Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Horror, Protestors take over an unoccupied log cabin in the middle of nowhere.

The Horror, Protestors take over an unoccupied log cabin in the middle of nowhere.
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2016, 05:51 PM
 
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2016, 06:19 PM
 
If you seize a government building while armed to the teeth are you not a terrorist by most peoples definition?

It does say a lot that the national guard haven't been called in immediately like they would have been if these were black protestors. Whether it says there is a racist double standard or whether it says the authorities just know that the white folk are all bark and no bite is up for some debate.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2016, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you seize a government building while armed to the teeth are you not a terrorist by most peoples definition?
A vacant and unmanned cabin in the wilderness? No, not really. Not even by the most relaxed definition of the word.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2016, 10:14 PM
 
And you'd say the same no matter what the armed folks were protesting?

Nothing about trespassing or squatting or people without jobs needing better things to do?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2016, 10:42 PM
 
They are using intimidation, fear and the threat of violence to further a political cause. Some would call that textbook terrorism.
If they leave the guns at home they are merely protestors. Since they are requesting people bring guns, they are technically terrorists.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2016, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If they leave the guns at home they are merely protestors. Since they are requesting people bring guns, they are technically terrorists.
I think it is more than a technicality here, because imagine if this were done by a bunch of muslims or black lives matter activists, the media and law enforcement would have reacted very, very differently.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood View Post
And you'd say the same no matter what the armed folks were protesting?
No

Nothing about trespassing or squatting or people without jobs needing better things to do?
I have major issues with people being arrested or fined for "trespassing" on lands, esp. reserves, they help pay for. And not everyone needs to work a J.O.B. The entire reserve/national forest system is a load of crap. The gov't owns 1/3rd the country, that's not right.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 12:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They are using intimidation, fear and the threat of violence to further a political cause. Some would call that textbook terrorism.
If they leave the guns at home they are merely protestors. Since they are requesting people bring guns, they are technically terrorists.
I'm glad you're in England, it suits you.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think it is more than a technicality here, because imagine if this were done by a bunch of muslims or black lives matter activists, the media and law enforcement would have reacted very, very differently.
There's not been reaction because:

1. They've not harmed anyone.
2. They have a valid gripe and regional support.
3. It's a remote area in the middle of bumf*ck.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm glad you're in England, it suits you.
You laugh it off like yours is the enlightened position but actually this flags up a scenario I've never seen discussed when it comes to gun rights.
When you combine the right to bear arms with the right to protest, you are technically or at least potentially committing an act of terrorism.
Instances like this one are more than a matter of semantics too. If you hand out campaign flyers while open-carrying it could be technically be argued you are combining politics with the threat of violence and therefore a terrorist but this is taking it to an absurd extreme.

While the likelihood is that these guys will be starved out through lack of food or lack of attention, the police should be entitled to evict them but if they try then the likelihood of a bloodbath is high. It only takes one shot going off to spark a slaughter when you have so many armed idiots pointing guns at each other.
Since it is the middle of nowhere though, chances are the cops and the proterroristors are all each others uncles and cousins or at the very least in agreement on the issue at hand and hopefully that will be enough to avoid any violence.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There's not been reaction because:

1. They've not harmed anyone.
2. They have a valid gripe and regional support.
3. It's a remote area in the middle of bumf*ck.
1. When black people protested about the multiple shootings of unarmed teenagers I don't think they waited for anyone to get hurt before deploying in force. History however suggests that sooner or later rocks would be thrown, rioting and looting would likely occur. History also suggests that these guys will be little more than a harmless nuisance as long as you leave them alone. Fortunately this can be done without acquiescing to any of their demands.

2. Neither of these points are relevant when you commit a crime.
3. This shouldn't really be relevant either.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 10:05 AM
 
Um, these guys are threatening to kill to continue occupying and are standing in defense of two arsonists who are opposed to the occupation.

Bitching about media headlines instead of discussing the events seems to be becoming a thing around here.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Um, these guys are threatening to kill to continue occupying and are standing in defense of two arsonists who are opposed to the occupation.
While I agree with your assessment, according to me they could protest all they want if they left their weapons and their threats at home and not occupy someone else's building. The Bundy family was apparently emboldened by the federal government backing down from the last confrontation.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There's not been reaction because:

1. They've not harmed anyone.
2. They have a valid gripe and regional support.
3. It's a remote area in the middle of bumf*ck.
None of these points matter if you take the (FBI's) legal definition of terrorism as a basis.

1. Threat of violence is also violence, you are intimidating people into compliance.
2. So do many other causes. They are free to protest their grievances — but without threatening people or occupying someone else's territory. They have as much right to occupy that building as I have a right to occupy your cabin just because I disagree with you in this thread.
3. That doesn't matter one bit when deciding whether or not it is a crime.

And you fail to address why a bunch of white guys gets treated differently from unarmed black protestors.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 10:59 AM
 
Two of them set fire to national land. Whether the land "needed a controlled burn" or not, is moot, as they were not park staff and had no right to do so.

If I think your back 40 looks like it needs a controlled burn, do I get to set fire to it? Even if you've let me hunt and camp there all the time? I mean, I must have decision-making rights to it since I've camped there and kicked in $5 to help you put up a sign or two.

So their family/friends/idiots are protesting their arrest by also abusing national property, interfering with other citizen's rights to use it.

Tear gas em before someone gets hurt.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Two of them set fire to national land. Whether the land "needed a controlled burn" or not, is moot, as they were not park staff and had no right to do so.
That was a very long time ago, something like 15 years, and it wasn't even national land when it happened. It reverted back to the gov't and then they were arrested.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You laugh it off like yours is the enlightened position but actually this flags up a scenario I've never seen discussed when it comes to gun rights.
When you combine the right to bear arms with the right to protest, you are technically or at least potentially committing an act of terrorism.
Instances like this one are more than a matter of semantics too. If you hand out campaign flyers while open-carrying it could be technically be argued you are combining politics with the threat of violence and therefore a terrorist but this is taking it to an absurd extreme.
No, that's incorrect, but that's why I said I'm glad you're in England. Your universal fear of guns isn't shared, and frankly, what you think is terrorism is a bit laughable. Again, they've not attacked anyone, the cabin was unmanned, and just because you think being armed is extreme, doesn't make it so.

While the likelihood is that these guys will be starved out through lack of food or lack of attention, the police should be entitled to evict them but if they try then the likelihood of a bloodbath is high. It only takes one shot going off to spark a slaughter when you have so many armed idiots pointing guns at each other.
Since it is the middle of nowhere though, chances are the cops and the proterroristors are all each others uncles and cousins or at the very least in agreement on the issue at hand and hopefully that will be enough to avoid any violence.
They have so much food and money coming in, they can stay there indefinitely.

1. When black people protested about the multiple shootings of unarmed teenagers I don't think they waited for anyone to get hurt before deploying in force. History however suggests that sooner or later rocks would be thrown, rioting and looting would likely occur. History also suggests that these guys will be little more than a harmless nuisance as long as you leave them alone. Fortunately this can be done without acquiescing to any of their demands.
Protests predominantly of certain races devolve into rioting, looting, arson, and mayhem of the worst sort, generally in the worst possible, most populated places. This hasn't happened in Oregon. Not that being more orderly has helped, as the Left trips all over themselves to assist blacks and minorities, but doesn't give a shit about these guys. In fact, what I've seen is them calling for the national guard to go in and murder them all, without even caring about why these guys are angry in the first place. The Left is so incredibly screwed up, they don't even realize what they're screaming for.

2. Neither of these points are relevant when you commit a crime.
I said that during the Baltimore and Ferguson riots, too. But apparently they are valid (if we go by history). They still haven't charged the arsonists and looters there.

3. This shouldn't really be relevant either.
It does actually, because they aren't placing half a million people at risk to get attention to their problems, unlike the other aforementioned demonstrations.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Um, these guys are threatening to kill to continue occupying and are standing in defense of two arsonists who are opposed to the occupation.
I've seen this spin before, as if that's the only reason they're there.

Bitching about media headlines instead of discussing the events seems to be becoming a thing around here.
I don't even... WTF? Do you understand how public perception is being screwed with, that the news isn't being told, it's manufactured?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you seize a government building while armed to the teeth are you not a terrorist by most peoples definition?

It does say a lot that the national guard haven't been called in immediately like they would have been if these were black protestors. Whether it says there is a racist double standard or whether it says the authorities just know that the white folk are all bark and no bite is up for some debate.
Somehow even CNN can't demonstrate "armed to the teeth" with these people. I saw video of a few handguns, not even any "rifles being shaken in the air in protest." I don't see it as "terror" any more than the Wounded Knee occupation was a terrorist action.

I disagree with your premise that National Guard troops are always called out, everywhere, when black protests occur, but never when white protests occur. First off, we're talking about very rural Oregon, not Los Angeles. And we're also (as I mentioned) not talking about people threatening to shoot everyone or what have you.

When did just plain "armed" become "an imminent threat to public safety," even if it's during a protest? The point of their protest is the whittling away of individual rights, and your premise suggests that you feel more individual rights should be taken from Americans.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I said that during the Baltimore and Ferguson riots, too. But apparently they are valid (if we go by history). They still haven't charged the arsonists and looters there.
That moment when one makes statements without even bothering to make a cursory attempt to determine if what one is saying is true ....

Teen faces higher bail for smashing a police car window than Baltimore cops accused of murder | MSNBC

Ferguson protester who set fire at Berkeley QuikTrip sentenced to 8 years in prison : News

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Protests predominantly of certain races devolve into rioting, looting, arson, and mayhem of the worst sort, generally in the worst possible, most populated places.
Your implication is clear. I'll be "charitable" and chalk this up to an abundance of historical ignorance on your part.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 05:21 PM
 
Some background on what caused all of this drama ...

It was a stark reversal of a scenario that Billy Joel outlined years ago: They did start the fire. But, beyond that fact, consensus on why the Hammond family of Harney County, Ore., set ranch land ablaze twice in the past 15 years remained elusive.

This, as armed anti-government activists stormed and seized a federal wildlife refuge in the name of the Hammonds. Never, it seemed, have two groups of people looked at the same conflagration and come to such different conclusions.

According to Ammon Bundy — leader of anti-government protesters now occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles southeast of Burns, Ore. — the Hammonds are victims of the long arm of the federal government, gentleman ranchers punished for raising cattle on their own land. In other words, they are American heroes.

“The Hammond family has been battered and abused by the federal government for over a decade,” Bundy wrote in an email in November, according to BuzzFeed reporter Jim Dalrymple II. “Now they have been declared as ‘terrorist’ and sentenced to 5 years in prison. For what? … using their ranch.”

“We have not destroyed any property, businesses, or harmed any citizens,” Bundy added in a tweet early Monday. “This is truly a peaceful protest.” Bundy also appeared to contrast his action with protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and elsewhere: Unlike other protests “that have taken place in this country over the last year and a half we have not put anyone in danger,” he tweeted.

The federal government, of course, told quite a different tale of the fires that led to Bundy’s action. It declared — and, in 2012, a jury agreed — that Dwight Lincoln Hammond Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, are arsonists, criminals now on their way to federal prison to serve five years for an elaborate scheme to cover up wrongdoing that put lives in danger.

“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison,” acting U.S. attorney Billy Williams said in a statement in October. “These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

The trouble with the Hammonds and fire began in 2001. That year, the government showed, Steven Hammond went hunting, killing deer on land under control of the Bureau of Land Management. What to do to erase evidence of this game violation? Break out the matches.

“Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out ‘Strike Anywhere’ matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to ‘light up the whole country on fire,'” a Justice Department account of the trial read. “One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson.”


The result: More than 100 acres of public land were destroyed. But, the government said, Steven Hammond was ready with an explanation. Sure, he had started the fire, he said. But he never meant to burn any land his family didn’t own.

“After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon, and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands,” the Justice Department wrote. “Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.”


Susan Hammond, Dwight’s wife, explained the family’s version of the story.

“They called and got permission to light the fire,” she told the Tri-State Livestock News — which bills itself as “what ranchers read.” “… We usually called the interagency fire outfit — a main dispatch — to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather would be a problem.”

Livestock News called the fire “a routine range improvement practice” and said proof that the family got permission was documented in a recording of the phone call played in court.

If the government’s story and the Hammonds’ story weren’t divergent enough, a similar scenario played out in 2006. That year, the Justice Department said, Steven Hammond purposefully set a fire again without permission — this time to prevent wildfires started by lightning strikes from spreading to his property. The practice, called “back burning” or lighting “back fires,” can be effective, but it also endangers public property that abuts private ranch land. Firefighters were already battling blazes started by the lightning, and a “burn ban” was in effect.

“Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several ‘back fires’ in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed,” the government wrote. “The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.”


Susan Hammond again explained her family’s thinking.

“There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything,” she said to Livestock News. “The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning.”


The Hammonds’ fires, part of an obscure beef between ranchers and BLM, might seem tangential — not the real center of a national news story about the Bundys’ hostage-free, would-be armed rebellion. But at least one federal judge opined that the Hammonds have been unfairly treated.

“It just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality,” U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan, who declined to impose the five-year sentence mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, said. “I am not supposed to use the word ‘fairness’ in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don’t do that. But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.”

Hogan — who sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months in prison and Steven Hammond to one year and one day — was overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the five-year mandatory minimum sentence in October and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced accordingly. Yet, the Hammonds, on their way back to federal prison, have chosen to distance themselves from the Bundys.

“I have received information that Ammon Bundy has communicated with you or your office about the Hammond Family,” W. Alan Schroeder, an attorney for the Hammonds, wrote to David M. Ward, Harney County’s sheriff, in December. “… I write to clarify that neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family.”

The ranching community seems caught in the crossfire. Sure, the Hammonds broke the law. But did they need to be prosecuted as terrorists? Then again, even if they are technically terrorists, do they need the likes of the Bundys — anti-government agitators — speaking on their behalf?

“I fear it reflects badly on the ranching community and the local community, or at least has the potential to,” Barry Bushue, a friend of the Hammonds and president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, which condemned the sentence, told the East Oregonian last week before the occupation began. “We are incensed by the fact that [the Hammonds] have to go back to prison, but in the end, the rule of law has to be followed.”
The mysterious fires that led to the Bundy clan’s Oregon standoff | WashingtonPost.com

Fires set to cover-up illegal hunting? Or fires set to ward off invasive species and blazes caused by lightning strikes? All I can say about this is .... somebody is lying.

OAW
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 05:48 PM
 
The best take I've read on it so far: Those Jamokes In Oregon Aren't Terrorists, They're Jamokes

With this gem in the comments

They’re squatting in an empty building in the middle of nowhere. Eventually they’ll get bored and leave, and you can charge them with trespassing and some other misdemeanors. The teachable moment here is that these people are imbeciles. They protest against land being federal property by draping the flag of the federal government over the sign. They announce their intention to “take land back for the people” by seizing public land with the avowed intention of seeing it used for private purposes. These people couldn’t tell you the ingredients of a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich. Shooting them won’t make things better—it will make them worse. Mocking them, on the other hand, goes to the heart of the problem.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No, that's incorrect,
Actually its absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
but that's why I said I'm glad you're in England. Your universal fear of guns isn't shared, and frankly, what you think is terrorism is a bit laughable. Again, they've not attacked anyone, the cabin was unmanned, and just because you think being armed is extreme, doesn't make it so.
I've said it before, I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of idiots with guns. These guys are idiots. Guns don't kill people, idiots do.
I'm not using my definition of terrorism, I'm using the definition. The word means 'furthering a political point or cause via the use of intimidation, violence and/or the threat of violence'. I used the word "technically" for a good reason by the way.
A political protest covers the political part, calling for people to come and bring their arms covers the threat of violence. Why else would they need people to bring more arms?



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They have so much food and money coming in, they can stay there indefinitely.
Sure they can. Money is tasty and nutritious too.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...es--ZJglh9sRjx


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Protests predominantly of certain races devolve into rioting, looting, arson, and mayhem of the worst sort, generally in the worst possible, most populated places. This hasn't happened in Oregon. Not that being more orderly has helped, as the Left trips all over themselves to assist blacks and minorities, but doesn't give a shit about these guys. In fact, what I've seen is them calling for the national guard to go in and murder them all, without even caring about why these guys are angry in the first place. The Left is so incredibly screwed up, they don't even realize what they're screaming for.
I haven't called for them to be murdered.

The point is that black people turn up unarmed to protest the murder of teenagers by cops without reason or consequence and are immediately faced with armed police and riot squads. Armed white guys seize government property, threaten LEOs and all in support of two guys who are guilty of vandalism or whatever that don't even want their support and there are no troops, no cops, no FBI anywhere near them. Its a clear double standard.
Whats funny is that I offered up a reason for it that wasn't just plain old race hate but apparently you didn't notice that I said something you agree with.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't even... WTF? Do you understand how public perception is being screwed with, that the news isn't being told, it's manufactured?
After the past 15 years of Fox News, you'll have to pardon me if this complaint surfacing leaves me unmoved.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The point is that black people turn up unarmed to protest the murder of teenagers by cops without reason or consequence and are immediately faced with armed police and riot squads. Armed white guys seize government property, threaten LEOs and all in support of two guys who are guilty of vandalism or whatever that don't even want their support and there are no troops, no cops, no FBI anywhere near them. Its a clear double standard ...
... that even Stevie Wonder can see.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood View Post
Apparently they're also crazy mormons. Wonder if moderate Mormons will denounce them (no I don't really care).

But seriously, they're not doing much harm, but a bunch of people can't go to work thanks to them.

As for Obama, not a chance I touch them with a 10 ft. poll. There's people who want another Branch Davidian occurrence to grab their pitchforks. As it is I keep moving the line in my head, and I have to imagine even trying to close the place off could end badly if one armed nut tries to deliver supplies. I'd almost be amused if the government just went, 'whatevs' and just built a new refuge building.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
That moment when one makes statements without even bothering to make a cursory attempt to determine if what one is saying is true ....

Teen faces higher bail for smashing a police car window than Baltimore cops accused of murder | MSNBC

Ferguson protester who set fire at Berkeley QuikTrip sentenced to 8 years in prison : News
2 out of, what? 150, 200 perpetrators? Yeah, bang-up job there.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Actually its absolutely correct.
Nope.

I've said it before, I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of idiots with guns. These guys are idiots. Guns don't kill people, idiots do.
Again, who's been hurt? Still no incidents of harm? No attacks? It's almost as if your allegation that they're "idiots" is just an uneducated opinion.

I'm not using my definition of terrorism, I'm using the definition. The word means 'furthering a political point or cause via the use of intimidation, violence and/or the threat of violence'. I used the word "technically" for a good reason by the way.
So much terror, it's a massacre the likes of which few have ever seen. O.M.G.

A political protest covers the political part, calling for people to come and bring their arms covers the threat of violence. Why else would they need people to bring more arms?
No, it's an invitation to gather, if you have a like mind, your definition of what you believe "covers" a "threat of violence" is sophistry.

Sure they can. Money is tasty and nutritious too.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...es--ZJglh9sRjx
Yeah, they only have enough staple foods for 4-5 months right now, they're planning on staying a lot longer.

I haven't called for them to be murdered.
Did I say "you"?

The point is that black people turn up unarmed to protest the murder of teenagers by cops without reason or consequence and are immediately faced with armed police and riot squads. Armed white guys seize government property, threaten LEOs and all in support of two guys who are guilty of vandalism or whatever that don't even want their support and there are no troops, no cops, no FBI anywhere near them. Its a clear double standard.
Whats funny is that I offered up a reason for it that wasn't just plain old race hate but apparently you didn't notice that I said something you agree with.
Because the black protestors did more actual violence than the "Armed white guys", including burning down businesses, attacking police cars, attacking each other, etc. etc.

"OMG, they have guns! They're terrorists!"
"Wow, who's been killed?"
"No one."
"Anyone injured?"
"Nope."
"Well, what have they actually done?"
"Didn't you hear me?! They have guns!"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
2 out of, what? 150, 200 perpetrators? Yeah, bang-up job there.
Yet another figure you just pulled out of your ass. You're on a roll tonight!

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because the black protestors did more actual violence than the "Armed white guys", including burning down businesses, attacking police cars, attacking each other, etc. etc.
None of which happened until AFTER the police confronted and attacked UNARMED protesters with military equipment, tear gas, and rubber bullets. Which was the point about the DOUBLE STANDARD after all. But your denial runs so deep it doesn't even occur to you how SILLY and DISINGENUOUS you make yourself look by making this bogus "argument".

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
But seriously, they're not doing much harm, but a bunch of people can't go to work thanks to them.
There is also a legitimate argument to be made about minimum sentences, but that's not the argument the protestors are making.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Somehow even CNN can't demonstrate "armed to the teeth" with these people. I saw video of a few handguns, not even any "rifles being shaken in the air in protest."
Overdramatization is the MO of all major news sites. “The biggest threat since …”, “The horror in your garden that has killed thousands of people this year …” Nevertheless, if you look at the history of the group around the Bundy family, you see they have a history of using weapons as a way to intimidate others, including law enforcement, into submission. That in and of itself is problematic, even if they are armed with “just” rifles and handguns.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I don't see it as "terror" any more than the Wounded Knee occupation was a terrorist action.
What matters is whether the law sees it as terror. You also have to keep in mind that this case is not in a vacuum. Animal rights activists (with whom I have little in common) are regularly charged and sentenced for being terrorists. Even if terrorism is a bit of a red herring, the main criticism of most people is that not calling what the “Bundy militia” did an act of terrorism is an incarnation of a double standard about the use of terrorism.

Right now people use terrorism willy-nilly, based on a feeling that is roughly correlated to the legitimacy of what these people are protesting. This is very, very dangerous, it makes you blind on one eye. If you set yourself a legal definition of terrorism, then you have to apply it no matter what. Perhaps the problem is the definition, though.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 08:48 PM
 
Animal rights activists that damage private property, "free" animals who have only known captivity (so the animals will starve or be fodder for actual "wild" animals), AND do so for some particularly radical and publicly stated purpose might actually fit the definition of "terrorist." But you're right, calling someone a poor conversationalist can get you labeled as a terrorist nowadays...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Animal rights activists that damage private property, "free" animals who have only known captivity (so the animals will starve or be fodder for actual "wild" animals), AND do so for some particularly radical and publicly stated purpose might actually fit the definition of "terrorist." But you're right, calling someone a poor conversationalist can get you labeled as a terrorist nowadays...
The notion of terrorist is usually invoked when you want to add drama (on the media side) or you want to get harsher sentences for whatever reason. When you catch animal rights activists, you don't need to get them on charges of terrorism, get them for destruction of property and whatnot.

Ditto for the shooting done by the Muslim couple: does it matter that they were motivated by their interpretation of Islam rather than racism or misogyny? Is it really morally worse than shooting a bunch of elementary school students?

The laws are applied very selectively, and it reinforces a warped perception. Drug problems are perceived to be more common in black communities while the perception on the other side is that cute white girls caught dealing get a break. For laws to be fair, they have to be applied fairly and equally. Whether somebody fits the description of a terrorist should not be decided based on feelings or (perceived) legitimacy or in how far your own beliefs align with the perpetrators. Ideally, the letter of the law reflects its spirit, and instead of selectively enforcing laws, you should reduce the mismatch.

Personally, I think it is beneficial to re-think things through again carefully, to resist your first instinct. For instance, it is true that the sentences are harsh and points to a larger problem — but that isn't due to the evil federal government targeting some poor quirky ranchers who prefer to be left alone. It is because of mandatory minimums (and honestly, it is not even such an egregious case). The judge literally had no choice but to give both of them 5 years (they have confessed after all, so there is no question whether they started the fires).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 02:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Yet another figure you just pulled out of your ass. You're on a roll tonight!

OAW
Yeah, yeah, you're right, they nabbed all those people smashing up and burning Baltimore and Ferguson. "Let them get out their destructive urges", indeed.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
None of which happened until AFTER the police confronted and attacked UNARMED protesters with military equipment, tear gas, and rubber bullets. Which was the point about the DOUBLE STANDARD after all. But your denial runs so deep it doesn't even occur to you how SILLY and DISINGENUOUS you make yourself look by making this bogus "argument".
That's a good narrative, isn't it? It was so wonderful and peaceful, what a lovely gathering after the Freddie Gray funeral. They were just standing around singing Kumbaya and roasting s'mores by the cozy fire of the burning community center. Hey, whatever you need to make yourself feel better. You want to believe that those were just poor, innocent victims, that's your business.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Right now people use terrorism willy-nilly, based on a feeling that is roughly correlated to the legitimacy of what these people are protesting. This is very, very dangerous, it makes you blind on one eye. If you set yourself a legal definition of terrorism, then you have to apply it no matter what. Perhaps the problem is the definition, though.
It's like how rape could mean multiple different things now. So many words such as; racist, misogynist, and terrorist are being diluted, used to attack people that certain groups simply don't like. It's the primary weapon used in social justice now.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 10:37 AM
 
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 11:26 AM
 
^I liked that one.

Reading more, it's interesting that the quasi-arsonists/backburners are distancing themselves from this group. They may have just been used as a pretext for this "sit-in."
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
^I liked that one.

Reading more, it's interesting that the quasi-arsonists/backburners are distancing themselves from this group. They may have just been used as a pretext for this "sit-in."
Then they are no different from those who use events as justification to loot.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 11:51 AM
 
An interesting perspective on the media coverage.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Nope.
'Fraid so



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Again, who's been hurt? Still no incidents of harm? No attacks? It's almost as if your allegation that they're "idiots" is just an uneducated opinion.
These guys are defending criminals, using threats of violence. Why couldn't they start off with an unarmed, peaceful protest and work their way up? Most of them are just bored assholes with nothing better to do than try to find ways of boosting their masculinity.
Claiming they plan to stay for years before immediately asking for snacks and socks seems like a fair indictment of their intelligence levels.
One of them even posted on FB that he was really upset he couldn't make it to join in the fight against the evil tyrannical government because he didn't have enough gas money because his government check hadn't arrived yet.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
So much terror, it's a massacre the likes of which few have ever seen. O.M.G.
Whenever I use common sense arguments when I'm debating you, you tend to throw semantic, legal-style arguments back at me. Well this is a legal issue and unfortunately the definitions of words are relevant here.
I don't think they will hurt anyone (bar themselves) unless the authorities try to evict them. Ignoring them and waiting until they get bored is probably in everyones best interest, though they ought to lock up the ringleaders given the opportunity as its clear they will keep finding thin excuses to run more of these stunts.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No, it's an invitation to gather, if you have a like mind, your definition of what you believe "covers" a "threat of violence" is sophistry.
Its my understanding they explicitly threatened violence if the law tries to evict them.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because the black protestors did more actual violence than the "Armed white guys", including burning down businesses, attacking police cars, attacking each other, etc. etc.
As has already been mentioned, how much of the violence occurred before the riot police showed up?

Those black people in Baltimore and Ferguson had a real issue to protest. They had every right to be enraged. Their kids have been repeatedly shot in cold blood by cops who got away scot-free, protected by their colleagues and the courts above them. Who are they supposed to turn to when thats happening? That is the definition of tyrannical government. Not arresting a couple of guys who set fire to public property without permission. Thats a protest these Bundy guys should be joining if they think the government needs a kick up the ass.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
"OMG, they have guns! They're terrorists!"
"Wow, who's been killed?"
"No one."
"Anyone injured?"
"Nope."
"Well, what have they actually done?"
"Didn't you hear me?! They have guns!"
Of course they aren't terrorists. But they do fit the textbook legal definition. They are however misguided, and criminals. They really shouldn't be allowed to get away untouched, but they will because the authorities that should be dealing with them are just like them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 02:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
'Fraid so
In your imagination.

These guys are defending criminals, using threats of violence. Why couldn't they start off with an unarmed, peaceful protest and work their way up? Most of them are just bored assholes with nothing better to do than try to find ways of boosting their masculinity.
Claiming they plan to stay for years before immediately asking for snacks and socks seems like a fair indictment of their intelligence levels.
One of them even posted on FB that he was really upset he couldn't make it to join in the fight against the evil tyrannical government because he didn't have enough gas money because his government check hadn't arrived yet.
Nope, no attacks, no one hurt, just talk. Figures.


Whenever I use common sense arguments when I'm debating you, you tend to throw semantic, legal-style arguments back at me. Well this is a legal issue and unfortunately the definitions of words are relevant here.
I don't think they will hurt anyone (bar themselves) unless the authorities try to evict them. Ignoring them and waiting until they get bored is probably in everyones best interest, though they ought to lock up the ringleaders given the opportunity as its clear they will keep finding thin excuses to run more of these stunts.
You can't call it terrorism when there's no actual, you know, terrorism going on.

Its my understanding they explicitly threatened violence if the law tries to evict them.
When?

As has already been mentioned, how much of the violence occurred before the riot police showed up?
Other than burning down a large community center project, assault, and robbery?

Those black people in Baltimore and Ferguson had a real issue to protest. They had every right to be enraged. Their kids have been repeatedly shot in cold blood by cops who got away scot-free, protected by their colleagues and the courts above them. Who are they supposed to turn to when thats happening? That is the definition of tyrannical government. Not arresting a couple of guys who set fire to public property without permission. Thats a protest these Bundy guys should be joining if they think the government needs a kick up the ass.
I'm not the one justifying violence and harm to others, here. If these guys were doing something other than occupying gov't property and protesting, I'd be all over them, but they aren't. They aren't burning down a city block, attacking police vehicles, or looting. If they were, I'd be wholly against their actions.

Of course they aren't terrorists. But they do fit the textbook legal definition. They are however misguided, and criminals. They really shouldn't be allowed to get away untouched, but they will because the authorities that should be dealing with them are just like them.
Why should they be arrested for nonviolent protest? I don't want to set the precedent for demonstrators on public property, not causing harm, to be arrested, while exercising their constitutional rights. Where things turned in Ferguson and Baltimore is when people started destroying private property and directly interfered with emergency services. That's when they turned from being lawful protests into illegal riots.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 07:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Somehow even CNN can't demonstrate "armed to the teeth" with these people. I saw video of a few handguns, not even any "rifles being shaken in the air in protest." I don't see it as "terror" any more than the Wounded Knee occupation was a terrorist action.
Its relative. Compared to a bunch of angry men, women and children armed with loud shouting and rocks, these guys are heavily armed.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I disagree with your premise that National Guard troops are always called out, everywhere, when black protests occur, but never when white protests occur. First off, we're talking about very rural Oregon, not Los Angeles. And we're also (as I mentioned) not talking about people threatening to shoot everyone or what have you.
They threatened to shoot police if they try to evict them. Which they have every right (if not duty) to do. If its a peaceful protest, why bring guns at all? Responsible gun owners might see a possibly incendiary situation and decide to leave the guns at home.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
When did just plain "armed" become "an imminent threat to public safety," even if it's during a protest?
Tensions run high during protests. Not rocket science.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The point of their protest is the whittling away of individual rights, and your premise suggests that you feel more individual rights should be taken from Americans.
No the point of their protest is the whittling away of their privileges that see them profit from publicly owned land which they then see fit to treat as their own property and abuse. Ironically all they are doing is bringing attention to the privileges they still
retain by virtue of no-one firing tear gas, bullets or arrest warrants at them in response.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Nope, no attacks, no one hurt, just talk. Figures.
The threat of violence is also a form of violence. And given this group's history, it's clear that you need to take this threat seriously. You thinking of them as “peaceful protestors” is a consequence of the double standard you hold. There is very good reason why the police stays away: they are afraid of creating the perfect storm for a blood bath. If it were a completely peaceful and lawful protest, then they would not mind the presence of police and cooperate with them (even if it is within limits).
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Why should they be arrested for nonviolent protest? I don't want to set the precedent for demonstrators on public property, not causing harm, to be arrested, while exercising their constitutional rights.
Because they are trespassing and threatening with violence, i. e. they are breaking the law. Thus, their protest is no longer constitutionally protected.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They really shouldn't be allowed to get away untouched, but they will because the authorities that should be dealing with them are just like them.
Not only that, law enforcement is afraid of creating a blood bath. They have already had to back down the last time they encountered this group. That's tyranny in my book, because a very vocal and dangerous minority is undermining the rule of law for all in that region.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 12:35 PM
 
I'm not a fan of the whole occupying things as a way to protest, but it is hardly the first time it has been done. I have to say, however, that if the goal was a peaceful protest, showing up at a remote cabin armed seems like an odd way to do it.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 12:42 PM
 
They want to be martyrs. Also, the article on the amount of government subsidies Bundy gets while wanting less govt. is hilarious.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Why should they be arrested for nonviolent protest? I don't want to set the precedent for demonstrators on public property, not causing harm, to be arrested, while exercising their constitutional rights. Where things turned in Ferguson and Baltimore is when people started destroying private property and directly interfered with emergency services. That's when they turned from being lawful protests into illegal riots.
Did you feel that way abou BLM blocking highways?
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Did you feel that way abou BLM blocking highways?
Obviously not, since I just cited that they "directly interfered with emergency services". I'm not sure how occupying a log cabin in the middle of nowhere is the same as causing traffic jams in a major city?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The threat of violence is also a form of violence. And given this group's history, it's clear that you need to take this threat seriously. You thinking of them as “peaceful protestors” is a consequence of the double standard you hold. There is very good reason why the police stays away: they are afraid of creating the perfect storm for a blood bath. If it were a completely peaceful and lawful protest, then they would not mind the presence of police and cooperate with them (even if it is within limits).
Where's the imminent threat? It is peaceful, more so than the university demonstrations that happened only weeks ago. You guys have some weird ideas about what constitutes "violence". The narrative from the Left on this is even more kooky than normal, they've actually been able to manufacture "terrorism" out of a situation without terror.

Because they are trespassing and threatening with violence, i. e. they are breaking the law. Thus, their protest is no longer constitutionally protected.
I don't remember you saying anything when worse was transpiring in Ferguson and Baltimore, where real arson, looting, assault, and murder was going on.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Not only that, law enforcement is afraid of creating a blood bath. They have already had to back down the last time they encountered this group. That's tyranny in my book, because a very vocal and dangerous minority is undermining the rule of law for all in that region.
I guess they could be black and just show up en masse and shut down entire cities, like that particular "very vocal and dangerous minority", eh?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I'm not a fan of the whole occupying things as a way to protest, but it is hardly the first time it has been done. I have to say, however, that if the goal was a peaceful protest, showing up at a remote cabin armed seems like an odd way to do it.
Student protests in France, for instance, come to mind where students occupy their universities. The big difference here is, though, that the occupiers aren't armed.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Student protests in France, for instance, come to mind where students occupy their universities. The big difference here is, though, that the occupiers aren't armed.
Which doesn't matter because in Oregon they aren't breaking any laws by being armed.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:53 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,