Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 5:17:04 GMT -5
I didn't say anything like that. It's a protest asserting what they see as fundamental freedoms, and the right to bear arms is one of them to them. Calling this not an armed assault is something very much like that. It's only an armed assault if you see the mere presence of guns as an armed assault. Again, they occupied an empty building
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 11, 2016 5:19:12 GMT -5
Calling this not an armed assault is something very much like that. It's only an armed assault if you see the mere presence of guns as an armed assault. Again, they occupied an empty building With guns which are an essential tool in the thing that they are doing not merely incidental as was suggested by "It's legal for them to have them." Nothing about what they are doing right now is legal, just no one cares enough to enforce the many many laws they are violating. Just because it's domestic terrorism on the level of Napster and Kazaa (at this point, with the potential to escalate at any moment) doesn't mean it's not domestic terrorism and what they're doing isn't a flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government and the legitimacy of federal and state laws. /larsulrich
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 5:28:11 GMT -5
It's only an armed assault if you see the mere presence of guns as an armed assault. Again, they occupied an empty building With guns which are an essential tool in the thing that they are doing not merely incidental as was suggested by "It's legal for them to have them." Nothing about what they are doing right now is legal, just no one cares enough to enforce the many many laws they are violating. Just because it's domestic terrorism on the level of Napster and Kazaa (at this point, with the potential to escalate at any moment) doesn't mean it's not domestic terrorism and what they're doing isn't a flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government. /larsulrich How is this a "flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government"? Parks are federally owned. Was Occupy Wallstreet a "flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government"?
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 11, 2016 5:30:06 GMT -5
With guns which are an essential tool in the thing that they are doing not merely incidental as was suggested by "It's legal for them to have them." Nothing about what they are doing right now is legal, just no one cares enough to enforce the many many laws they are violating. Just because it's domestic terrorism on the level of Napster and Kazaa (at this point, with the potential to escalate at any moment) doesn't mean it's not domestic terrorism and what they're doing isn't a flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government. /larsulrich How is this a "flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government"? Parks are federally owned. Was Occupy Wallstreet a "flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government"? Yeah I remember when OWS took over federal property while armed. OK you win. These guys are just goofballs pulling a sexy prank.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 5:34:11 GMT -5
How is this a "flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government"? Parks are federally owned. Was Occupy Wallstreet a "flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government"? Yeah I remember when OWS took over federal property while armed. OK you win. These guys are just goofballs pulling a sexy prank. Again, not what I said. What they're doing is a protest. And it's a protest where they're asserting what is, in their minds, their personal freedoms. That includes the right to carry firearms.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 11, 2016 5:43:40 GMT -5
OK you win. These guys are just goofballs pulling a sexy prank. In defense- have you seen the hashtag writing erotic fanfiction about these guys? If that doesn't make it a sexy prank, I'd like to know what does, dagnabbit!
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 11, 2016 5:43:48 GMT -5
Yeah I remember when OWS took over federal property while armed. OK you win. These guys are just goofballs pulling a sexy prank. Again, not what I said. What they're doing is a protest. And it's a protest where they're asserting what is, in their minds, their personal freedoms. That includes the right to carry firearms. To be honest if I picked up this side out of the hat in debate class I'd struggle to come up with good arguments also and deflect if asked to defend them. (compare oregon dumbasses to OWS dumbasses) (OWS dumbasses never did this very specific thing that oregon dumbasses are doing) (i never said they did)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 5:46:42 GMT -5
Again, not what I said. What they're doing is a protest. And it's a protest where they're asserting what is, in their minds, their personal freedoms. That includes the right to carry firearms. To be honest if I picked up this side out of the hat in debate class I'd struggle to come up with good arguments also and deflect if asked to defend them. (compare oregon dumbasses to OWS dumbasses) (OWS dumbasses never did this very specific thing that oregon dumbasses are doing) (i never said they did) I think it's a bit odd to accuse my of deflection when you've responded with some variation of "They're pulling a sexy prank!" twice when I asked you specific questions.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,051
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jan 11, 2016 5:48:00 GMT -5
Just googled the definition or armed:
armed ɑːmd/Submit adjective 1. equipped with or carrying a firearm or firearms. "heavily armed troops" 2. HERALDRY having claws, a beak, etc. of a specified tincture. "a lion rampant argent, armed and langued azure"
So yes, this is an armed assault, just because they haven't USED the arms doesn't change that. Though they have repeatedly threatened to kill people. IMO once you get to that point, then you've crossed the line.
"I have guns and will use these guns to kill people in my way"
How is this not a bad thing?
Yeah the place was empty, so what? If I go into a store when it's closed and set up camp, I've broken laws and should be put in jail.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 11, 2016 5:53:04 GMT -5
To be honest if I picked up this side out of the hat in debate class I'd struggle to come up with good arguments also and deflect if asked to defend them. (compare oregon dumbasses to OWS dumbasses) (OWS dumbasses never did this very specific thing that oregon dumbasses are doing) (i never said they did) I think it's a bit odd to accuse my of deflection when you've responded with some variation of "They're pulling a sexy prank!" twice when I asked you specific questions. When you keep dismissing direct responses by saying I didn't say that, I'm saying this different thing. And what is a sexy prank if not a protest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 5:54:04 GMT -5
Just googled the definition or armed: armed ɑːmd/Submit adjective 1. equipped with or carrying a firearm or firearms. "heavily armed troops" 2. HERALDRY having claws, a beak, etc. of a specified tincture. "a lion rampant argent, armed and langued azure" So yes, this is an armed assault, just because they haven't USED the arms doesn't change that. Though they have repeatedly threatened to kill people. IMO once you get to that point, then you've crossed the line. "I have guns and will use these guns to kill people in my way" How is this not a bad thing? Yeah the place was empty, so what? If I go into a store when it's closed and set up camp, I've broken laws and should be put in jail. There's nothing inherently wrong or illegal about being armed, and America has a long history of sit-in protests. But yeah, that doesn't absolve you of the CONSEQUENCES of those sit ins. These dudes should totally end up in jail.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky Raccoon on Jan 11, 2016 6:06:53 GMT -5
Yeah I remember when OWS took over federal property while armed. OK you win. These guys are just goofballs pulling a sexy prank. Again, not what I said. What they're doing is a protest. And it's a protest where they're asserting what is, in their minds, their personal freedoms. That includes the right to carry firearms. Threats of violence against authorities who may attempt to remove individuals from property they do not own is most certainly NOT a personal freedom. That's the problem here. It may have been an empty building during the holidays, but people do work there, and are now unable to. You mentioned race not being a factor, but given recent track records, if this was a group of middle eastern, black or native people protesting against discrimination , while legally armed to the teeth and threatening violence against those who might remove them from the premises, do you think they would be eventually confronted by a single sheriff days later, who kindly asks them to go back home and then leaves with a friendly handshake?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 6:12:04 GMT -5
Again, not what I said. What they're doing is a protest. And it's a protest where they're asserting what is, in their minds, their personal freedoms. That includes the right to carry firearms. Threats of violence against authorities who may attempt to remove individuals from property they do not own is most certainly NOT a personal freedom. That's the problem here. It may have been an empty building during the holidays, but people do work there, and are now unable to. You mentioned race not being a factor, but given recent track records, if this was a group of middle eastern, black or native people protesting against discrimination , while legally armed to the teeth and threatening violence against those who might remove them from the premises, do you think they would be eventually confronted by a single sheriff days later, who kindly asks them to go back home and then leaves with a friendly handshake? I don't know, but I lean towards no. Natives I don't know. I don't know how badly natives have been treated lately. A black or middle eastern person? I believe they'd get WAY harsher action taking against them. But I don't know how the police are in rural oregan. My position isn't "Go these guys!" My position is "This is more complicated than 'A bunch of morons with no real beef showed up and took over a building at gunpoint, so let's stop throwing terrorism around like it's a word that means anything someone does that's bad.'"
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,051
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jan 11, 2016 6:22:42 GMT -5
Just googled the definition or armed: armed ɑːmd/Submit adjective 1. equipped with or carrying a firearm or firearms. "heavily armed troops" 2. HERALDRY having claws, a beak, etc. of a specified tincture. "a lion rampant argent, armed and langued azure" So yes, this is an armed assault, just because they haven't USED the arms doesn't change that. Though they have repeatedly threatened to kill people. IMO once you get to that point, then you've crossed the line. "I have guns and will use these guns to kill people in my way" How is this not a bad thing? Yeah the place was empty, so what? If I go into a store when it's closed and set up camp, I've broken laws and should be put in jail. There's nothing inherently wrong or illegal about being armed, and America has a long history of sit-in protests. But yeah, that doesn't absolve you of the CONSEQUENCES of those sit ins. These dudes should totally end up in jail. Ok, fair enough, but I'd have thought there'd be something about armed occupation of government property. While the right to protest is there, but I'd have thought it'd be the right to peaceful protest, once you threaten murder, you're not being peaceful anymore. Sit ins have happened, but unless I'm really ill informed, most of them haven't involved saying they'd kill anyone stopping them.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 11, 2016 7:28:04 GMT -5
Calling this not an armed assault is something very much like that. It's only an armed assault if you see the mere presence of guns as an armed assault. Again, they occupied an empty building It's an armed assault when it's an assault by armed people. Which it is. In fact, I may not know much about US law but even I know that even if you don't use your weapons, even if your weapon is fake, even you threaten people with it, it's still considered armed assault. They're not just "occupying an empty building", they forcibly seized it through the threat of violence. With any other cultural group that would be called what it is: terrorism. Last I checked, even in the USA, it's not legal to occupy a territory that you don't own by threatening the legitimate occupants. If heavily armed guys squatted your house without your consent while you're gone and threatened to open fire if authorities tried to dislodge them, would you go "well fair enough, my house WAS empty so these dangerous lunatics are perfectly within their rights to steal my house"? "You snooze you lose" isn't actually legally binding. With guns which are an essential tool in the thing that they are doing not merely incidental as was suggested by "It's legal for them to have them." Nothing about what they are doing right now is legal, just no one cares enough to enforce the many many laws they are violating. Just because it's domestic terrorism on the level of Napster and Kazaa (at this point, with the potential to escalate at any moment) doesn't mean it's not domestic terrorism and what they're doing isn't a flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government. /larsulrich How is this a "flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government"? Parks are federally owned. Was Occupy Wallstreet a "flagrant violation of the very idea of a federal government"? Occupy Wall Street didn't threaten to murder anyone. Again, when you bring "I'll shoot you in the face if you don't do what I want" into it, you're pretty much instantly on the wrong side of the law. And morality. They aren't heroic vigilantes fighting The Man's oppression, these people are a threat to society and should be treated as such.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,291
|
Post by Push R Truth on Jan 11, 2016 7:28:38 GMT -5
Don't you kinda lose that "peaceful protest" card when you say you'll shoot people?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 11, 2016 9:27:19 GMT -5
I'll repeat what I said earlier. Situations like this are complicated, and even more so now in the social media age. Like I said before, you don't want to make martyrs of the people making you out to be the bad guy. What these guys are doing is armed sedition, but all they've done to this point is Occupy a sparesely used goverment building. They're a punchline in social media, but that doesn't mean social media wants to see them all slaughtered. Further, their supporters would only be more emboldened with that reaction, because their entire argument seems to be that teh government is trying to kill independent ranching (from what I gather), pointing to a long string of events that they see as targeting one of the only ranch families that wouldn't sell their property to the government. And when you have political groups whose stance is anti-big government, big government coming in and killing a group of people who, up to now, actually haven't killed anyone is going to give them more ammo. If you're the government, you want to resolve this situation, but you don't want give them ammo either. As much as people might want the government to storm in and take these guys down, it's a bad idea to do so. The government doesn't want another Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidian situation, and as much as you can argue that the situations differ, the overall result would be the same, the government being aggressive and causing dead citizens. Standoffs are usually handled without escalation for as long as possible no matter who is doing the standoff (I covered a fair share of them when I was a crime reporter, they were awfully boring), because escalation is a bad idea and bad press. How long they're waited out depends on how much disruption they're causing, and these guys are causing no disruption to anyone's lives, so there's no need to make the situation worse and no hurry to get them out of a rarely used cabin in a infrequently used section of a park. And despite their bluster, they're not opening fire on anyone who walks up and it's not likely that they will because they don't want to escalate it either. They're not eager to be the bad guys, they want to be the macho people who stood up to the government and walked away. The government knows that, that's why they didn't take aggressive action during these guys' last protest. They know they're not in any real danger, and they don't want their own activities looked at closely, they don't want these guys' stance to have a platform, so they're not going to make martyrs out of them. It's far better for these guys to stew there and be a punchline. The response they're taking is far more savvy than the videogame response that most people on the internet want them to take, which is probably why they're in charge and everyone else is complaining.
|
|
|
Post by Father Dougal McGuire on Jan 11, 2016 9:29:08 GMT -5
Well they made some new request for cigs, french vanilla creamer, hay and some underwear. Wotta clusterf***.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,051
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jan 11, 2016 9:33:02 GMT -5
Well they made some new request for cigs, french vanilla creamer, hay and some underwear. Wotta clusterf***. Nice request. Now go f*** yourselves
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 11, 2016 10:09:15 GMT -5
This thread was questionable at first, but then it became silly and we allowed it. Now people are starting to argue and get into politics and what not.
On that note, we are done.
|
|