- 9,055
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
"Calls it peaceful protest"
"Brings guns, threatens others"
Seems legit.
"Brings guns, threatens others"
Seems legit.
Nevadan Farmer not allowed to use public land for his grazing cattle
- Thread starter Enemem
- 228 comments
- 12,010 views
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Empty words.
"We don't wan't to hurt anybody, but the only way to avoid violence is to allow us to continue our illegal behavior until we decide we don't want to anymore."
You're right, how noble of them.
Assuming McLaren's quote is accurate, that isn't what they said. You have added your own interpretation with your paraphrasing.
To be honest, until a gun is fired without provocation by one of the militia this looks no different than a sit-in.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Empty words because they're 🤬.
Saying "we don't want to be violent" while also saying "we will react with violence if you try and stop what we're doing" is complete crap.
Arguing that the Ferguson/Baltimore/etc. protest weren't terrorism isn't "standing up for" anything other than the idea that we should discuss things honestly. Saying that those protests weren't terrorism doesn't require me to agree with the protesters involved.
Give a hello to TenEighty for me.
How big is your ego that you think anybody give a flying 🤬 that they've been blocked by you?
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Fair. The only quote I've seen is that they were "willing to kill and be killed" (source). I'm not sure what the source of McLaren's quote is, but a "willing(ness) to kill" combined with how these same people acted in Nevada doesn't leave me feeling that they're as peaceful as McLaren claims.
(Note: I didn't intend to convey that that was a direct quote, I thought it was obvious that I was paraphrasing to convey my point. If that wasn't clear, my apologies.)
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
What should the police do when they point their guns at them?
Why would they bring their guns to this protest if they aren't looking for a firefight?
Why would they bring their guns to this protest if they aren't looking for a firefight?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Until their guns are used offensively they might as well be bananas. Until then I'm calling this a sit-in.
Even with what they have said, it is far different than saying they will start shooting innocent people if the law doesn't change.
I wonder, if there were no guns, but they said they will fight would this still be considered terrorism by some? I'd call it a civil rights movement reenactment. The issue people have is that they don't like how these guys have chosen to accessorize.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
When your "accessories" end up being the deciding factor as far as law enforcement doing their job, the door to calling it terrorism has at least been opened.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I said it opens the door, I didn't say I'd walked through it.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
If you have a legal right to keep and bear arms and you do so within the law, you don't need a reason to bring your guns to the protest, no more than you need a reason to wear a watch or a pair of workboots.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
Still dosent change the fact they are in a government building wi guns making demands of the government. They want the Feds to hand over land to the farmers and such in Oregon. What is the point of the guns? What if the government decides to arrest them all for trespassing? Do you not see how this could not end well? They are using the Feds fear of another Waco to defend themselves and the public isn't on their side.
Because Tamir Rice taught us that you can't point guns at police even if they are toys. Regardless of whether Oregon has an open carry law, they are armed and making demands of the government while occupying a government building. That's trespassing in it of itself and they should be arrested for that reason. How can the Feds do their job and arrest these people when they are claiming they are willing to die fighting and have already shown they are willing to aim guns at the Feds?
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
I don't think so but now that you bring up the BLM protests I find it hilariously funny the media called BLM a terrorist group and a hate group even though they've never called for violence against the police and have never had guns at their protests and have never taken over any government facilities wether they be occupied at the time or not.
We have this yokels holed up in a government building armed to the teeth saying they will defend themselves against the government and are willing to die, yet they are peaceful.
Before someone brings up the Baltimore and Fergusen riots, those were random people not the actual BLM movement. Not every black person represents BLM.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
You mean the video linked in the article that says this?:
You can't disregard the open carry law, it's germaine to the situation. They have guns because it's legal to carry guns, they don't need to explain why or justify it like you suggested earlier. If they are trespassing and making viable threats that's a different kettle of fish.
Seems legit:
Last edited:
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
So, quoting the Daily Mail is perfectly acceptable when it pushes your agenda.
Okay, two can play at that game. Every demonstration has one or two extremists that would like to convey the incorrect message. Bundy's "Protest" (for lack of a better agreeing term) is trying to bring to the matter of private property rights, but the media will paint a message of anti-government anarchists all over the group just for one video. I won't show you the video in its entirety, but I will post a screen cap of the video:
I would like to bring your attention to this gentleman here. His name is Jon Ritzheimer. According to the title of the youtube video, he is a former marine. Can you name the PR disaster that the Bundy's are facing because of him?
Hint: They will call the group as full of Nazi's because the man has a shaved head. They will call the group militant, because he is wearing camo (you can see it under the jacket). They will call the group suicidal, because of his statement that he would be willing to lay down his life.
After the media leaks all of the false information out there, wouldn't YOU be surprised if you saw every White Supremacist up there causing the same kinds of trouble that Bundy's father faced when he fought for his land in Nevada? Russia has a term for these kinds of people, useful idiots. They have unknowingly pushed Obama's gun grab into Front Page as a reason why they "need to take away guns" by being armed.
Did you not read the article? Whites appeared at one protest night, took a bunch of photos and made memes out of it, that is all they did. When they saw them on the internet, they got mad, formed a "safety comittee", and accosted every outsider that wonders in the protest. If you didn't somehow "pass", they beat you up where there are no cameras allowed (there is video evidence of those three men being accosted before one of them runs and tells them to stop recording), and then escorted you out of the neighborhood. It just so happens that they messed with a man with a gun.
About what they (the white people) actually said on video? Movie quotes.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
They are open carrying while committing crimes, regardless of the open carry law. You can't go in a bank and demand the teller give you the money while having an AR15 out, then fall back on an open carry law when they charge you with robbery.
The guns have no business being there other than to kill anyone who tries to stop their so called protest which would be the cops. Now these types usually watch Alex Jones and think the government are evil and Muslim Obama wants to take away your guns, but they have no right to do what they are doing.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
The media hasn't portrayed them as anything but peaceful protestors so far. I like how you are claiming the media will attack his looks as opposed to what has come out of his mouth. Didn't this douche claim he was willing to die?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
You're obfuscating two different things here. The guns can go anywhere they want to with their owners in an open or concealed carry state. It's the use of the weapon during the commission of the crime, if the weapon is a part of the crime of course, that constitutes the violation of the law. I can carry a hammer around with me on my toolbelt too, but if I attempt to stick it in someone's skull because they pissed me off, it then becomes a weapon and part of the crime. See what I did there?
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Really? Here's the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/
It should be noted that the column was written Sunday, and as of the 3rd, the official stances of the New York Times and the Washington Post were calling them occupiers.
More of the double standard from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/04/the...t_the_heart_of_the_new_bundy_family_standoff/
I would like to ask Salon if they remember this:
They weren't arrested for a situation just like this one. Or maybe you would like to remember how The Black Panthers on Election Day 2008 intimidated voters in Philadelphia with nothing more than batons, and how they weren't charged either.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
Your hypothetical dosent fit because their weapons are being used in a crime. Last time I checked it isn't legal to storm and takeover a federal building wether it be occupied or not.
Salon? Really you are quoting salon? What federal building have the BPs or BLM occupied and then claimed they would be willing to die to stay where they are? I'll wait.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
@Johnnypenso
The powers that be will say the weapons were used in the act of committing a felony I'd bet, it's total BS of course. It reminds me of that State legal, Federal illegal pot grower in Montana who was arrested in his truck driving a load of hippy lettuce to a dispensary with a rifle on his back rack(very common up there for anyone mind you). Was loaded,... he gets mega sentence.
I have mixed feelings about this particular situation but as FK says, if they are not violent..
The powers that be will say the weapons were used in the act of committing a felony I'd bet, it's total BS of course. It reminds me of that State legal, Federal illegal pot grower in Montana who was arrested in his truck driving a load of hippy lettuce to a dispensary with a rifle on his back rack(very common up there for anyone mind you). Was loaded,... he gets mega sentence.
I have mixed feelings about this particular situation but as FK says, if they are not violent..
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
While I agree that it's basically a sit-in, the fact that they are known to be armed is going to change how the authorities approach them if and when it comes to confrontation. It opens up a whole load of possibilities, most of which aren't very good for anyone.
Personally, I don't see how guns help them at all. If the idea is non-violent protest, they don't need guns. If the cops decide to go in gung ho and make martyrs of them, then anti-government sentiment will be even higher if they're unarmed.
The protesters can't hope to legitimately defend themselves against the authorities if they actually want the protesters stomped. All having guns on the property does is raise the level of force needed to eject them to "probably fatal for someone".
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
We have the right to bear arms, we also have the right to assembly, you can't do one while doing the other? LOL
btw, here is a link to the Montana deal I'm drawing parallel in some sense.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/mo...cle_89211f90-6ca5-11e2-aa17-001a4bcf887a.html
btw, here is a link to the Montana deal I'm drawing parallel in some sense.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/mo...cle_89211f90-6ca5-11e2-aa17-001a4bcf887a.html
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I didn't say that, I said I'm not entirely sure that it helps anyone to do both of them at the same time in this particular case. How does having guns help the protesters achieve anything? You seem to find the idea that someone wouldn't take guns to a sit-in laughable, so explain it to me.
You can use a hairdryer and you can have a bath, but it's probably not helpful to combine the two. It doesn't help you get any cleaner, or your hair get any drier, and there's a number of things that could go very badly, although they probably won't unless you're a clumsy mofo.
It's not about whether you can or can't do two things together, obviously you can. The question is why would you?
- 38,947
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
This is the most important article written on this matter: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...on-mandatory-minimums/422433/?utm_source=SFFB
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Answers nothing. How does having guns help the protesters achieve their goals in this specific situation?
This isn't about rights, saying that they don't need guns in this particular situation doesn't mean that there aren't others in which guns are useful or necessary. You seem to be taking this as an attack on guns in general, when it's not.
It's one specific situation. I don't see how guns help, and I'm not entirely sure that you do either. You seem to simply be parroting gun rights lines, which really don't apply because rights don't come into it. They have the right to have arms if they wish. Why is using that right the correct choice at a supposedly peaceful sit-in?
