Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
Escopet
Trad climber
Idaho
Feb 9, 2016 - 03:08pm PT
So, the unarmed people had the right to take over the the parks but the fact that the yeehawdists had guns so that made it not right?
I'm not sure I understand the distinction since the people that they were opposing in both cases, most certainly were armed.
Hi.
Occupiers did not interfere with police or government officials performing their legal duties. ( except in some peculiar abstract which you will possibly enlighten us with)
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
So, the unarmed people had the right to take over the the parks but the fact that the yeehawdists had guns so that made it not right?
Both acts were illegal, one was an act of civil disobedience, the other an act of terrorism. As far as right or wrong goes, we'd have to get the philosophy Prof back for that one. It depends(tm).
In one, protesters undertook a non-violent act of trespass fully accepting that they could and would be prosecuted. At no point was lethal force used or threatened to prevent police from enforcing any law. At no point did protesters deny or oppose the legal authority of police to enforce any law. The purpose was to peaceably gain attention to their grievances.
In the other, citizens undertook an act of armed trespass with the stated willingness to use lethal force to avoid prosecution for that crime, they denied the authority of police to enforce the law, they encouraged others to use lethal force to oppose police. The purpose was to usurp the judgement of the courts, to circumvent the very core of the constitution they claim loyalty to.
TE
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
TradEddie: Careful with the logic - Escopeta might flip out again.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
TE,
OK, but what does "armed" have to do with either of those distinctions? I understand your explanation, but wouldn't the difference be evident regardless of whether the Oregon group was armed or not?
<break>
I realize, it sounds much more salacious, but I am intrigued by the fact that when the media reported on the situation why didn't they incessantly say the armed militia was meeting with the armed FBI agents? As if the militia were the only party to be armed?
|
|
Stewart
Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
|
|
Generally, when the authorities are dealing with heavily armed lunatics who are attempting to overthrow a democratically elected government it's considered a good idea for the Feds to be capable of defending themselves.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
why didn't they incessantly say the armed militia was meeting with the armed FBI agents?
Presumably because (rightfully or not) the FBI was on the legal side of this affair. The other guys were committing criminal acts. Generally, law enforcement is allowed and presumed to be armed (legitimate) the other guys were deemed to be criminals and therefore not lawfully armed.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2016 - 06:33pm PT
|
Escopeta, brandishing a weapon changes everything. Your suggestion that since the FBI is armed then everyone else should be equally armed is laughable.
Some militia staying at the Holiday Inn in kanab for the Finicum funeral accidentally shot through a wall and took out a mirror. Like good rightwing gun nuts, nobody accepted responsibility
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
Where on earth did I say that because the FBI is armed everyone else should be? The laughable thing is how much you guys want to make sh#t up. If brandishing a weapon changes everything, does that theory still hold true when its the authorities doing said brandishing?
I simply find it interesting, and at least mildly amusing that these things get reported almost from the perspective that the citizens are armed and the authorities are not. Or at least their presence isn't qualified as such.
And based on the picture from the other thread, I don't think lax firearm handling is limited to the right wing.....
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
Jim Brennan, I guess I'm a bit of an anomaly here. When I type something it's because that's what I want to say. Maybe you guys have been so conditioned by the one liner retards in here to infer and project all manner of overtures into their post in an effort to fit some argument you are making.
As my post stated, I find it interesting that when these altercations get reported, most often via the media, that the qualifying term of "armed" or "unarmed" seems to only be applied to citizens, not the authorities. For example. "Unarmed black man"...... Or....."armed militia men" etc.
I will admit, I don't like what it Implies, but I find it l interesting more than maddening at this point.
|
|
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
I think it's more a matter of assumption.
LEO's are assumed armed (at least in the states) therefore it's almost redundant to say or print it.
Cowboy Joe on the other hand is only assumed armed by other cowboys not the general population therefore a reportable item.
But what do I know...
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
You may be right.
EDIT: But my suspicion is that it's just a matter of the media attempting to be provocative.
|
|
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
But my suspicion is that it's just a matter of the media attempting to be provocative.
Such a cynic :-)
It does make for better copy though to the sheeple
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
1997..... This dead horse has legs!
A good point in the constant "heavily armed militia" nonsense that was repeated over and over.
First off, semi-auto rifles and pistols aren't "heavy weapons". And these dildo eaters certainly weren't and aren't a real threat to anyone but themselves.
Now back to 1998...
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
This just called in by an either armed or unarmed militant black or white libertarian or liberal man or woman.
Students at La Jolla, Lincoln, San Ysidro and Scripps Ranch high schools were ordered to shelter in place in their classrooms after their campuses were put on lockdown Tuesday morning due to unfounded phone threats of violence.
Free Huey, shelter in place, go missing (a threefer in one line).
Don't get your panties in a Bundy ... er ... Bunch
http://explorepahistory.com/kora/files/1/2/1-2-1710-25-ExplorePAHistory-a0l7o5-a_349.jpg
No one trick poney, eh?
“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”
|
|
sangoma
Trad climber
south africa
|
|
Got it. Out from under U krakalloons
2000. So what do I get besides a slap in the face
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
I guess I'm a bit of an anomaly here.
As you laugh at your trolling, the nature of your anomaly lies your lack of civics education, and media reporting knowledge.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 05:16am PT
|
OLR...
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 06:22am PT
|
Got it. Out from under U krakalloons
2000. So what do I get besides a slap in the face
We have a winner! Congratulations!
Do you like cats?
|
|
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 06:55am PT
|
Estupido is losing so badly.
Chatty chat chat.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!