|
Main Paineframe posted:Plenty of people carry guns around all day without using them. They have made repeated threats, and lying that they haven't isn't going to change that. They'd made it very clear that they intend to use their guns if they don't get their way, with Ammon Bundy himself talking about how they'll fight back if law enforcement tries to remove them. And even if you set that aside or try to twist it because he's not as aggressive as his followers, he's letting them make their explicit threats and not denouncing them, and they're a part of the movement too. He's using their threats in a way that lets him try to maintain a degree of separation so that people can make disingenuous arguments like your own that even if some individuals are maybe making threats, they don't represent the group, but they do. If they didn't, he'd say something about it, instead of relying on it.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Bringing guns to a protest is always done to imply you'll start shooting if you don't get what you want. And as such, it is always wrong and bad. What these people are doing is different in degree from the people who brought their guns to healthcare town halls, but not different in kind. It is, instead, that train of thought taken to its conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Bullshit. If law enforcement wasn't worried about getting killed, this would have been over weeks ago. Not really. The feds are playing by their rule book to not escalate this any further as it's just a joker shitheap there. They have time, lots of it, to act. The locals, unless they catch these clowns violating laws off federal land, can't do much but watch
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Plenty of people carry guns around all day without using them. True, but the threat of using them is omnipresent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Not really. The feds are playing by their rule book to not escalate this any further as it's just a joker shitheap there. They have time, lots of it, to act. What would a peaceful, nonviolent protestor "escalate" to doing that would cause a law enforcement person to not be able to just walk up and peacefully, nonviolently arrest them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Bringing guns to a protest is always done to imply you'll start shooting if you don't get what you want. And as such, it is always wrong and bad. I really don't want to make this point right now. But you've forced me to: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I really don't want to make this point right now. But you've forced me to: Clearly, the plight of the black man in racist-rear end America ended on that very day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
It doesn't necessarily always imply if you don't get what you want you'll shoot. It can also imply that if you get shot at you'll shoot back. In another words, you're not going to be a passive victim, but actually defend yourself, which is a right that people intrinsically have, I believe. Not every fight can be won through PR, and just rolling over will give aggressive oppressors no reason not to keep doing it when they don't have anyone to answer to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
If you expect to be shot at during a protest and you bring guns to shoot back then it isn't very loving peaceful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
Oh bullshit. The only reason to carry a gun is to imply you'll use it. There's a legal distinction between committing a crime and committing a crime while carrying a gun, even if you don't threaten to use it, even if you don't have one but claim to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
There's also a legal distinction between committing a crime and committing a crime while wearing body armor! That really doesn't have anything to do with anything sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:46
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:It doesn't necessarily always imply if you don't get what you want you'll shoot. It can also imply that if you get shot at you'll shoot back. In another words, you're not going to be a passive victim, but actually defend yourself, which is a right that people intrinsically have, I believe. No one has the legal right to defend themselves from police action in the US last I looked. Recourse is supposed to be sought via the courts, of course more often than not that fails. I'm not sure what the solution is but I'm pretty sure it's not shooting any law enforcement officer who tries to make an arrest regardless of the circumstances which is pretty much the M.O. of these dipshits.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Grem posted:There's also a legal distinction between committing a crime and committing a crime while wearing body armor! That really doesn't have anything to do with anything sorry. I'm honestly not aware of any such legal distinctions. Please explain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, so mere possession of firearms which they aren't using is just as non-peaceful as looting and damaging businesses while throwing rocks at the police? I'm not pro-gun, but merely possessing a legally owned weapon which you have the right to carry does not, by itself, constitute violence. You just said two pages ago that police putting a blockade around an armed "peaceful protest" was how masscres start and gave every excuse possible to blame the police if and when the situation escalated, claiming that the current non response is the best approach to peaceful protests. Now we're talking about unarmed protesters who were not only blockaded but met with an extremely aggressive response, no one died, but all of a sudden these people are now the baddies. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:No one has the legal right to defend themselves from police action in the US last I looked. Recourse is supposed to be sought via the courts, of course more often than not that fails. I'm not sure what the solution is but I'm pretty sure it's not shooting any law enforcement officer who tries to make an arrest regardless of the circumstances which is pretty much the M.O. of these dipshits. My comments were in context of the tangent topic, not the Bundy clowns. Their reasons and reasoning are vacuous. Also I believe you do have the legal right to defend yourself against illegitimate police actions, just not legit ones. But police aren't going to give you any slack either way. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
So for the record Have a grievance, you personally break a law, bring a gun, loudly declare your willingness to kill anyone who wants to stop you from breaking the law, police set up a roadblock a mile down the road = you are good guys who the cops should have left alone, they practically goaded you into a firefight. Have a grievance, someone else breaks a law, don't bring a gun, don't threaten anybody with death, cops blockade you and turn your neighborhood into rubber bullet mogudishu BUT someone threw a rock at them = you monster, you deserve this. So does that mean if someone at Malheur threw a rock at a cop it'd be okay to turn this into a firefight?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Would it count as a peaceful protest against this lovely argument if I posted only "gas this lovely thread"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I'm honestly not aware of any such legal distinctions. Please explain. Here's the federal code: 42 U.S.C. Section 3796ll-3(d)(1) Other states also make distinction, Virginia for example: https://vacode.org/18.2-287.2/
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Grem posted:Here's the federal code: 42 U.S.C. Section 3796ll-3(d)(1) Cool, thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Here's some more peaceful rhetoric from these guys:quote:Under the heading: “Warning to U.S. Military and Federal LEOs: Do Not Follow Orders to ‘Waco’ Ammon Bundy Occupation, or Risk Civil War,” Rhodes was blunt — although wordy in the process. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/militia-head-warns-feds-dont-waco-the-oregon-occupiers-unless-you-want-a-bloody-brutal-civil-war/ Boy I certainly can't wait until these nice folk eventually get bored and leave without trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Can we finally call these guys terrorists? They've made it very clear they really, really want that label.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I really don't want to make this point right now. But you've forced me to: One important reason why the black panthers carried guns and the major difference between them and vanillaISIS was that the police continuously used violence to the point where they represented a clear and present danger to not only the panthers but also black people in general. Outside of Waco and Ruby Ridge (which the Feds have made it a point to never repeat and was 20+ years ago) I can't think of a single protest that federal agents have used violence to end. Local and state police yes, but not the Feds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Here's some more peaceful rhetoric from these guys: Well, golly, here I was hoping we'd filled out enough mass shootings on our coupon card for a free Waco. How many more do we need this time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Armed protestors also are not "peaceful". That hasn't once stopped you from calling them that, though. Weird, huh? Now what could be different about these protesters compared to Ferguson that would make you give them more benefit of the doubt, I wonder... Holy gently caress stop calling everyone who disagrees with you racist
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
If the hood fits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
You disagree with me, I'm not a homophobe so therefore you hate all gays and want to see them burn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Yesterday, Lavoy Finicum and Ryan Bundy drove to Idaho and back without any trouble. What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Holy gently caress stop calling everyone who disagrees with you racist So if the difference isn't race, what is it? And if the difference isn't race, why did you immediately assume that Who What Now was talking about race even though they didn't specify?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Why did you immediately assume that Who What Now was talking about race even though they didn't specify? Well I mean honestly, "Now what could be different about these protesters compared to Ferguson that would make you give them more benefit of the doubt, I wonder..." isn't a super subtle statement. I got no stake in the slapfight or greater argument, but c'mon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/688738446555369473 https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/688738807391342592 She's also pointing out some suspicious circumstances regarding the signage used late in the Bundy Ranch standoff as well as this one. https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/688740971786424320 edit: also the current argument is pretty stupid, especially since it's ignoring the obvious reasons for each 'protest'. Ferguson was a response to an unarmed black kid getting gunned down in the street by police, after decades of absolutely ridiculous police behavior towards the community. Oregon is a response to two rear end in a top hat ranchers (and alleged child abusers to boot) being forced to serve out their full legal sentence after at least a decade of setting fires on federal lands, poaching, and threatening federal employees, and being handed an illegally light sentence by a local judge. Whether you agree or disagree with mandatory minimums, there's a pretty loving stark difference between Malhuer and Ferguson and equating the two is absolute nonsense. kartikeya fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:Yesterday, Lavoy Finicum and Ryan Bundy drove to Idaho and back without any trouble. What the gently caress So the people wondering why they seemed absent were right. But seriously, What the gently caress indeed. I know Finicum is currently fuming about his situation with his foster kids being take away by CPS while he was gone. Maybe this was related to that situation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Grem posted:There's also a legal distinction between committing a crime and committing a crime while wearing body armor! That really doesn't have anything to do with anything sorry. And, in Connecticut, it's illegal to ride your bike over 65mph! The point is they made it extra illegal to brandish a gun during a crime because of the implied threat of escalation, the fact that guns inherently make a situation more dangerous. To prove that all you need to look at is how many toddlers killed someone last year, and how many toddlers killed someone with a gun. Or...well, any incident involving a gun. How many people are killed at gun expos vs how many are killed at craft fairs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
The Larch posted:So if the difference isn't race, what is it? Location and the fact that the FBI behaves differently than local cops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What would a peaceful, nonviolent protestor "escalate" to doing that would cause a law enforcement person to not be able to just walk up and peacefully, nonviolently arrest them? There's a difference between implied violence and actual. I own guns, one of which hangs on the wall because it's an old musket. Does this make me violent? I am willing to use them to defend my home. Now if someone breaks into my home I consider that a threat and will attempt to use one of those guns. That would be violent. kartikeya posted:edit: also the current argument is pretty stupid, especially since it's ignoring the obvious reasons for each 'protest'. Ferguson was a response to an unarmed black kid getting gunned down in the street by police, after decades of absolutely ridiculous police behavior towards the community. Oregon is a response to two rear end in a top hat ranchers (and alleged child abusers to boot) being forced to serve out their full legal sentence after at least a decade of setting fires on federal lands, poaching, and threatening federal employees, and being handed an illegally light sentence by a local judge. Whether you agree or disagree with mandatory minimums, there's a pretty loving stark difference between Malhuer and Ferguson and equating the two is absolute nonsense. Well you're just racist In seriousness though, I say they start the arrests with Pete just to shut that stupid gently caress up if nothing more. SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Crain posted:So the people wondering why they seemed absent were right. They were meeting up with people in Idaho to help them plan another insurrection over there. We know this because they proudly admitted it. Is this reason enough to start doing something yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:They were meeting up with people in Idaho to help them plan another insurrection over there. We know this because they proudly admitted it. Well that's worse... Yeah. We already new early on when they were talking about "using Malhuer as a model" that they had plans to export this to other areas. But now they're already traveling around and setting up the next one? I asked this earlier to someone (maybe socket or theflyingorc), but what should be done if this actually becomes an epidemic (excuse the hyperbolic term, I can't think of another one to use) or uprisings and we see these guys taking over more refuges and BLM lands before the previous ones even end?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Location and the fact that the FBI behaves differently than local cops. I'm not talking about the FBI and local cops, I'm talking about how Painframe chose to frame the actions of the two groups of protestors. Try and keep up, sport. Edit: SocketWrench posted:There's a difference between implied violence and actual. People who are willing to use violence and violent, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Location and the fact that the FBI behaves differently than local cops. Except local cops are also behaving the same passive way. They aren't chomping at the bit and being held back by the feds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Crain posted:I asked this earlier to someone (maybe socket or theflyingorc), but what should be done if this actually becomes an epidemic (excuse the hyperbolic term, I can't think of another one to use) or uprisings and we see these guys taking over more refuges and BLM lands before the previous ones even end? If nothing else, it makes RICO a slam dunk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Except local cops are also behaving the same passive way. They aren't chomping at the bit and being held back by the feds. Having dealt with federal LE taking over an investigation before, there's probably a lot of "thank god we don't have to deal with this bullshit" going on with the local PD. The typical TV "damnit, the feds are here to take over our case and tell us what to do" doesn't really happen. And on top of that, there's a huge difference between an inner city police force like Chicago, Baltimore and Ferguson and the county sheriff's office in East Buttfuck, Oregon. There's a lot of false equivalency going on in the realm of "police handle black protestors like that" and "police handle white protestors like this", and while there is a lot of merit to that argument if you're looking at something like an open carry march in the middle of Chicago, it doesn't really map to this situation at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:53
|
|
