful we are.

    I’m convinced.

    1. Wonkette reported the names first.

      1. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

  23. Re: Peter Caca,

    OK, they spouted “racist anti-government” views according to neighbors.

    Where do you get the left-wing stuff from? Are you making shit up again?

    Are you arguing that leftists cannot be anti-government and racist at the very same time?

  24. For the sake of equivalency game, let’s not forget that Christopher Dorner went on a shooting rampage (trained in the art of war, killed a cop) because he felt he was a victim of NYPD racism. Hated the NRA too.

    I suppose he was “anti government” too.

  25. “When actual organizations talk up non-defensive violence, they are often isolated and despised within the larger militia milieu.”

    Because the militia was (is) a great way to ensure that no-one violates NAP. If you kill/assault/steal from a member of the militia, then you’re gonna have a bad time. If you command the militia to kill/assault/steal from their own people, they don’t want to do it (for obvious reasons).

    The fact that militias have been reluctant (or banned) from leaving their area has historically reduce their violence against others.

    Given the choice between a (voluntary) militia and standing army, at least for protecting Liberty, there is no real comparison. And yes, the 2nd amendment was re-written before being ratified to ensure that it didn’t mention involuntary service.

    1. And if you’re on the left and hostile to liberty, the last thing you want is an armed populace.

  26. Fucking psychos go on shooting sprees all the time.

    Why is it that it gets more media attention when one of them appears to have some fucked up motive based on an extreme political ideology?

    Are these guys really any different than Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza?
    Just another couple of mental cases who have taken a bunch of random shit and mixed it with a heavy dose of their own crazy.

    1. Why is it that it gets more media attention when one of them appears to have some fucked up motive based on an extreme political ideology?

      Because that confirms the narrative.

      Are these guys really any different than Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza?

      You can’t prevent a Laughner or Lanza because you can’t identify crazy. However you can identify people who disagree with the political left. Don’t doubt for a second that people like Tony would fully support a Final Solution to the conservative/libertarian problem.

    2. If truly they were at the Bundy place as well as sucking up all the anti-gubment (includes cops, of course) BS here and everywhere else, then – yes – it is different than a random crazy…

      The reason is that it is more repeatable AND the violence is continually fueled and stoked. All those a-holes at the Bundy Ranch walked away thinking they were invincible and that they had really stood up to – and beat – that bad bad gubment which wants them to pay taxes. Chances are that the perps – if this is true – then were egged on and reinforced by all their internet friends…

      Millions of people occupy that middle ground between being completely bat-shit crazy…and being just crazy – with the ability to, with enough provocation, to be pushed over the edge.

      Free Speech and Freedom of Expression do not mean that you can walk along next to a top and hold up a target.

      Of course, you can’t go around arresting all the haters in this country either. Ideally, people would get a clue – and have common sense to realize that while for THEM it may be a fun spare time pursuit, all this internet BS just may be taken more seriously by those who can’t separate reality and fantasy.

      In other words, tone it down just a little. Yeah, I know, civility is dead along with those cops.

      1. Craiginmass are you serious ??? You call people you disagree with an “Unruly armed mob”, egged on by their own isolated, echo chamber. Then use two nutjobs as a literary template to stencil in a narrative that portrays Libertarians as crazy, racist, killers.

        In other words you insult peoples intelligence, and moral integrity. Then ask for civility. For a while there I thought you were pretty clever, for a troll.

    3. It might be prudent for the people agitating for maximum gun proliferation not to go around shooting people, and it really isn’t fair play that this particular political cause has angry men with arsenals behind it. In other countries that’s called terrorism.

      Most of the country wants the few gun control laws on the table, but politicians are too scared of the NRA not giving them money. Add being scared that someone might shoot your face off and we’re not exactly in the realm of democratic debate any longer.

      1. Re: Tony,

        It might be prudent for the people agitating for maximum gun proliferation not to go around shooting people,

        The only armed citizens licensed to carry that routinely shoot people are called “cops” by everyone else.

        In other countries that’s called terrorism.

        Like in China, Myanmar, Cuba… those countries.

        1. So these two were just braver versions of you, going after the scourge that are cops? Was the fact that they were able to get the cops just proof that the cops weren’t “good guys” with guns? I’m told that’s the only way to stop bad guys with them.

      2. I see that Tony is still chasing after painted devils.

  27. The people who drove the government off the Bundy ranch are committing an act of armed aggression according to any libertarian’s definition. (Otherwise you’d have to admit that the government’s threat of force is not actually coercion.) The only reason we’re not Janet Renoing these guys is because the angry, armed morons in this country, a few of whom blow up buildings in response to such actions. Even if you pretend that there aren’t white supremacists in the mix, it is largely about that anyway–if these guys had brown skin they’d be thugs or terrorists (depending on the shade).

    1. Re: Tony,

      The people who drove the government off the Bundy ranch are committing an act of armed aggression according to any libertarian’s definition.

      You mean the government committed an act of armed aggression against itself? Because it was the government that recalled their officers.

      Even if you pretend that there aren’t white supremacists in the mix[…]

      There were clearly at least two, who were invited to leave, much to those two chagrin. Nobody is pretending anything.

      — if these guys had brown skin they’d be thugs or terrorists (depending on the shade).

      Nice to know you finally accept that there is a lot of politics in how things are reported in these lands.

      1. There were at least three, including Mr. Bundy. Remember the stuff he said that got all of you morons to back quietly but quickly away while whistling?

        1. Like you Tony the BLM is not racist. It’s an equal opportunity oppressor.

          http://www.reviewjournal.com/c…..t-beat-blm

  28. This one really has amazing facts in it!

    First of all, there is the Tea Party and Bundy connections.

    Then there is the brave – but very dead – armed citizen whose concealed gun made him too brave. Nice try, but I’m sure his family would prefer his trip to Wal-Mart didn’t end in his end.

    Then there are the little tidbits – like that Amanda Miller (shooter) worked at Hobby Lobby, another example of the American Talibs (or Fascists, take your choice).

    And, already, the right wing pundits are calling this an Obama False Flag operation…..

    Wow…..this one is going to play out for a long while.

    1. And craiginmass will be choking down on all the muck that the political PR firms will be churning out.

  29. So this shooting was Bush’s fault.

    Ok then.

  30. Lol. It’s funny how Tony, Craig and PB are so worried about violence, when most of what they espouse ultimately requires violence in order to survive.

    Keep lying to yourselves by thinking you are compassionate and stand on some moral high ground. Theft is immoral, and you are not at all compassionate if you can’t get it voluntarily but have to hide behind politicians and be shielded from the consequences of your advocacy for thievery and violence. It’s not just you folks, but also those who fly a false flag of “freedom” (being clueless of the definition) while espousing their own kind of violence and thievery.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.