Poll: NWFA and the Finicum shooting: where does the membership stand?

[tionico]

http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/other/2016/02/02/Finicum%20family%20statement2.pdf

Detailed Version from Oregon Live
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT FROM THE LAVOY FINICUM FAMILY 2-2-2016

The purpose of this statement is to supplement the statement we issued earlier. It does
not contradict our previous statement, but only serves to supplement, support and add
detail to our previous position.


thanks for this. I am glad the Finicum family are not taking this lying down. Seems he was a good man, greatly loved and respected by many. I saw a video published by ChrisAnne Hall, a Constitutional Attorney, who has been out there, spoken on the situation, etc, and is ONE sharp Lady. She played a statement made by LaVoy the night before he was murdered... in it he addressed several Indian tribes in that area, and spoke as one of them. I believe he is, too... now if THEY get riled up over the death by government of one of their own, and begin to take a strong stand against it, and the other injustices perpetrated by the Feds, things could move along in some interesting directions pretty seriously. Much of the BLM lands in question in that section of Oregon were taken by force from the various INdian tribes.... who were then displaced ubnjustly. Read the history of that area. FedGov came in first, removed the tribes to wherever, then the European background settlers began to come in and settle... the Hammonds amongst them

 

[IheartSig]

It kind of blows my mind that there is such a massive lack of objective bias here.

One side presents their facts and its all smoke and mirrors and lies, some have even invented MORE conspiracy theories to support their "facts" (I use the term facts loosely as not many here seem interested in facts, they have their conclusions and are desperately grasping at "facts" to support them. BTW that's not how it works....but moving on).

The other side presents their facts and its gospel right out of the gate? People by the way, that have just as much interest in turning these events their way as the other side. People who, by the way, have their own motives as much as the other side.

It takes 5 minutes to spout some bullbubblegum on youtube and upload it, true or not, and this is the factual, relevant information you guys are using to support your assertions?

It seems like the majority have their minds made up, regardless of what comes out, so why bother? It doesn't seem like there is a push for truth here, rather a push to twist and alter conjecture to manufacture evidence of desire being fact.

 

[tionico]

It kind of blows my mind that there is such a massive lack of objective bias here.

One side presents their facts and its all smoke and mirrors and lies, some have even invented MORE conspiracy theories to support their "facts" (I use the term facts loosely as not many here seem interested in facts, they have their conclusions and are desperately grasping at "facts" to support them. BTW that's not how it works....but moving on).

The other side presents their facts and its gospel right out of the gate? People by the way, that have just as much interest in turning these events their way as the other side. People who, by the way, have their own motives as much as the other side.

It takes 5 minutes to spout some bullbubblegum on youtube and upload it, true or not, and this is the factual, relevant information you guys are using to support your assertions?

It seems like the majority have their minds made up, regardless of what comes out, so why bother? It doesn't seem like there is a push for truth here, rather a push to twist and alter conjecture to manufacture evidence of desire being fact.

bias is not objective. It is subjective.

FACTS are objective.. and when several disparate sources produce facts so similar as to be remarkable, one tends to weight those facts more heavily than others.

Now, when one goes back, WAY back, to the time when Oregon was first petitioning to become a state, and looks at some of the documents ( I refer specifically to the Charter, approved by first the COngress, then the People of what became the State of Oregon, there are certain terms, conditions, proceedures that were plainly written in that Charter. Had the terms of that Charter been actualised upon Oregon's being granted statehood, the Hammonds Father and Son would not be in Jail, Ammon Bund never would have heard of the Hammones, nor we of any of them, and that wildlife refuge would not exist, nor would the two Hammons be in prison right now. If this makes no sense, go and find that Charter and READ it. It comprises the rules and conditions under which Oregon would become a state.

Think that ancient history is not conected with this current discussion? That's because you are ignorant of that charter and its contents, binding upon boty "parties" (the US Government and the People of the new State of Oregon).

 

[IheartSig]

bias is not objective. It is subjective.

FACTS are objective.. and when several disparate sources produce facts so similar as to be remarkable, one tends to weight those facts more heavily than others.

Now, when one goes back, WAY back, to the time when Oregon was first petitioning to become a state, and looks at some of the documents ( I refer specifically to the Charter, approved by first the COngress, then the People of what became the State of Oregon, there are certain terms, conditions, proceedures that were plainly written in that Charter. Had the terms of that Charter been actualised upon Oregon's being granted statehood, the Hammonds Father and Son would not be in Jail, Ammon Bund never would have heard of the Hammones, nor we of any of them, and that wildlife refuge would not exist, nor would the two Hammons be in prison right now. If this makes no sense, go and find that Charter and READ it. It comprises the rules and conditions under which Oregon would become a state.

Think that ancient history is not conected with this current discussion? That's because you are ignorant of that charter and its contents, binding upon boty "parties" (the US Government and the People of the new State of Oregon).

Really man? The "facts" being used are hardly facts. They are some grainy footage, testimony from BIAS individuals, one of which is a barely 18 year old girl who is at the very least prone to the suggestions of the "adults" around her, and a bunch of youtube propaganda videos.

What part of the discussion are you referring to? Thus far everyone who has tried to enter into discussion about ANY of this with opposing viewpoints or information has been pushed out and belittled. You yourself chose to assume I am "ignorant" and you don't even know me.

When Oregon was granted statehood in 1859, it was the only state in the Union with a constitution that forbade black people from living, working, or owning property there. It was illegal for black people even to move to the state until 1926. So forgive me if your attempt to correlate the states original charter to the current events of a man losing his life, seems comical, because it is.

Again, this lends credence to my observation of the total lack of objectivity being shown here. You just jammed a bunch of bullbubblegum about Oregons original charter into a post on a thread discussing weather or not it was a "good shoot or bad shoot". If you didn't have information to refute, you certainly manufactured some other bullbubblegum to throw in. That's my point. You, and the rest, are so convinced of what you believe, that facts and relevant information have no place in your ranting.

 

[tionico]

Really man? The "facts" being used are hardly facts. They are some grainy footage, testimony from BIAS individuals, one of which is a barely 18 year old girl who is at the very least prone to the suggestions of the "adults" around her, and a bunch of youtube propaganda videos.

What part of the discussion are you referring to? Thus far everyone who has tried to enter into discussion about ANY of this with opposing viewpoints or information has been pushed out and belittled. You yourself chose to assume I am "ignorant" and you don't even know me.

When Oregon was granted statehood in 1859, it was the only state in the Union with a constitution that forbade black people from living, working, or owning property there. It was illegal for black people even to move to the state until 1926. So forgive me if your attempt to correlate the states original charter to the current events of a man losing his life, seems comical, because it is.

Again, this lends credence to my observation of the total lack of objectivity being shown here. You just jammed a bunch of bullbubblegum about Oregons original charter into a post on a thread discussing weather or not it was a "good shoot or bad shoot". If you didn't have information to refute, you certainly manufactured some other bullbubblegum to throw in. That's my point. You, and the rest, are so convinced of what you believe, that facts and relevant information have no place in your ranting.

you forget that that 18 year old girl had her phone at the scene, and had called someone who recorded her blow-by-blow account of the events as they unfolded... hardly "delusional".

Further, that conversation was NOT heard by the other two who were arrested shortly after the shoting stopped, both of which later came foreard, neither having been able to speak with the other (can't "synch" their acccounts), and one of them, after her release from custody, was able to review the video the FBI released, having already made a detailed statment of the events, and then went over the video in high res, and recounted the story again as it was viewed... and all those accounts line up quite well. That set of varied, uncoordinated accounts tends to paint quite a damaging picture of what actually came down that day. Don't trty and pawn this all off as a "total lack of objectivity here".

and if you don't know what Oregon's Statehood Charter, a binding document, holds, why are you even posting here? THAT is what was to have happened as Oregon became a state. And the FACT we are all discussing the assassination of a man who was standing up for what SHOULD have happened back then, and the illegal usurpations ot power exherted by federal agents in that area and multiple others here and there) reveals your own not too well hidden agenda going in. How long have you been studying the issues underlying the Hammond trials, false imprisonment, harrassment, threats, illegal restrictions on their freedom, theft of the ir property and assets and the lawful use of those properties.... which are alll the root of this "occupation" to bring attention to the federal abuses of power. LaVoy Finnicum was NOT assassiinated in a vacuum. the significance of his murder is within the context of the larger picture.

 

[IheartSig]

you forget that that 18 year old girl had her phone at the scene, and had called someone who recorded her blow-by-blow account of the events as they unfolded... hardly "delusional".

When did I say she was "delusional" ? I didn't. I said she is a young girl and likely prone to the suggestions of the adults around her. At 18, most kids are to some extent. Keep twisting actual information to fit your narrative though....

Further, that conversation was NOT heard by the other two who were arrested shortly after the shoting stopped, both of which later came foreard, neither having been able to speak with the other (can't "synch" their acccounts), and one of them, after her release from custody, was able to review the video the FBI released, having already made a detailed statment of the events, and then went over the video in high res, and recounted the story again as it was viewed... and all those accounts line up quite well. That set of varied, uncoordinated accounts tends to paint quite a damaging picture of what actually came down that day. Don't trty and pawn this all off as a "total lack of objectivity here".

Ohhh I get it, its entirely impossible that any of the "witnesses" (seeing as how to this crowd, the only witnesses are the occupiers) fabricated anything? They are 100% accurate, couldn't be wrong? Dicounting the Rashomon effect entirely, it's not at all odd to you that three different people from three different areas all have the same story? One at least seems to be privy to information she couldn't have possible known from the floorboards of the vehicle...weird.....

and if you don't know what Oregon's Statehood Charter, a binding document, holds, why are you even posting here? THAT is what was to have happened as Oregon became a state. And the FACT we are all discussing the assassination of a man who was standing up for what SHOULD have happened back then, and the illegal usurpations ot power exherted by federal agents in that area and multiple others here and there) reveals your own not too well hidden agenda going in. How long have you been studying the issues underlying the Hammond trials, false imprisonment, harrassment, threats, illegal restrictions on their freedom, theft of the ir property and assets and the lawful use of those properties.... which are alll the root of this "occupation" to bring attention to the federal abuses of power. LaVoy Finnicum was NOT assassiinated in a vacuum. the significance of his murder is within the context of the larger picture.

More bullbubblegum and misdirection. Thanks for again proving my point. It literally has NOTHING to do with whether this was a justified shoot or not. You keep bringing it up because you are desperate to validate your own thoughts and a lot of fears. Its sad.

For the record, I am not saying this was a just shoot or not. I don't know. there aren't enough facts yet. What there are, are a lot of bullbubblegum conjecture and fear mongering painted up as "facts" and that doesn't do anyone any good. Like I said before, you guys already had your mind made up and that's fine, keep banging the drum and being who you are. None of you are willing to do anything but type furiously at your computer and sift through youtube conspiracy videos any way, so who cares?

IF there were real patriots involved in this, they are now dead, or in jail. Meanwhile you all watched it play out and did nothing. Now that its over, everyone who wasn't there seems to know so much about a situation they weren't involved in. weird.

Just don't think every member of this forum is naïve enough to swallow the horse bubblegum you are peddling. The federal government will have its day in court, and they will very likely win, as they always do, right or wrong. The misinformation and propaganda you guys are spreading are only making it harder for actual facts to be recognized and utilized.

 

[Stomper]

For the good of ALL that's sane, somebody has to do it.....


SQUIRREL!!

 

[IheartSig]

For the good of ALL that's same, somebody has to do it.....


SQUIRREL!!

View attachment 276087

The squirrel is clearly shocked that you refuse to sell me a ST helmet. If we are being honest.

 

[Stomper]

Just wait until I finish getting my home office remodeled and I have the four mannequins in full armor on display.

 

[IheartSig]

Just wait until I finish getting my home office remodeled and I have the four mannequins in full armor on display.

I am jealous. I always said, if I got rich and could afford a big house with one of those center stair cases, id have a storm trooper on each side like a knight in those old mansions.

 

[mike633]

The ROOT CAUSE of this shooting goes back to the ranchers burning 157 acres of BLM controlled land. They were given sentences totally out of proportion to their "crime". They were railroaded by a court and Judge who was completely uninformed, ignorant, unqualified to weigh matters of ranching, grazing and fire control practices. Ranchers are most often the "First Responders" to "Wild Fires". They often have them under control or out before the first BLM pumper leaves their yard, often hundreds of miles away. The range land is their life blood, Ranchers DO NOT burn the feed their cows depend on. There would not have been any of this if the Harmons had been given fair treatment.

 

[buckster]

Your poll is missing at least one option; "Not enough info to form a valid opinion." Neither of the two choices allows for someone to acknowledge they may not know what happened.

I'll second that. I admit I don't know what happened out there, and that I'll probably never know.
There is video of his reaction before being shot. He puts his hands up first, then reached for his coat. Was he going for a gun? I don't know, but I do know if you at first stop for the cops, and then run when they have you pulled over... that they'll be assuming the worst of your behavior when they finally do stop you. If he really intended to give up he probably should have kept his hands up.

 

[U201491]

I'll second that. I admit I don't know what happened out there, and that I'll probably never know.
There is video of his reaction before being shot. He puts his hands up first, then reached for his coat. Was he going for a gun? I don't know, but I do know if you at first stop for the cops, and then run when they have you pulled over... that they'll be assuming the worst of your behavior when they finally do stop you. If he really intended to give up he probably should have kept his hands up.

What would Your reaaction be to being shot in the side.You would reach for the burning ! Was well orchestrated without sound and poor resolution!

 

[Mark Torrence]

Last Friday, I wrote a long series of posts about the Finicum video and related events. It's on page 98 of the big thread:
<broken link removed>

I wrote it because I was laid up with a lame knee, reading online, and I couldn't believe how many people were jumping on the anti-cop conspiracy bandwagon, looking for any means imaginable to call this a bad shoot.

That thread is up to 111 pages now. Holy cow! There is no logical discourse, only emotional response, uninformed opinion, and fallacy. Ad hominem attack and head-in-the-sand are the apparent favorites.

The good news is that NWFA is not the only prominent gun board plagued by this problem.

The bad news is that this kind of thing makes gun forums, gun communities, and gun-owners in general look like a bunch of crazy people, because the press and the non-gun-owning public cannot distinguish between "normal people" NWFA members & "other" NWFA members. Even worse, they don't care to try. It is much better for the MSM anti-gun mission if they are able to portray all NWFA members as crazy people based on the never-ending spew of a vocal minority of members.

I got a PM from a long-time member here who warned me that "NWFA" isn't what it used to be, and that my posts would not be well received. This wasn't anyone I knew, just some random guy.

I have a theory: The members of this board are a silent majority of real people plus a very vocal minority of "other" people. Real people don't have the time or inclination to argue with "other" people online, but they might vote in a poll if one was available. So here you go!

Why should you vote? Because the "other" people don't know that they are a minority. They post non-stop and no one ever says anything different, so they just keep going. If this poll comes out 80-20 in favor of "good shoot", several good things will happen. The "other" people will go silent, which will be good for your image and reputation here. Members will have their faith in humanity restored by the realization that not everyone here is an anti-cop conspiracy nut. All of this can be accomplished by simple participation in a poll, and it may help shore up the reputation of gun-owners in general.

Of course, the other possibility is that NWFA members will swing 80-20 in favor of bad shoot, in which case either the OSP and the FBI admitted that they murdered Finicum on purpose and presented new evidence to support their new claim, or NWFA members are all crazy, or I am an inbred goat.

No harm in finding out!

A recent thread suggests that Joe is surprised that his board is up to 36,000 members. I wonder how many are active? I wonder how many have gone silent over the years because of that "NWFA is not what it used to be" perspective? I wonder how to invite some back to vote in this poll? If you know someone who went silent, maybe send them a link to this poll. Get them to vote. Take your board back.

 

[Mark Torrence]

I don't know the name of the fellow who wrote this piece and I am new to this forum. That said I would like to express my thanks to him for so clearly stating my own thoughts on this tragedy. I like most of you have watched the unedited video several times and it is clear to me that this was in every way a righteous shooting. I am a Paramedic and have had lots of training in many different scenarios. Had Finicum gotten out of the vehicle and stood still (or stayed in the vehicle until he was told to exit) (or never tried to run in the first place) with his hands raised he would never have been shot. When one has several law enforcement officers pointing weapons at them grabbing for your belt line and moving in circles is a STUPID idea unless your objective is to get shot! Comply and it will be fine. I work with many LEO's on a daily basis and they will tell you the same thing. I probably would have shot him and I m on his side!
All that said YES the ranchers in the area were being criminally abuse by two federal bureaus and a corrupt county sheriff because the federal government wants their land! This is wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Had the protesters moved into the Malheur refuge WITHOUT guns then the biased liberal MSM and our criminally negligent governor would have never shifted the focus from the abuses of the county sheriff, USFWS and BLM to the "ARMED MILITANTS" That single move unfortunately completely invalidated the entire point of the occupation and what they wanted to accomplish. This is a sad thing for everyone involved! And yes ALL this entire event has done is to draw negative attention to a legitimate cause!

 

[etrain16]

I don't know the name of the fellow who wrote this piece and I am new to this forum. That said I would like to express my thanks to him for so clearly stating my own thoughts on this tragedy. I like most of you have watched the unedited video several times and it is clear to me that this was in every way a righteous shooting. I am a Paramedic and have had lots of training in many different scenarios. Had Finicum gotten out of the vehicle and stood still (or stayed in the vehicle until he was told to exit) (or never tried to run in the first place) with his hands raised he would never have been shot. When one has several law enforcement officers pointing weapons at them grabbing for your belt line and moving in circles is a STUPID idea unless your objective is to get shot! Comply and it will be fine. I work with many LEO's on a daily basis and they will tell you the same thing. I probably would have shot him and I m on his side!
All that said YES the ranchers in the area were being criminally abuse by two federal bureaus and a corrupt county sheriff because the federal government wants their land! This is wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Had the protesters moved into the Malheur refuge WITHOUT guns then the biased liberal MSM and our criminally negligent governor would have never shifted the focus from the abuses of the county sheriff, USFWS and BLM to the "ARMED MILITANTS" That single move unfortunately completely invalidated the entire point of the occupation and what they wanted to accomplish. This is a sad thing for everyone involved! And yes ALL this entire event has done is to draw negative attention to a legitimate cause!

So you believe that a person exercising their first amendment rights must of necessity surrender their second amendment rights in the process??? I don't recall that requirement in the constitution.

Rather, they do have a right to be armed for their personal protection. They did not take the refuge by force, they did not kidnap or threaten people, they were completely peaceful up to the point they were ambushed on that road.

 

[Collateral]

I agree that there should have been a third option for people that, to this point, are really undecided about what actually happened at the roadblock. New information seems to trickle out each day that could sway some from one side to another.
Others may want to weigh in (there are thousands of members here) to show that they are actively aware of the situation and are following it, but have yet to be convinced one way or the other.
The fact that you are able to change your vote lets the undecided commit once they feel that they have seen enough evidence to warrant it.

 

[Boboclown]

Seriously... 2+2=4, we're not even at the point where we can do that. At this point it seems like some people are going 2+2=5. Not enough evidence. It is what it is at this point, someone got shot. Whether or not he deserved it should wait.

 

[Hardcore46]

Last Friday, I wrote a long series of posts about the Finicum video and related events. It's on page 98 of the big thread:
<broken link removed>

I wrote it because I was laid up with a lame knee, reading online, and I couldn't believe how many people were jumping on the anti-cop conspiracy bandwagon, looking for any means imaginable to call this a bad shoot.

That thread is up to 111 pages now. Holy cow! There is no logical discourse, only emotional response, uninformed opinion, and fallacy. Ad hominem attack and head-in-the-sand are the apparent favorites.

The good news is that NWFA is not the only prominent gun board plagued by this problem.

The bad news is that this kind of thing makes gun forums, gun communities, and gun-owners in general look like a bunch of crazy people, because the press and the non-gun-owning public cannot distinguish between "normal people" NWFA members & "other" NWFA members. Even worse, they don't care to try. It is much better for the MSM anti-gun mission if they are able to portray all NWFA members as crazy people based on the never-ending spew of a vocal minority of members.

I got a PM from a long-time member here who warned me that "NWFA" isn't what it used to be, and that my posts would not be well received. This wasn't anyone I knew, just some random guy.

I have a theory: The members of this board are a silent majority of real people plus a very vocal minority of "other" people. Real people don't have the time or inclination to argue with "other" people online, but they might vote in a poll if one was available. So here you go!

Why should you vote? Because the "other" people don't know that they are a minority. They post non-stop and no one ever says anything different, so they just keep going. If this poll comes out 80-20 in favor of "good shoot", several good things will happen. The "other" people will go silent, which will be good for your image and reputation here. Members will have their faith in humanity restored by the realization that not everyone here is an anti-cop conspiracy nut. All of this can be accomplished by simple participation in a poll, and it may help shore up the reputation of gun-owners in general.

Of course, the other possibility is that NWFA members will swing 80-20 in favor of bad shoot, in which case either the OSP and the FBI admitted that they murdered Finicum on purpose and presented new evidence to support their new claim, or NWFA members are all crazy, or I am an inbred goat.

No harm in finding out!

A recent thread suggests that Joe is surprised that his board is up to 36,000 members. I wonder how many are active? I wonder how many have gone silent over the years because of that "NWFA is not what it used to be" perspective? I wonder how to invite some back to vote in this poll? If you know someone who went silent, maybe send them a link to this poll. Get them to vote. Take your board back.

I agree with other posters about the poll options. I would like to reserve my final evaluation until all available info is available.

Here are some considerations for the "cold-blooded murder/political assassination" folks. If that was the plan, why involve so many potential leakers in the operation? Why record and release any video? Why not "murder" everyone in both vehicles in the convoy?

Why did Finicum run out of the truck? The others remained inside until ordered out, and were not killed. Those in the truck knew that they FEDs/LEOs know them to go armed, and know them to be or to associate with folks that have made comments about going down fighting, so the GOVForces are anticipating a high likelihood of armed "violent" resistance. Knowing that, why act in a manner that is likely to provoke the use of deadly force against you?

If you are on solid legal ground, then let the GOV make an unlawful arrest and then sue the crap out of them. Leave the martyrdom actions to our peaceful brothers of the Mecca variety.

 

[Mark Torrence]

So you believe that a person exercising their first amendment rights must of necessity surrender their second amendment rights in the process??? I don't recall that requirement in the constitution.

Rather, they do have a right to be armed for their personal protection. They did not take the refuge by force, they did not kidnap or threaten people, they were completely peaceful up to the point they were ambushed on that road.

Do not EVER read what you want to hear into what is said! I will under no circumstances allow you to put words into my mouth! They DID make it a point to tell everyone they were armed. Just because you CAN does not mean you should! Not involving guns has absolutely NOTHING to do with relinquishing ANY rights especially not your first amendment rights! You can talk ALL you want w/o being armed! AND as soon as the liberal MSM gets wind of armed takeover THAT is all it becomes about to their public!