Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 07:41am PT
|
I don't ever want to be tazed, especially after looking so stoopid.
|
|
HermitMaster
Social climber
my abode
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 07:44am PT
|
+1 Escopeta
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 07:48am PT
|
Monolith- Wow. What a colossal d#@&%e. That was amazing. I'm not sure if tazing him was the right move there or not but I'm pretty glad he got tazed.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 08:11am PT
|
Man, that video above is worth watching.
I don't know what it is about Idaho, but they certainly have more than their fair share of whacko's, particularly the Sovereign Citizen movement.
Wiki has an amazing page on them. I suggest reading it. It will make more sense if you do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
You would think that a redneck state like Oklahoma would be crawling with these people, but I'm not aware of a single one. Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho seems to be the epicenter.
Cliven Bundy is one of those sovereign citizens, with a twisted view of the constitution. Wiki even has a page about him.
I wonder what prison will do for those true believers who were busted for taking over the refuge.
Somebody needs to go shoot all of Bundy's trespass cattle in Nevada as well. Mark my words. That event isn't over. The FBI probably has some thick files on those guys who pointed rifles at federal agents in Bundyville.
|
|
sangoma
Trad climber
south africa
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 08:15am PT
|
(quote)We have a winner! Congratulations!
Do you like cats?(/quote)
Yes....well done , with lots of BBQ sauce ....
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 08:16am PT
|
I wonder what prison will do for those true believers who were busted for taking over the refuge.
It's a fulfillment of their desire to see themselves as persecuted.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 08:31am 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?
TradEddie: Both acts were illegal, one was an act of civil disobedience, the other an act of terrorism
I've been trying to understand your distinction. What determines the dividing line between civil disobedience and terrorism? Is it the fact that they were merely armed, or is there something else? No one has been shot (as of yet) so its not as if the distinction is violence. Is it the threat of violence?
The argument that one group took over a park and the other took over a park headquarters doesn't seem like sufficient reason to justify the change in labels.
And if its the threat of violence, then wouldn't the threat of violence by the authorities be just as assumed as the fact that they are armed?
I know there's a ton of truly butt hurt people here about the whole affair, but I'm trying to understand the difference between Occupy and Oregon. Other than the obvious fact that some people associated themselves with the Occupy plight more closely than Oregon.
An argument can be made that both group's "claims" are equally outlandish, so why the different labels?
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2016 - 08:56am PT
|
Escostupid - civil disobedience is done non-violently. Occupying land with weapons and making it clear that you intend to use them is violence. despite the fact that the weapons are not actually fired. If I go into a bank and demand money with a pistol in my waistband I will be charged with assault and robbery. A civil disobedience defense will be an epic fail and will probably go viral on YouTube.
Truth is the nutters did fire weapons on the refuge. They went to an outlying building, pulled furniture out and propped up targets and shot at them. More proof they are idiots and that not everyone should be allowed to own a gun.
edit - we are not butt hurt, in fact I think the majority view is that the FBI did an outstanding job of showing the world what idiots the Bundys and SovCits are.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:15am PT
|
I think the proper, improper spelling is Estupido. Get with the program.
Threats do not equate to violence. If the mere threat of violence is the distinguishing factor separating the label of civil disobedience and terrorism, then that's fine I guess.
Seems inconsistently applied.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:35am PT
|
Boring.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:35am PT
|
I've been trying to understand your distinction. What determines the dividing line between civil disobedience and terrorism? ....
... And if its the threat of violence, then wouldn't the threat of violence by the authorities be just as assumed as the fact that they are armed?
When (in this case) did the police threaten to shoot anyone acting lawfully, or even anyone acting unlawfully but peacefully?
The Bundyites carried weapons to prevent the police performing their lawful duties. They carried those weapons to facilitate their crimes, they clearly threatened to shoot any who tried to stop them and the holdouts continue to threaten to use those weapons to avoid prosecution for their crimes.
Would you suggest that a burglar is simply exercising his second amendment rights when he brings a gun? If you had a "Protected by Glock" sign in your yard, does that mean an armed burglar in your home is committing less of a crime than if he burgled the home of someone he knows to be unarmed?
TE
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:39am PT
|
Escopeta And if its the threat of violence, then wouldn't the threat of violence by the authorities be just as assumed as the fact that they are armed?
Police cars have lights. Snowplows have lights. I guess all snowplow drivers must be police officers!!!
What is this facile garbage?
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:39am PT
|
Threats do not equate to violence.
Tell that to the person who suffers nightmares after having some creep aim a gun at them and threaten to shoot of they don't do as asked.
Violence is as much the energy as the action.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:40am PT
|
Threats do not equate to violence. If the mere threat of violence is the distinguishing factor separating the label of civil disobedience and terrorism, then that's fine I guess.
The MERE threat of violence? What's the difference between panhandling and armed robbery?
TE
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:54am PT
|
Threatening violence is a violent act and is illegal. The KKK didn't need to attack to be intimidating, they just needed to burn a cross on your lawn or show up hooded outside your church. There were more than enough prior dead bodies for you to get the picture.
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 09:59am PT
|
It's like Ron Anderson and Madbolter1 had a child; the end result is a new poster with the brain-dead reasoning and logic skills of Ron, and the incessant, non-sensical mindless posting of MB1. WTF?
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 10:10am PT
|
I'd say it was BOT, but a BOT is less insistent and more intelligible.
Might be the product on the new, super-secret moran training center somewhere in Knuckleheadistan.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 11:04am PT
|
Generally speaking, its bad form to claim the higher mental ground, when you can't even spell the word moron.
Threats equal threats. Violence is violence. Threats do not equal violence. I'm not saying they can't both be illegal, but even in the eyes of the law they are not equal. That's why they have two different words to describe them.
Happiegirl, I have no idea what the comment of "Violence is as much the energy as the action." means. But I assure you, there is a vast difference between the threat of a gun shoved in your face and actually getting shot in the face. Nightmares notwithstanding.
If the threat of violence is enough to qualify the oregon idiots as terrorists then fine. But trying to claim that the fact they carried guns makes them terrorists could easily be viewed as a rationalization meant to support your position.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2016 - 11:07am PT
|
Escopeta posted Generally speaking, its bad form to claim the higher mental ground, when you can't even spell the word moron.
You certainly can't complain about being attacked from the lower ground when every other post you make contains a permutation of the pejorative "retard."
Threats equal threats. Violence is violence. Threats do not equal violence.
Threats are a form of emotional violence. You are speaking of violence as being solely physical. It is not.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!