Church Condemns Peaceful Protest?

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Good question.

 

Ultimately I am comfortable with the armed protest, more important to this thread, I do not see their being armed as inherently unpeaceful. If the protest turns as it did in Ferguson then I'll feel uncomfortable. Note the difference however, in the nature of the two protests. One has been very peaceful however aggressive and the other highly violent. I'll let you decide which is which. 

It is peaceful in the sense that the owners of the violated property have shown forbearance and not marched in and shot everyone. If they occupied other federal property, say a room at the Pentagon, they would be dead now.

These are not peaceful people. peaceful people do not occupy public buildings and threaten to kill anyone who tries to dislodge them and ask more people to join them so they can successfully resist and repel any attempt to remove them. This also makes them idiots. If the government wanted them out and did not care about the body count they would, again, be dead by now.

[Darren10]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 11:35 PM, ttribe said:

I thought I was clear in my original statement.  Let me try math:

(Bring Loaded Gun to Protest) + (Threaten to Use Loaded Gun Against Law Enforcement) = Not Peaceful

Their "willing[ness] to fight for a cause" using violence is, by definition, not peaceful.  Their words about violence only happening if the government starts it is nonsense.  The mere act of bringing a gun to the protest and threatening to use it escalated this activity beyond anything that resembles both safety and "peaceful."  I am far more confident that the trained law enforcement professionals in this scenario will be able to remain calm and not be trigger-happy.  A bunch of Oregon ranchers running on adrenaline?  Not so much.

You may admire their "willing[ness] to fight for a cause" but you can't also claim they are acting peacefully; you can't have it both ways.

"(Bring Loaded Gun to Protest) + (Threaten to Use Loaded Gun Against Law Enforcement) = Not Peaceful":

 

One time when Moroni capture Lamanites on the battlefield the Lamanites threw down their weapons and Moroni ordered the attack upon them to cease. After they refused to eneter into a promise of peace, Moroni had they take up their arms again and then ordered an attack to kill every last one of them. When did this situation enter into and exit being "peaceful"?

 

By nature I bring my fists (well, fist and a half in my situation  ) and feet. I can do tremendous damage with them and I am willing to do so under conditions where I may be attacked. If I enter into a protest am I naturally unpeaceful? Do I *have to* refuse to strike back if attacked or even escorted out by authorities? if I go into the situation to fight, no that is not peaceful, but what if I enter into the protest with no intention to hurt anyone but will do so if attacked or if I deem my arrest unjustified?

 

NOTE: I am NOT advocating using violence on police or law enforcement. I am merely sorting out why is it inherently unpeaceful just because one is willing to use force to carry out a protest if force comes upon the protestor.

[Darren10]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 11:40 PM, The Nehor said:

The Paiute Indians could make the same argument. If they had come into the building from their reservation with guns demanding their land back would you support their armed takeover?

Sure! I am not arguing the legality or even morality of this protest. Just, has it not been a peaceful protest up to this point? 

[Darren10]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 11:53 PM, Valentinus said:

At least the government is being consistent, historically speaking. Kick out the Natives and then kick out the ranchers. Government takeover since the inception of this grand nation has been good for their business. No more crying wolf.  

I don't know if your saying I or others are "crying wolf" and should not but I totally agree that the US government has a very long history in unjustly taking over other people's land.

[Darren10]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 0:20 AM, Valentinus said:

Apparently, Bundy, a hater of the fed, took out a $530k loan that cost taxpayers $22,419. What a jack@$$.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/4/1466117/-Ammon-Bundy-like-his-father-before-him-hates-the-Fed-except-when-taking-money-from-the-Fed

I oppose food stamps and their unchecked availability to users. I however, have been living on food stamps for the last year and a half. I've no problem doing that as I have no direct control very its existence and if I'm entitled to it as a tax payer, you betchya I'm going to take hold of it. Your link says:

Quote

Ammon Bundy runs a Phoenix-based company called Valet Fleet Services LLC, which specializes in repairing and maintaining fleets of semitrucks throughout Arizona. On April 15, 2010—Tax Day, as it happens—Bundy's business borrowed $530,000 through a Small Business Administration loan guarantee program. The available public record does not indicate what the loan was used for or whether it was repaid. The SBA website notes that this loan guarantee was issued under a program "to aid small businesses which are unable to obtain financing in the private credit marketplace." The government estimated that this subsidy could cost taxpayers $22,419. Bundy did not respond to an email request for comment about the SBA loan. 

The fact of the matter is that it is virtually impossible to get a business, car, college, or home loan without it being directly linked to the federal government and tax payer funded. Government regulations are way to rampant for it to be any different. If I had my own business you betchya' I'd take advantage of such a loan.

 

[Darren10]

23 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

What is wrong with this story is that these ranchers think they have a civil right to a huge subsidy (free or cheap federal license) to make money.  Every time I see the cheap licenses handed out to mule train owners in the Grand Canyon I want to scream, as they extract a huge profit and taxpayers are left to repair the trail.  Ranchers, especially sheep ranchers, are the same but on a huge scale.  No subsidies for logging and ranching, and let's put these guys in jail and reward their scripture quoting with a fine.  

Subsidizing ranchers and farmers is a huge problem in our society. But that's besides the point of this thread.

[Darren10]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, I am now in favor of a drone strike on the building.

The federal government may do that. I don't recall them ruling it out so are they not being peaceful about it right now?

[Darren10]

In his typical snarky way (which by and large I like and I've no problem with him using it for one of his posts which has inspired this one), The nehor has triggered a question in me, he said, as I just posted above,

Quote

Okay, I am now in favor of a drone strike on the building.

Question for all: the federal government may do so and the federal government is *always* willing to use deadly force if they deem it's needed, so are they not acting peacefully against the Oregon protestors?

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is interesting reading stuff from you, somebody I''ve long considered to be a rational, thoughtful person.  On this topic you're way off the reservation.  Anybody who brandishes a gun in public to gain an advantage other than defense against another gun is guilty of a crime in all states (open carry is another issue) and thus loses his rights to own guns.   Brandishing doesn't mean pointing.  And, Oregon is not an open carry state.  Libertarian philosophy teaches us not to use coercion, especially, armed coercion to gain a political or private advantage. 

Are these protestors defending anything?

 

Oregon is not an open carry state so they should all be arrested just on that, correct. Under the original framing of the US Constitution, Oregon would be 100% within its rights to prohibit guns period but since the Reconstruction (really the Civil War) the US constitution has been seen as trumping all state laws so, are these protestors acting illegally or is Oregon at fault for not being open carry?

[Calm]

It is possible that it is not so simple as preemptive burning.  If it is true they put others at risk without proper regard, would you change your mind about their guilt?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/04/3735722/meet-the-child-abusing-arsonists-at-the-center-of-the-oregon-militia-standoff/

"The circumstances of both fires are worth examining. The first occurred in 2001. According to prosecutors, several members of the Hammond family set this fire “less than three hours after Steven Hammond illegally shot several deer on BLM land,” a claim they corroborate by citing testimony from D.H.*, Dwight’s grandson and Steven’s nephew. The fire, moreover, “consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations.”

D.H. also testified that his uncle Steven gave him matches and told him to help start the fires. Some time thereafter, D.H. says that he was separated from the rest of his family and found himself surrounded by burning flames. To escape harm he sheltered in a creek.

Additionally, the government claims that three men were camped nearby when the Hammonds’ started these fires, and that Steven and Dwight knew about these campers when they decided to start the fires anyway.

Steven lit the second fire in 2006 — he says that he did so as a preemptive burn in order to prevent an unrelated wild fire from spreading to the Hammond Ranch. At the time, however, the federal Bureau of Land Management had imposed a “burn ban” to protect firefighters who were busying trying to stop the wild fire. A second fire, such as the one set by Steven, could have potentially spread and endangered the firefighters."

 

 

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Michelle Boorstein, “Why the Oregon occupiers are citing the Book of Mormon’s ‘military stud muffin’,” Washington Post, Jan 4, 2016, online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/04/why-the-oregon-militia-is-citing-the-book-of-mormons-military-stud-muffin/ ,

Our study of the Book of Mormon this year is getting off to a strong start . . .

I linked that article already. So...good find!!!  

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'd like to brandish my sidearm in the local 7-11 and get a free slurpee.  

That would be steeling, no? Steeling is not inherently peaceful.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Apparently terrorism is okay if you sympathize with the terrorists.

I do not expect this to last long. They are going to run out of food soon (cannot eat all those bullets) and eventually give up and go to prison for a while.

You're probably right.

[Darren10]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is peaceful in the sense that the owners of the violated property have shown forbearance and not marched in and shot everyone. If they occupied other federal property, say a room at the Pentagon, they would be dead now.

These are not peaceful people. peaceful people do not occupy public buildings and threaten to kill anyone who tries to dislodge them and ask more people to join them so they can successfully resist and repel any attempt to remove them. This also makes them idiots. If the government wanted them out and did not care about the body count they would, again, be dead by now.

They'd be dead if they stormed the Pentagon even without weapons.

 

Now, you cite government restraint but they too are ready and willing to kill these protestors so is the government inherently unpeaceful right now regarding the protestors?

[Darren10]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is possible that it is not so simple as preemptive burning.  If it is true they put others at risk without proper regard, would you change your mind about their guilt?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/04/3735722/meet-the-child-abusing-arsonists-at-the-center-of-the-oregon-militia-standoff/

"The circumstances of both fires are worth examining. The first occurred in 2001. According to prosecutors, several members of the Hammond family set this fire “less than three hours after Steven Hammond illegally shot several deer on BLM land,” a claim they corroborate by citing testimony from D.H.*, Dwight’s grandson and Steven’s nephew. The fire, moreover, “consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations.”

D.H. also testified that his uncle Steven gave him matches and told him to help start the fires. Some time thereafter, D.H. says that he was separated from the rest of his family and found himself surrounded by burning flames. To escape harm he sheltered in a creek.

Additionally, the government claims that three men were camped nearby when the Hammonds’ started these fires, and that Steven and Dwight knew about these campers when they decided to start the fires anyway.

Steven lit the second fire in 2006 — he says that he did so as a preemptive burn in order to prevent an unrelated wild fire from spreading to the Hammond Ranch. At the time, however, the federal Bureau of Land Management had imposed a “burn ban” to protect firefighters who were busying trying to stop the wild fire. A second fire, such as the one set by Steven, could have potentially spread and endangered the firefighters."

 

 

Even if convicted solely for setting fire to hide evidence of illegally shooting a deer, there was no protest until a court ruled that their original prison time, which they served was not enough and that they should serve 5 years.

 

The federal regulation is also at the heart of this. The Hammonds set the fire to prevent another fire from spreading to their home/property. They set the fire only on their property and ranchers have done this since forever there have been ranchers. I'd say that they arguably saved firefighters from extra fire fighting and thus helped in their safety as well.

[Darren10]

Article found from a man quite well known in these parts:

Quote

Ignore for a moment the #OregonUnderAttack hashtag — a rallying cry for leftists accusing the protesters of terrorism — and the liberal media’s self-satisfied cackling. Read the court documents in the case that triggered the protest, and the accounts of sympathetic ranchers. What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings. The story as told by the protesters begins not with the federal criminal case against Steven and Dwight Hammond but many years earlier, with the creation and expansion of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a tract of federal land set aside by President Theodore Roosevelt as “a preserve and breeding-ground for native birds.” The federal government has since expanded the preserve in part by buying adjacent private land.

 

EXACTLY!!! Not so peaceful government, eh?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

Are the protestors not peaceful?

[Calm]

Quote

 there was no protest until a court ruled that their original prison time, which they served was not enough and that they should serve 5 years.

And if they knowingly put people's lives at risk for their own personal profit, don't you think that merits significant punishment to discourage others from doing the same?

[Darren10]

calm;

 

Please read my National Review link carefully. The conspiracy to hide evidence of illegally killing deer is very weak and please comment as to the government's conduct in the case. Was the government peaceful? Are these protestors not peaceful?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Darren10

[Darren10]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if they knowingly put people's lives at risk for their own personal profit, don't you think that merits significant punishment to discourage others from doing the same?

NO, they did not such thing!!!

[Darren10]

One more thing to all. The building the protestors took over was vacant. Nobody was tossed out and thus nobody even felt threatened by the presence of guns. Any analogies about waving guns at people or pointing to guns to others and demand their property is a bogus argument against the protestors.

Are the peaceful?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Darren10

[Darren10]

One more thing before I catch my Zzzzzzzzs. This from my National Review article

Quote

Even the prosecutor noted that they “have done wonderful things for their community.” The district court noted that the character letters submitted on the Hammonds’ behalf were “tremendous” and that “these are people who have been a salt in their community.”

Yep, those crazy kooky Hammonds and their terrorist ways. So unpeaceful they are.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Darren10

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

calm;

 

Please read my National Review link carefully. The conspiracy to hide evidence of illegally killing deer is very weak and please comment as to the government's conduct in the case. Was the government peaceful? Are these protestors not peaceful?

Did they or did they knowingly lightfires when such fireshad been banned for the safety of firefighters in the area?

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

They'd be dead if they stormed the Pentagon even without weapons.

 

Now, you cite government restraint but they too are ready and willing to kill these protestors so is the government inherently unpeaceful right now regarding the protestors?

It is the government's job to protect federal property. Including from these terrorists.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Darren10 said:

9 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Good question.

 

Ultimately I am comfortable with the armed protest, more important to this thread, I do not see their being armed as inherently unpeaceful. If the protest turns as it did in Ferguson then I'll feel uncomfortable. Note the difference however, in the nature of the two protests. One has been very peaceful however aggressive and the other highly violent. I'll let you decide which is which. 

Good question.

 

Ultimately I am comfortable with the armed protest, more important to this thread, I do not see their being armed as inherently unpeaceful. If the protest turns as it did in Ferguson then I'll feel uncomfortable. Note the difference however, in the nature of the two protests. One has been very peaceful however aggressive and the other highly violent. I'll let you decide which is which. 

Legally there is no difference between the two.

The U.S. Code outlines a charge for seditious conspiracy whose elements strongly resemble the plot to take over and occupy the nature preserve.

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both,”

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

One more thing to all. The building the protestors took over was vacant. Nobody was tossed out and thus nobody even felt threatened by the presence of guns. Any analogies about waving guns at people or pointing to guns to others and demand their property is a bogus argument against the protestors.

Are the peaceful?

I broke into your summer home this winter and slept in your bed all season. I am a peaceful guy though if you show up to take your property back I have no qualms about pumping you full of bullets. Still peaceful though.