Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:10 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:The double standard is that people of color are being killed for doing virtually nothing, but white people are fully arming themselves, writing suicide letters/saying goodbye to their family, and taking over buildings while issuing threats to the Federal Government, and you're arguing for restraint.


Actually all sorts of people have been wrongfully killed by police; it's not limited to people of color.

And yeah, in this specific case we're arguing for restraint. Because so far, nobody has been hurt or killed and there is no reason to change that fact - for either side. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be better to escalate a non-violent situation into a violent one?

This to me is why BlackLivesMatter is such an important movement, as well as why while I'm not for nuking the compound from orbit, I would have little issue with an armed response to remove these people from the premises. They are actually factually breaking the law, violently and threateningly, and you're suggesting that we 'just keep cool'.


So... in the same paragraph where you're proclaiming your support for a movement that was founded around the rejection of excessive force by law enforcement, you're advocating that law enforcement deliberately escalate a situation into a shootout that would inevitably cause deaths and injuries on both sides... because why exactly?

commodorejohn
Posts: 1180
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:11 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:We routinely kill far more people for doing far less than these guys have. This is a country that defines a "militant" worthy of execution as "a male of military age".

Yes, and it's fucking horrible that that happens. (And, in a just world, those responsible would be tried for war crimes.) Are you suggesting we need more of that? Are you suggesting that that's right? Or is it just that you want these people to die and that's a convenient justification for an existing prejudice?
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:16 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Does mere possession of a weapon make an otherwise peaceful protester worse than some thug throwing bottles of piss and shit?


Consider two scenarios. In one, I come to your house and complain that your dog has been barking all night and it kept my baby from sleeping. In the other, I come to your house and complain that your dog has been barking all night and it kept my baby from sleeping, and I'm carrying my AR-15 while I'm talking to you. Do you believe those scenarios are identical?


A more appropriate set of choices would be: In one, you charge into my house and start throwing shit against the walls while screaming obscenities and making vague references to my dog, but never actually making it clear what you're talking about; and in the other, you clearly explain that my dog is barking and that you'd like it to stop so your kid can sleep, and you happen to have an AR-15.

I'd prefer the latter, to be honest.

And in neither case would I want SWAT to crash through the door with guns drawn.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:We routinely kill far more people for doing far less than these guys have. This is a country that defines a "militant" worthy of execution as "a male of military age".


Is your goal here "we should fix the problem" or "these problems justify killing a fuck-ton of other people too"?

Mutex
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:22 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
cphite wrote:
Does mere possession of a weapon make an otherwise peaceful protester worse than some thug throwing bottles of piss and shit?


Consider two scenarios. In one, I come to your house and complain that your dog has been barking all night and it kept my baby from sleeping. In the other, I come to your house and complain that your dog has been barking all night and it kept my baby from sleeping, and I'm carrying my AR-15 while I'm talking to you. Do you believe those scenarios are identical?


A more appropriate set of choices would be: In one, you charge into my house and start throwing shit against the walls while screaming obscenities and making vague references to my dog, but never actually making it clear what you're talking about; and in the other, you clearly explain that my dog is barking and that you'd like it to stop so your kid can sleep, and you happen to have an AR-15.

I'd prefer the latter, to be honest.

And in neither case would I want SWAT to crash through the door with guns drawn.


Actually in the first one they'd be outside your house in a public area, and I don't think the trouble makers made up as much a fraction of the occupy protesters as you like to imply.

In the second scenario the armed guy would be in your house. Making threats about getting violent if you try to make him leave.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:27 pm UTC

I think it is safe to say that the "Occupy" metaphor isn't really communicating the point. There's no point rehashing that old argument here.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby slinches » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:29 pm UTC

It's odd to me that there seems to be an assumption in this thread that protesters are supposed to be unarmed (or only armed with sticks and rocks). Where I live essentially anyone can legally carry a firearm almost anywhere, including while participating in a protest. Where does the notion that people who are trying to get their opinions heard should be defenseless come from? It's certainly a different thing if they are actively wielding and threatening the use of weapons without provocation or breaking other laws. But is merely being armed while at a protest sufficient to make it an "armed protest"? Should that on its own be illegal? I'd argue no to both.

By the way, I'm not defending the Bundy militia people here. I don't know the details, so they very well could be going far beyond the limits of a peaceful protest.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:37 pm UTC

slinches wrote:It's odd to me that there seems to be an assumption in this thread that protesters are supposed to be unarmed (or only armed with sticks and rocks). Where I live essentially anyone can legally carry a firearm almost anywhere, including while participating in a protest. Where does the notion that people who are trying to get their opinions heard should be defenseless come from? It's certainly a different thing if they are actively wielding and threatening the use of weapons without provocation or breaking other laws. But is merely being armed while at a protest sufficient to make it an "armed protest"? Should that on its own be illegal? I'd argue no to both.

By the way, I'm not defending the Bundy militia people here. I don't know the details, so they very well could be going far beyond the limits of a peaceful protest.


I agree. Mere possession of a gun does not mean you lose other rights. Misuse of a gun, well...that's a different kettle of fish. Holding a gun to someone's head is different from a gun in the holster. But, this is the "just has a gun" kind of situation. At least, unless something has changed very recently.

Where they have gone kind of far is tresspassing. I believe a chain was cut and a door forced open. They did fix those things afterward, I believe, but still, that's impolite. I'm entirely okay with appropriate fines being assessed or whatever, but it's definitely not terrorism/send in the tanks level shit.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Angua » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:54 pm UTC

You're ignoring the bits where they've said that they're prepared to be violent and lay down their lives if necessary. Left goodbye notes and all that. And are also armed with guns.

The impression I (and I assume a lot of other people in this thread are getting) is that the only reason there hasn't been violence yet is that the government hasn't actually tried to do anything.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:57 pm UTC

slinches wrote:It's odd to me that there seems to be an assumption in this thread that protesters are supposed to be unarmed (or only armed with sticks and rocks). Where I live essentially anyone can legally carry a firearm almost anywhere, including while participating in a protest. Where does the notion that people who are trying to get their opinions heard should be defenseless come from? It's certainly a different thing if they are actively wielding and threatening the use of weapons without provocation or breaking other laws. But is merely being armed while at a protest sufficient to make it an "armed protest"? Should that on its own be illegal? I'd argue no to both.

By the way, I'm not defending the Bundy militia people here. I don't know the details, so they very well could be going far beyond the limits of a peaceful protest.


I'm fine if you're "packing heat" at a protest. Self-defense makes sense. The problem is that this Bundy Militia actively points their guns towards people that they disagree with.

Image

This is a picture of what they were like in 2014. I figure they are doing the same sort of action, pointing their guns downrange in a foolhardy attempt to gain some ethos. This is going very far above-and-beyond just "packing heat" during a protest.

Image

The above image was taken from a pro-"militia" source. This is what this group wants to look like, at least in regards to their 2014 shenanigans. Those are federal government agents that guy is pointing his gun at.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:01 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Mutex
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

Yeah, not everyone is ok with a large mob deciding they're above the law because they're armed to the teeth. Laws are decided by the whole of society and should apply to everyone. If these people think they can pick and choose what laws apply to them, and the government seems to let them get away with it, I wouldn't want to live in that area. And I wouldn't want to have to join another armed mob to be safe from them. Going back to the days of tribal warfare doesn't appeal.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

Angua wrote:You're ignoring the bits where they've said that they're prepared to be violent and lay down their lives if necessary. Left goodbye notes and all that. And are also armed with guns.


Their statements did not sound like a promise of violence on their part, but as a statement of belief that the government will kill them.

I would, beforehand, have said that this sounded kind of nuts and extreme, but given that half of social media seems to be demanding exactly that, I'm re-evaluating my assessment of them. They might just be correct.

Which is, of course, pretty awful and depressing. Granted, I don't entirely like their tactics, but...even so, they haven't done anything worth being killed over here. The 2014 thing, well, the gov glassed them first. You point guns, guns are getting pointed back. I'm not going to crap on them for using a strategy that the feds used first.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1180
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:02 pm UTC

Angua wrote:You're ignoring the bits where they've said that they're prepared to be violent and lay down their lives if necessary. Left goodbye notes and all that. And are also armed with guns.

This is true, and while these types are generally 90% hot air when you get down to it, it's certainly worth taking the possibility seriously and exercising caution. But that doesn't mean that a "shoot first, ask questions later" strategy on the part of the government is justified; they're not a direct threat to anybody at present and the situation has thus far remained free of violence. Deliberately escalating from that would be idiotic as well as morally dubious, especially when waiting them out is a much simpler and safer strategy. Thankfully, at present that appears to be what they're doing; what disturbs me much more is how many allegedly civilized, non-psychotic people are anything from totally cool with to openly advocating for an escalation to lethal violence on the part of the government, merely because they don't like these people.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:08 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:what disturbs me much more is how many allegedly civilized, non-psychotic people are anything from totally cool with to openly advocating for an escalation to lethal violence on the part of the government, merely because they don't like these people.


Yeah, a handful of folks upset over land, eh, it happens. We can live with that.

Half of society demanding blood....okay. That has real danger. You start solving problems by just shooting everyone you dislike in job lots, you've gone down a very bad path.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Angua » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Their statements did not sound like a promise of violence on their part, but as a statement of belief that the government will kill them.
Angua wrote:http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

...

Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.

Doesn't sound like they aren't planning violence.

I mean, I don't like violence, but really this is just going to lead to more armed nutcases doing what they want. Basically they only reason they aren't being arrested is because they have their own guns. There would have been no one calling for violence at them if they were unarmed and peaceably occupying the refuge - they'd just be asked to leave or arrested like a normal protestor. Like it or not, having guns and saying they are willing to take it that far means that more people are going to see an escalated response as necessary. Guns change the equation significantly.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Which is, of course, pretty awful and depressing. Granted, I don't entirely like their tactics, but...even so, they haven't done anything worth being killed over here. The 2014 thing, well, the gov glassed them first. You point guns, guns are getting pointed back. I'm not going to crap on them for using a strategy that the feds used first.


I'm not entirely sure if I believe that the feds pointed their guns first. The Wikipedia article is ambiguous. I have found that a lot of pro-militia sites are espousing what you claim as the truth, but I'm not seeing anything from standard media that reports that the feds pointed first. Do you have a link?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:15 pm UTC

There is no imminent threat of either violence or hazard. This isn't a dark street where decisions have to be made in seconds. The place is in the middle of nowhere, and the press is taking tours. It may come to violence, but why should we rush to it?
Angua wrote: Like it or not, having guns and saying they are willing to take it that far means that more people are going to see an escalated response as necessary. Guns change the equation significantly.
Yes they do. The outcome is final. People get buried. It isn't a step to take lightly because a member of militia makes threats.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

I agree that we should not rush to violence. I am also disturbed by the suggestions to use Predator strikes to kill these people.

They're a bit of a nutjob, and the last 2014 standoff was tense enough. But they managed to back off last time without firing a bullet, so if anything, the evidence from 2014 shows that they are peaceful (in some sense of the word). I don't think the Bundy group will be the first to shoot in this case.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Yeah, not everyone is ok with a large mob deciding they're above the law because they're armed to the teeth. Laws are decided by the whole of society and should apply to everyone. If these people think they can pick and choose what laws apply to them, and the government seems to let them get away with it, I wouldn't want to live in that area. And I wouldn't want to have to join another armed mob to be safe from them. Going back to the days of tribal warfare doesn't appeal.


Sure... which is reason enough to cut the power, turn off the water, and wait them out - and then arrest them. There is a huge gap between letting them get away with it, and deliberately escalating to the point where people on either side are killed or injured.

Mutex
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:44 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Mutex wrote:Yeah, not everyone is ok with a large mob deciding they're above the law because they're armed to the teeth. Laws are decided by the whole of society and should apply to everyone. If these people think they can pick and choose what laws apply to them, and the government seems to let them get away with it, I wouldn't want to live in that area. And I wouldn't want to have to join another armed mob to be safe from them. Going back to the days of tribal warfare doesn't appeal.


Sure... which is reason enough to cut the power, turn off the water, and wait them out - and then arrest them. There is a huge gap between letting them get away with it, and deliberately escalating to the point where people on either side are killed or injured.


I agree with that. In 2014 they got away with it though, and here we are.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:46 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Mutex wrote:Yeah, not everyone is ok with a large mob deciding they're above the law because they're armed to the teeth. Laws are decided by the whole of society and should apply to everyone. If these people think they can pick and choose what laws apply to them, and the government seems to let them get away with it, I wouldn't want to live in that area. And I wouldn't want to have to join another armed mob to be safe from them. Going back to the days of tribal warfare doesn't appeal.


Sure... which is reason enough to cut the power, turn off the water, and wait them out - and then arrest them. There is a huge gap between letting them get away with it, and deliberately escalating to the point where people on either side are killed or injured.

While I agree with you, the point stands that no one cut the power and waited out the Occupy protestors. Or those students peacefully staging a sit in. Or Eric Garner. etc. etc. etc.

The response that these guys are getting is the reasonable, careful, metered response. That's precisely the problem - they are presenting the furthest possible extreme we see in protests. The National Guard was called in because people in Baltimore were rioting. These guys are heavily armed, trying to become martyrs, and staging a hostile take over, and we're saying "Well, lets play it cool".

The message this is sending is that if white people are armed and extremely dangerous, you listen to them and try and talk them down quietly. If black people are standing in the wrong place or protesting or rioting, you call in the heavy fucking artillery.

A CHILD was gunned down because someone said they were waving a toy gun around. Here a bunch of grown ass men are bristling with guns aimed outward, and the authorities are saying 'Well well, lets just see where this goes'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:We routinely kill far more people for doing far less than these guys have. This is a country that defines a "militant" worthy of execution as "a male of military age".


Is your goal here "we should fix the problem" or "these problems justify killing a fuck-ton of other people too"?


Neither, especially. My point is that it is quite hypocritical to play with kid gloves when it comes to a heavily armed right-wing militia group, when we aren't willing to provide the same courtesy to, say, a wedding party in Afghanistan, or a drug raid in pretty much any major city elsewhere in the country. Under the standards of justice that this country uses for just about everybody else, force is justified in this scenario. It's particularly ironic that the people who cheerlead people like the Bundy group are tend to be the same people who also advocate for more of the latter types of violence. I don't think that it is any reasonable stretch of the imagination to say that if this group were Muslim, they'd probably already be dead, and these guys would be at the front of the pack cheering the government on.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby cphite » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:55 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
cphite wrote:
cphite wrote:
Does mere possession of a weapon make an otherwise peaceful protester worse than some thug throwing bottles of piss and shit?


Consider two scenarios. In one, I come to your house and complain that your dog has been barking all night and it kept my baby from sleeping. In the other, I come to your house and complain that your dog has been barking all night and it kept my baby from sleeping, and I'm carrying my AR-15 while I'm talking to you. Do you believe those scenarios are identical?


A more appropriate set of choices would be: In one, you charge into my house and start throwing shit against the walls while screaming obscenities and making vague references to my dog, but never actually making it clear what you're talking about; and in the other, you clearly explain that my dog is barking and that you'd like it to stop so your kid can sleep, and you happen to have an AR-15.

I'd prefer the latter, to be honest.

And in neither case would I want SWAT to crash through the door with guns drawn.


Actually in the first one they'd be outside your house in a public area,


No... in both examples provided in the analogy, the neighbor came to my home. For the sake of consistency, we must assume that they're in the same place; what differs is what they've armed themselves with and how they act once they're there.

and I don't think the trouble makers made up as much a fraction of the occupy protesters as you like to imply.


Having lived close enough to one to see it in person, I don't think the trouble makers made up as small a fraction as you've been lead to believe.

To be fair, the vast majority were not actively throwing or breaking things... but as a whole, they were a nuisance that caused millions in property damage (both public and private) and that harassed bystanders and local business.

In the second scenario the armed guy would be in your house. Making threats about getting violent if you try to make him leave.


In which case I still don't want armed SWAT guys breaking down my door and shooting.

I'm not opposed to use of force when it's necessary; but the key is when it's necessary. You come uninvited into my home, armed or not, you risk leaving in a zippered bag. But given the choice, I'd rather let you leave on both feet and through the front door.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1180
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:57 pm UTC

Seriously, what kind of bass-ackwards Bizarro World logic is it that says "other, more innocent groups have been treated much more unreasonably/immorally by the US government, therefore the US government needs to treat this less innocent group just as unreasonably/immorally?"

It's especially galling that people are posturing like they just think it's so unfair that the government is too nice to white extremists but too willing to shoot first and ask questions later when blacks/Muslims are involved, when at the same time they're all but openly calling for that same appalling callous disregard for justice, due process, and basic human rights to be applied to the white extremists. Get off your high horse, people; it's abundantly clear that you don't want justice for all, you just want injustice for the people you dislike.
Last edited by commodorejohn on Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:03 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:A CHILD was gunned down because someone said they were waving a toy gun around. Here a bunch of grown ass men are bristling with guns aimed outward, and the authorities are saying 'Well well, lets just see where this goes'.
Actually the FBI isn't saying anything. And this isn't a rolling protest in the middle of a city. Nor some local yokel cops who are too trigger happy for their own good.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:04 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:The National Guard was called in because people in Baltimore were rioting.


Bad example. National Guard was called in AFTER the following.

Image

I removed a second, huge picture. -- Zamfir

Baltimore Residents want to know why it took several fires before the protesters were treated seriously in the Baltimore case. Rawlings-Blake has basically resigned over the issue, and my understanding is that everyone agrees that emergency controls should have stepped in sooner.

Several businesses have been permanently closed due to damages and/or licensing issues. And prescriptions for medicine in that neighborhood was shut down for weeks because all of the medicine burned up in the CVS arson.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Mutex
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:07 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Mutex wrote:Actually in the first one they'd be outside your house in a public area,


No... in both examples provided in the analogy, the neighbor came to my home. For the sake of consistency, we must assume that they're in the same place; what differs is what they've armed themselves with and how they act once they're there.


They're not in the same place though. The occupy protesters were in an area the public are allowed to be, the Bundyites are trespassing on government property. Hence I adjusted the analogy.

In the second scenario the armed guy would be in your house. Making threats about getting violent if you try to make him leave.


In which case I still don't want armed SWAT guys breaking down my door and shooting.

I'm not opposed to use of force when it's necessary; but the key is when it's necessary. You come uninvited into my home, armed or not, you risk leaving in a zippered bag. But given the choice, I'd rather let you leave on both feet and through the front door.


Sure. But If this guy seems to make a habit of going into people's homes and refusing to leave, I'd be concerned if the police didn't really do anything about it.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby slinches » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:13 pm UTC

A static picture doesn't tell the whole story. It matters who initiated the threat and/or use of force. A group that takes a stance, but otherwise respects the rights and safety of bystanders is not a riotous mob. Even if it eventually does turn violent, as long as they remain purely defensive, I don't think protesters are necessarily morally wrong to defend their position and should not be considered terrorists. They still could be wrong from the standpoint that the rest of the populace disagrees with their position, but that doesn't make them evil or warrant the use of extreme force like a drone strike.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

They still could be wrong from the standpoint that the rest of the populace disagrees with their position, but that doesn't make them evil or warrant the use of extreme force like a drone strike.


Fair enough.

Its rather amusing to see people calling for Drone Strikes when tear-gas from Baltimore is being cited as "police going too far" (when parts of the city were literally burning to the ground). Still, its important to know the image of these Bundy folk, and how they want to show themselves. They are claiming to create an "insurrection" against the government.

Its probably poor choice of words from their part, but its still inflammatory language that riles a lot of people up.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:35 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:They're not in the same place though. The occupy protesters were in an area the public are allowed to be, the Bundyites are trespassing on government property. Hence I adjusted the analogy.


There is a significant difference in opinion here that is of importance.

Some people call this land "public land". In that it belongs to the public. In short, a park is no different from a sidewalk, etc.

Now, you still shouldn't break locks or what not, just like there are publicly accepted limits to how you should behave on a sidewalk, but merely being on the property is not very different from any other sort of protest.

KnightExemplar wrote:Its rather amusing to see people calling for Drone Strikes when tear-gas from Baltimore is being cited as "police going too far" (when parts of the city were literally burning to the ground). Still, its important to know the image of these Bundy folk, and how they want to show themselves. They are claiming to create an "insurrection" against the government.

Its probably poor choice of words from their part, but its still inflammatory language that riles a lot of people up.


Yeah...in part it's because some folks involved here are...not good at potraying a public image. But still, we can't kill people just for being ill spoken.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby slinches » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:39 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Sure. But If this guy seems to make a habit of going into people's homes and refusing to leave, I'd be concerned if the police didn't really do anything about it.

It would be more accurate if you had said: "Sure. But If this guy seems to make a habit of going into evacuated free public housing buildings and refusing to leave until they let the tenants move back in, I'd be concerned if the police didn't really do anything about it."

Someone barging into your home and refusing to leave at the threat of violence is in no way analogous to that same person occupying a vacant public building and refusing to leave at the threat of violence. In one, there are occupants who have been put in danger and personal property rights violated. Neither is true in the other. Both situations likely warrant some response from the authorities, but not the same response.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:41 pm UTC

Scratch a lefty and comrade Stalin emerges... jesus

Suggesting that a bunch of yokels in an abandoned building that are only a threat to their own adult selves when they get drunk around their own rifles should be targeted for drone extermination is probably the craziest thing I've ever read on here

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:52 pm UTC

slinches wrote:
Mutex wrote:Sure. But If this guy seems to make a habit of going into people's homes and refusing to leave, I'd be concerned if the police didn't really do anything about it.

It would be more accurate if you had said: "Sure. But If this guy seems to make a habit of going into evacuated free public housing buildings and refusing to leave until they let the tenants move back in, I'd be concerned if the police didn't really do anything about it."

Someone barging into your home and refusing to leave at the threat of violence is in no way analogous to that same person occupying a vacant public building and refusing to leave at the threat of violence. In one, there are occupants who have been put in danger and personal property rights violated. Neither is true in the other. Both situations likely warrant some response from the authorities, but not the same response.


If someone breaks into your home while you are not there and starts squatting, you have just as much right to evict them as while you are there. You may be in more personal danger in one case versus the other, but in terms of the property rights, it's pretty much the same. If you're in a state with castle doctrine in effect, you're probably allowed to shoot them in either case.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby slinches » Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:09 pm UTC

True, but private and public property are not the same thing. These guys are on public property.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:33 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Seriously, what kind of bass-ackwards Bizarro World logic is it that says "other, more innocent groups have been treated much more unreasonably/immorally by the US government, therefore the US government needs to treat this less innocent group just as unreasonably/immorally?"

It's especially galling that people are posturing like they just think it's so unfair that the government is too nice to white extremists but too willing to shoot first and ask questions later when blacks/Muslims are involved, when at the same time they're all but openly calling for that same appalling callous disregard for justice, due process, and basic human rights to be applied to the white extremists. Get off your high horse, people; it's abundantly clear that you don't want justice for all, you just want injustice for the people you dislike.
The bizzarro world logic is wherein you think these people are more innocent than any of the myriad people the authorities haven't handled with kiddie gloves. I'm not suggesting the Feds drive a tank in there, but I don't know why when a bunch of heavily armed white dudes say they're going to take down the government violently, we suggest moderation and reasonable action taken. These fuckers are terrorists, plain and simple, and this country specializes in overreacting to terrorism. Oh wait, withdrawn, they're white, never mind, everything is cool! We'll just solve this peacefully!

The people who are suggesting we grant these people due process and the benefit of a doubt are not surprisingly the same people who tend to make excuses for why Tamir Rice got shot. You want a reminder of what happens when people of color try this shit?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:37 pm UTC

slinches wrote:True, but private and public property are not the same thing. These guys are on public property.


Well, they're in a government-owned building, which is not the same as a public space either. Strictly speaking, the government is the landowner of the building and retains the right to evict or exclude anyone from the premises.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:43 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:Seriously, what kind of bass-ackwards Bizarro World logic is it that says "other, more innocent groups have been treated much more unreasonably/immorally by the US government, therefore the US government needs to treat this less innocent group just as unreasonably/immorally?"

It's especially galling that people are posturing like they just think it's so unfair that the government is too nice to white extremists but too willing to shoot first and ask questions later when blacks/Muslims are involved, when at the same time they're all but openly calling for that same appalling callous disregard for justice, due process, and basic human rights to be applied to the white extremists. Get off your high horse, people; it's abundantly clear that you don't want justice for all, you just want injustice for the people you dislike.
The bizzarro world logic is wherein you think these people are more innocent than any of the myriad people the authorities haven't handled with kiddie gloves. I'm not suggesting the Feds drive a tank in there, but I don't know why when a bunch of heavily armed white dudes say they're going to take down the government violently, we suggest moderation and reasonable action taken. These fuckers are terrorists, plain and simple, and this country specializes in overreacting to terrorism. Oh wait, withdrawn, they're white, never mind, everything is cool! We'll just solve this peacefully!

The people who are suggesting we grant these people due process and the benefit of a doubt are not surprisingly the same people who tend to make excuses for why Tamir Rice got shot. You want a reminder of what happens when people of color try this shit?


Yes, we remember what happens when white people do this. And we remember again when white people do this.

Which is why no one wants to re-enact the Waco siege. So you already got your right-wing blood in the 90s. The government has decided "kill everybody" before and its not pretty.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm UTC

I don't want the government to kill everybody, I want it to stop only wising up for white people.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:07 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I don't want the government to kill everybody, I want it to stop only wising up for white people.


And most people in this topic are hoping that Waco doesn't happen again. Which was again, 80ish dead (white) people for doing something very similar to this event. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and everybody gets to go home, alive with all of their body parts still attached.

The biggest, and most recent, law-enforcement led siege in American history was against white, christian, right-wing extremists in Texas. You've got your example sitting right there in the history books.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:12 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:10 am UTC

except having sex with children i imagine


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tirear and 22 guests