![]() |
Armed Militia seizes control of federal building in Oregon
Source
Quote:
|
I'm going to go with the former...at least that's how the dudes doing this are viewing it. Whether or not I view it the same way is irrelevant. Anybody who feels oppressed enough, regardless of if they actually are, are going to pull stuff like this. The fires those two lit may have been unsanctioned, but I need more details about what kind of invasive species they were trying to prevent from encroaching on their property and whether or not they just did it on their own without approval OR if they tried to seek approval, were denied, and then just decided to take the matter into their own hands.
I grew up in rural California, the North. We've always hated urban areas deciding things for the whole state based simply on urban majority representation in a pure democracy. I was going through Fresno last week and farmers were cutting down their own production facilities as a protest against southern California for "stealing all the water." Southern Oregon has always been similar...so much so the STATE OF JEFFERSON is being proposed as a 51st state right now composed of N.Californa and S.Oregon rural counties because they're tired of the more densely populated areas deciding their livelihoods in political affairs. Don't **** with ranchers and farmers....they take their livelihoods very seriously. |
Doesn't sound like they were ****ed with, rather, they were the ones taking something that wasn't theirs. Apparently the arson charge was for concealing hunting on federally managed lands. Their occupation and demand for the shutdown of the wildlife refuge is in blatant disregard of conservation. The ranchers don't care about the environment, all they need to care about is their own livelihood. What does it matter for the sustainability of an ecological area as long as their animals are able to graze there?
I don't have much sympathy for them. |
Just a senseless rebellion for no good reason if you ask me. But then again there needs to be somebody who can speak for them and represent their interests.
|
Do they really think that this'll change anything? Or that they really can hold the building/area for a long time? Sounds like they just needed an excuse to start an armed protest against the government.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The seeds of anarchy have sprouted, and yet people seem to think that it is a good idea. These people are doing it over something that can be easily fixed with normal protesting. Even then, they're only doing it for self-gain just like every other despicable human being; greed is just human nature. These seeds will wither and die.
Quote:
|
The US Government isn't fascist or a dictatorship. There was plenty of avenue for diplomacy as the USFG tends at least to TRY to respect the needs of it's people; even if it doesn't always do so correctly.
|
I dont think they should have resorted to violence, but rather peacefully protested first. But hey, at least they are exercising their rights.
|
Can we please have gun control in the US now? So I can stop hearing about stupid people with guns doing stupid things with guns? It's obvious that peaceful protest was the way to go here and not this ridiculously extreme kind of a reaction. Especially because it looks to me like they're defending the people who did wrong.
All this is, as far as I can see, is selfish people putting others and themselves in harms way because they're throwing a tantrum. |
I would like to point out that these guys haven't actually shot anyone yet and that they are interested in negotiating. They're keeping themselves armed in case things go south (in which case they'll end up in California).
Also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mow-down-americans-critical-police-killings-beg-feds-slaughter-citizens/ Gonna be honest here....if you side with these people who call for the police to mow down the occupiers, I have zero respect for you. You aren't anti-gun....you're anti-private gun ownership. |
Quote:
They're not keeping themselves armed "in case things go south" regardless what they might claim though. It's an intimidation tactic and something they had to do to seize the building. If they wanted to negotiate, they should have started a peaceful protest. They might not have killed anyone yet (as you so eloquently put it) but they're still just lunatics with guns that shouldn't have guns. |
Quote:
"All this is, as far as I can see, is selfish people putting others and themselves in harms way because they're throwing a tantrum" ill have to agree with you here. I do not think this was the proper reaction to their dilemma, and I think they should have only resorted to forming a militia until all other methods had failed. However, they are somewhat justified because they men they are defending haven't really done anything wrong. |
Quote:
In my opinion, rebellion is only justified when human rights are at stake, and/or when all possible room for peaceful negotiation has been blocked and rejected without as much as an ackowledgement of the problem. As this clearly isn't the case, I'm afraid this is just a case of "my problems should matter more than anybody else's because I AM VERY VOCAL AND HAVE GUNS", which is not the way for mature adults to do anything. |
Quote:
Quote:
Link here: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2015/02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf Arson is a crime punishable by a five-year minimum only when the perpetrator “maliciously” damage or destroy federal property by fire", which is what they did. They put the lives of those using the land, as well as the firefighters that had to put it out at risk. I don't know why they would deserve leniency when they repeatedly committed a federal crime with apparently no intention to iron out misunderstandings with the BLM. |
Quote:
Syria and Yemen are fighting civil wars. Both had a government. In Yemen's case, two groups are challenging each other's power. And Rothbard has a great case for not giving government a monopoly (i dont entirely agree with him on everything because he calls for no government). Im currently reading two of his works ("For a New Liberty" and another one) |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Just wanna say I kinda don't want this to become another thread about US gun control. I don't have a problem with discussing the topic itself, it's just that guns aren't really the primary thing here and we've been through the topic a lot in the past 6 months. Feel free to make a thread about it if you wnat.
Quote:
|
Quote:
Syria and Yemen are examples of what happens when you have more than one group aspiring to have a monopoly of violence - and hence no monopoly of violence. Both countries were far less bloody when armed groups weren't challenging the government. |
Quote:
In my eyes, they are only doing it for intimidation tactics. If they were violent protesters, the politicians would have their brutally murdered corpses paraded in the streets in a similar fashion to Mussolini or some **** like that. Quote:
|
Quote:
Remember this is America and when white, god fearing, fringe- conservative nutcases do the same things Al-Qaeda does, they're not called terrorists, they're called "militia" or "protestors" or even worse, "patriots" by some people. This is little more than armed sedition and if I were the Governor of Oregon or Obama I would have already mobilized the National Guard to neutralize the threat. |
Quote:
Now, let's have a comparison between Al-Qaeda and these protesters. First things first, these protesters merely used intimidation tactics to take over a building. Al-Qaeda lobbed a few planes at us because they hated us. In a 2011 study thing (not sure what to call it), the Al-Qaeda death toll has confirmed that Al-Qaeda killed more than 4,400 lives. Our protesters sit here with a bunch of guns and take over a building and have yet to kill a person. Intimidation. Now, going by Merriam-Webster's definition of Terrorism (which was the first thing that came up in one of my searches), I see no correlation between intimidation tactics and terrorism. Al-Qaeda killed 4,400+ people in many violent acts trying to coerce the people in that country and ultimately achieve their political agenda. |
Quote:
Of course... and I am totally against violence unless someone was violating another's right to self-ownership, civil liberties, or property. Which is why I would rather they peacefully protest. And, while I do want to change to the current US government, I do not want a revolution or anything. I believe peace is the best way. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:51 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.