Q: What would George do (about the Bundy militia)? A: Get tough, dammit.

[Bucky]

This is how it oughta be handled: ==> The Whisky Rebellion

Alexander Hamilton, on putting down the Whisky Rebellion, told George Washington:

'Tis far better to err on the other side {by having too many troops suppress the anti-tax uprising}. Whenever the government appears in arms, it ought to appear like an Hercules and inspire respect by display of strength.

And so Washington sent down a shitload of state militiamen (not the federal army, please note) to arrest the Whisky Rebels. They scattered like cockroaches.

I mean, it'd probably be best to pardon all but a couple of the ring leaders when it's all said and done. Slap 'em on the wrist and send them home (that's what Washington did with the Whisky Rebels the year following their arrest and scattering). It's not unlike how Clinton dealt with the idiots who tried to kidnap Elian Gonzalez in 2000. When mobs of people defy the rule of law, you have to show them that order will prevail. That doesn't mean don't temper it with mercy in the aftermath. The lawbreakers in Miami got off scot free too. But the defiance of the rule of law is intolerable.

These armed thugs (and they're thugs, not terrorists, even if those "YokelHaram" jokes are pretty funny right now... before anyone's gotten killed) have been enboldened by the Republicans and their reckless conspiracy mongering over the past 20 years. There's a very real risk they won't scatter like the Whisky Rebels did in 1794. (The Republican Party that encouraged rebellion against the Washington Administration was actually the grandfather of today's Democrats). Sending in armed state militia could turn into an actual shoot-out, if not managed properly. But doing nothing only breeds contempt for the government.

But then again, I believe we have new non-lethal technology for mob control. These ugly toys will fuck you up pretty bad, but they don't leave holes in their victims like bullets do. It's harsh treatment up front, but it's kinder in the long run than the current policy of letting anarchistic punks walk all over the dignity of the United States. And dropping a few non-lethal LRAD beams on these armed hooligans will pretty quickly expose the lie that the Second Amendment is any guard against tyranny.

[peace13]

1. We have laws regarding behaviors and..

..taking over Federal buildings with guns is called terrorism, like it or not. Arrest these people and put them in jail so their brothers will understand that the law stands for people of all color. Or...change the law.

As far as non lethal technology goes. If I use lethal force / tools to commit a crime why would I expect our law enforcement groups to use anything less.

[Bucky]

2. Hey, "Peace13", are you serious about your DU user name?

The practical reason not to use lethal force is that it could get some of the SWAT team members killed.

The moral reason not to is because we're better than them.

The philosophical reason not to is because the job of the government is to protect everyone's rights, even those of the criminals who defy the laws of the nation.

The socio-political reason not to is because we don't want to turn criminals into martyrs. A republic uses proportional force to enforce the rule of law. Slaughtering lawbreakers is the mark of a tyrant.

[Bettie]

3. In other words:

let them go, boys will be boys....nothing to see here folks, just let the boys have their fun in their new party house.

ETA: Note he spoke of NON LETHAL solutions, not killing them.

[Bucky]

4. Of course nothing I suggested ever implied "letting them go"

I'm pretty sure Peace 13 was saying use lethal, not nonlethal, force. To wit:

As far as non lethal technology goes. If I use lethal force / tools to commit a crime why would I expect our law enforcement groups to use anything less.

Like Hamilton & Washington, I agree it's not wise to let defiance of the law to fester. I'm just saying non-lethal force is preferable, in terms of demoralizing potential supporters of the criminals. A straight up slaughter, which it seems the previous corespondent was willing to risk, would be a boon for the Republican Party at a time when they seem determined to implode as a national party.

[peace13]

6. Let me be clear....

Currently, in the US when I organize a peaceful demonstration I have to fill out a form with the local police asking permission to stand on public property. We are given a time and place and a form to carry while the demonstration is on. That is how it works. If I don't do this I will be visited by the police. There are laws. I might not like them so I choose which way I want to work and accept the fallout. These folks holed up guns and trespassing have made a choice.

As far as your mocking of my name goes, I said arrest them. It is ignorant to think that law enforcement would arrive without a method of defense. Of course the best outcome is a peaceful one. The trespassers will determine how it goes.

We are a country without laws now. Race, social and financial status determines who pays, who goes to jail, who walks. There is no peace for most. Watch how this unfolds.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. W would bomb Concord and Lexington, historically known to be militia hotbeds.

And if they just happened to be places he wanted bombed anyway, well, happy coincidence !

[2naSalit]

7. And what of the wildlife at this facility...

not all have migrated out and with use of sound devices and the nonbullet types of crowd control devices would certainly harm the wildlife the refuge is designated to protect. I would hope that this issue will be handled with this factor in mind.