Church Condemns Peaceful Protest?

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

So, got gun?  

OK, I've derailed the thread enough now.  And the idiots in Oregon do NOT have any justification for what they are doing.

I agree with your Second Amendment argument but also believe the Second Amendment should be repealed.  No need to favor a particular industry. 

I hope Darren realizes the Oregon facility was not abandoned as he seems to claim.  It was merely closed for the day.   If he comes in to occupy my home with a gun while I'm not there, that is not peaceful.   I unfortunately question his reasoning powers for criticizing the church's characterization. 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Good legal point.

Morally, are these protestors terrorists and not peaceful? If they took over the same abandoned building and merely chained themselves to the walls, are they still terrorists and deserve their mandatory 20 year sentences? That's what the legal code says, no?

It is the use or threat of use of violence that distinguishes the two. Criminal trespass would be about the worst charge for those that chain themselves. The Bundy fools are terrorists. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Do you understand that ACA has a whole raft of hidden taxes?  Many are levied on suppliers, institutions, and care givers forcing costs to be passed on to "consumers" (this is called an indirect tax).  Much of ACA has VERY little to do with improving health care but a LOT to do with imposing enormous constraints on the people.  This is what "government subversives" desire:  to excercise greater control over the lives of the people.  There is a tremendous amount of rationing occurring in the Canadian system, the British system, and in all the socialist nations of Europe.

This is a derail. I called you out on your falsehood and now you are rambling about the ACA as if it massively influences tax rates. It has some effect. Almost everything does. Taxes were still not the lowest ever under Reagan and taxes are not high now.

Oh, and your characterization of ACA comes straight from the talk radio playbook. Try to avoid such blatant plagiarizing in the future. It is also unwise to plagiarize stuff that is wrong.

[saemo]

11 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Who has been violent? Now that they *believe* in something they are to be considered threatening?

Their protest has had zero use of violence. Is that not "peaceful"?

Peaceful protest does not include appropriating property that is not yours.  It does not include blocking access to public land. I wish I had the time and means to go up there with a counter protest. It would start with, I didn't elect you to represent me! 

Thugs and vigilantes have got nothing to do with my understanding of freedom or democracy. 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Bundy fools are terrorists. 

you seem to  have a pretty broad definition of terrorist.

Do you classify all criminal activity as terrorism?

Who, in this situation feels terror?

 

[Zakuska]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you seem to  have a pretty broad definition of terrorist.

Do you classify all criminal activity as terrorism?

Who, in this situation feels terror?

 

If the Bundys are Terrorists, then Zions Camp lead by Joseph Smith was a terrorist act as well.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is a derail. I called you out on your falsehood and now you are rambling about the ACA as if it massively influences tax rates. It has some effect. Almost everything does. Taxes were still not the lowest ever under Reagan and taxes are not high now.

Oh, and your characterization of ACA comes straight from the talk radio playbook. Try to avoid such blatant plagiarizing in the future. It is also unwise to plagiarize stuff that is wrong.

As a tax professional, I help people deal with the tax effects of the ACA all of the time.  They aren't insubstantial and many of them are not obvious (some might call them hidden).

Many are so convoluted that the IRS has officially decided to defer enforcement.

 

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

 

 

Dictionaries are wonderful things.

SEE http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

 

 

Do you classify all criminal activity as terrorism?

Who, in this situation feels terror?

 

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by thesometimesaint
clarity

[Zakuska]

12 hours ago, Darren10 said:

WHAT??? Is not the citizen's job to protect citizens from and overreaching government? If not why in the world would the Founding Fathers place the 2nd amendment into the Constitution?

This reaction of surprise is in light of the article I just posted. The Hammond family was declared a pillar of their community by the court that originally sentenced them. These protestors took over and abandoned federal building far from any other building and way far from any inhabitable area. They are armed and willing to fight and die for their cause. The US government is armed and willing to fight and die for its cause yet these protestors, who have threatened no one are terrorists whereas the federal government is justified since it is doing its job? If these protestors are terrorists then why not the federal government? If the federal government is justified in killing for their cause, then why not these protestors? If the federal government is to kill for their cause and it be a social good then why are these protestors "terrorists"?

The US-FED has killed for its cause time and again.  Just ask the Lamanite forbeares.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

[saemo]

12 hours ago, Darren10 said:

WHAT??? Is not the citizen's job to protect citizens from and overreaching government? If not why in the world would the Founding Fathers place the 2nd amendment into the Constitution?

This reaction of surprise is in light of the article I just posted. The Hammond family was declared a pillar of their community by the court that originally sentenced them. These protestors took over and abandoned federal building far from any other building and way far from any inhabitable area. They are armed and willing to fight and die for their cause. The US government is armed and willing to fight and die for its cause yet these protestors, who have threatened no one are terrorists whereas the federal government is justified since it is doing its job? If these protestors are terrorists then why not the federal government? If the federal government is justified in killing for their cause, then why not these protestors? If the federal government is to kill for their cause and it be a social good then why are these protestors "terrorists"?

 The people who are in charge of National Refuges, who protect the land, habitats and wildlife, are hired by those who have been appointed by elected representatives. They are qualified in experience and education to do the jobs for which they are hired. The Refuge in Oregon is currently overthrown by wannabe patriots, who were not hired and I highly doubt have the necessary qualifications  

Our system of democracy is subverted by those who presume their motives and personal desires are of greater import than our democratic process.  If they don't like the management of public lands, as it is now, work to change it via the electoral and legislative process. Packing up your guns and food into your pickup truck, and taking over a National Refuge is pointless, stupid and illegal. 

 

The National Wildlife Refuges are under the Department of the Interior. The current Secretary of the Interior was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by Congress.  All NWR employees are under her, an appointed cabinet position, by our elected executive and legislative branches. Not so for these yokels. No one appointed, of hired them. They're just squatting on public lands, expecting me to support them. I don't. 

Edited January 7, 2016 by saemo

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

If the Bundys are Terrorists, then Zions Camp lead by Joseph Smith was a terrorist act as well.

Nope, Zion's Camp was to reclaim land LDS were forced out of without any recompense. While the camp was marching church leaders were speaking to government officials attempting to negotiate for help in securing their own property. It was not an anti-government action even though some of the government opposed it. 

Zion's Camp is the modern equivalent of a gang or mob occupying homes in your neighborhood and you organizing the neighbors to go kick them out because the police will not help. The Bundys on the other hand are leading a band of little boys masquerading as men with violent power fantasies to occupy that which does not and never has belonged to them to protest something and make demands they seem unwilling to specify. Bundy is nothing like Joseph Smith.

[Zakuska]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, Zion's Camp was to reclaim land LDS were forced out of without any recompense. While the camp was marching church leaders were speaking to government officials attempting to negotiate for help in securing their own property. It was not an anti-government action even though some of the government opposed it. 

Zion's Camp is the modern equivalent of a gang or mob occupying homes in your neighborhood and you organizing the neighbors to go kick them out because the police will not help. The Bundys on the other hand are leading a band of little boys masquerading as men with violent power fantasies to occupy that which does not and never has belonged to them to protest something and make demands they seem unwilling to specify. Bundy is nothing like Joseph Smith.

So then it would be more like the times of BY and all his Anti FED Government terrorist actions and September Yawn. Cattle rustling. Burning government property etc. 

I agree.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

So then it would be more like the times of BY and all his Anti FED Government terrorist actions and September Yawn. Cattle rustling. Burning government property etc. 

I agree.

No.

And agreeing with yourself does not lend credence to your argument no matter how many deranged personalities you have in your brain.

[Zakuska]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No.

And agreeing with yourself does not lend credence to your argument no matter how many deranged personalities you have in your brain.

Come on Nehor. Mormons where squating on Federal lands and the Government sent an Army out after them.

Look at all this Terrorist activity!

 

Quote

 

Utah War: U.S. Government Versus Mormon Settlers

Typifying Mormon reaction, Sanford Porter Sr. wrote, ‘[We are] weak in number, and weak in means, but with too much American blood in our veins to put ourselves up as a target for an army to shoot at without making any effort to protect ourselves.’ Popular Utah rhetoric cast the Mormons in the role of ‘Uncle Sam’s nephews,’ walking in his footsteps against tyranny.

Nor were Mormon women the oppressed victims waiting for liberation that many Americans, including some of the approaching soldiers, assumed. Salt Lake wives poured hot lead into molds to make bullets and sewed blankets into overcoats for militiamen. When an army quartermaster asked Mrs. Albert Carrington if she would cut down her carefully cultivated peach orchard to defend her faith, she replied in the affirmative, ‘And would sit up nights to do it.’

On August 1, 1857, Utah mustered its territorial militia, called the Nauvoo Legion after its Illinois antecedent. Drilling commenced throughout the territory. The government sought to gather guns and ammunition, and manufactured Colt revolvers. Grain and other food supplies were cached. Settlers were recalled from distant homesteads such as San Bernardino, Calif., and the Carson Valley (then part of Utah Territory but later part of Nevada), while traveling associates were sent for from the Eastern states and Europe. Councils were held with the native tribesmen with the aim of keeping them friendly, or at least neutral.

On August 15, the Mormons sent Colonel Robert T. Burton and a reconnaissance unit of 125 men eastward from Salt Lake City with orders to observe the American regiments en route to the territory and protect the Mormon emigrants still on the overland road that season. Two of Burton’s men, Charles Decker and Jesse Earl, went into the soldiers’ camps posing as travelers from California. What they learned while mingling with the uninformed and boastful enlisted men and junior officers only fueled Mormon fears that the army was coming to hang their leaders and abuse their women.

Initially, there was a belief that the invasion of Utah might be a two-pronged attack, with troops sent from both the east and also from California. Tooele Valley militiaman Thomas Atkin Jr. was a member of a unit assigned to watch the roads and passes on the western routes into the territory. Another likely access from the west coast was the southwestern road, leaving Los Angeles and reaching Utah by way of St. George. In southern Utah, Colonel William H. Dame of the Parowan Military District reported on August 23 that he could field 200 men, if necessary, and that all the roads south of Beaver were being guarded.

 

 

http://www.historynet.com/utah-war-us-government-versus-mormon-settlers.htm

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

The US-FED has killed for its cause time and again.  Just ask the Lamanite forbeares.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

We don't have to condone the loss of life to realize that the US-FED has the legal authority to kill to, if necessary, to enforce the laws.

[saemo]

14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

They were NOT convicted for hiding poaching, period. The second fire extended off their land and onto federally owned land. It burned sagebrushes with no firefighter in sight so far as I know.

 

Child abuse?

 

Huh?

The first fire, witnesses at the trial testified that Steven Hammond and his hunting party had poached several deer on BLM land. Hammond then handed out matches to everyone in the party, telling them to light the county on fire. This fire erased the evidence of the poaching. So right, not convicted of poaching. The evidence was burned.  Hammond then reported the fire as being started on their ranch to control weeds, and that it got out of control onto BLM land.

The second incidence, the county had a no burn ban in place. Firefighters were already fighting more than one fire in the area, when the Hammonds decided to start several back burn fires that spread to BLM land. They gave no notifications and did not have permission  Firefighters who were working on the fires in the area, and saw these arson fires burning, reported the arson. Testifying that they had to evacuate their position because of the danger the Hammond fires had put them in.

A police report from 2004 was included in the arson trials. This report was when a nephew/grandson of the Hammond men reported to local police several instances of abuse. His uncle, Steven, punching him in the face, grinding his face into gravel, forcing him to eat a can of chewing tobacco, twice taking him out ten miles from home and leaving him, telling him to walk home. His uncle and grandparents participating in sandpapering two tattoos off his chest.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by saemo

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Come on Nehor. Mormons where squating on Federal lands and the Government sent an Army out after them.

Look at all this Terrorist activity!

 

http://www.historynet.com/utah-war-us-government-versus-mormon-settlers.htm

 

Not squatting. They were there when it was annexed from Mexico. They were practicing legitimate self-defense. If the Mormons had marched on California and occupied the capital and threatened to kill anyone sent against them then the situations might be comparable.

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Come on Nehor. Mormons where squating on Federal lands and the Government sent an Army out after them.

Look at all this Terrorist activity!

 

http://www.historynet.com/utah-war-us-government-versus-mormon-settlers.htm

 

How do you squat on federal lands when you were there before the feds were?

And how do you not see the difference between armed rebellions and self defense from federal agresssion?

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I agree with your Second Amendment argument but also believe the Second Amendment should be repealed.  No need to favor a particular industry. 

I hope Darren realizes the Oregon facility was not abandoned as he seems to claim.  It was merely closed for the day.   If he comes in to occupy my home with a gun while I'm not there, that is not peaceful.   I unfortunately question his reasoning powers for criticizing the church's characterization. 

I can't imagine that you're unfamiliar with this, but the Bill of Rights does nothing but make explicit what was and is implicit.  Without the Bill of Rights we would still have the right to free speech, religion, the bearing of arms and the whole panoply of rights.  Repealing the Bill of Rights would not remove the right to keep and bear arms.  You'd have to make a positive declaration, like what was done with alcoholic beverages once upon a time.  And you'd have just about as much success with it, too.

And I think the chances about 0.0001% that the 2nd Amendment could ever be repealed.

Heck, there will still be guns even during the millennium. They won't spontaneously melt into pools of metal upon the Lord's return; there just won't be any use for them then.  And they might get recycled to make farming implements eventually.  Swords into plowshares and all that.

But until then they will be a necessity.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I agree with your Second Amendment argument but also believe the Second Amendment should be repealed.  No need to favor a particular industry. 

I hope Darren realizes the Oregon facility was not abandoned as he seems to claim.  It was merely closed for the day.   If he comes in to occupy my home with a gun while I'm not there, that is not peaceful.   I unfortunately question his reasoning powers for criticizing the church's characterization. 

As much as I agree with Darren on most things, on this I wholeheartedly disagree.  Strenuously.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is a derail. I called you out on your falsehood and now you are rambling about the ACA as if it massively influences tax rates. It has some effect. Almost everything does. Taxes were still not the lowest ever under Reagan and taxes are not high now.

Oh, and your characterization of ACA comes straight from the talk radio playbook. Try to avoid such blatant plagiarizing in the future. It is also unwise to plagiarize stuff that is wrong.

Here's a reality: my son had his own medical insurance, but the "affordable" care act caused it to go up 150%.  He couldn't afford it any longer, and so went over to the state Medicaid.  So now the government is responsible for funding his healthcare -- which is precisely what is the ultimate goal, IMHO.  There's more than one way to drag us into a single payer system.

A question for you!  Is this from the talk radio playbook, or the Obama playbook:  "If you like your health insurance you can keep it."

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, Zion's Camp was to reclaim land LDS were forced out of without any recompense. While the camp was marching church leaders were speaking to government officials attempting to negotiate for help in securing their own property. It was not an anti-government action even though some of the government opposed it. 

Zion's Camp is the modern equivalent of a gang or mob occupying homes in your neighborhood and you organizing the neighbors to go kick them out because the police will not help. The Bundys on the other hand are leading a band of little boys masquerading as men with violent power fantasies to occupy that which does not and never has belonged to them to protest something and make demands they seem unwilling to specify. Bundy is nothing like Joseph Smith.

You got that right.

[Bob Crockett]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I can't imagine that you're unfamiliar with this, but the Bill of Rights does nothing but make explicit what was and is implicit.  Without the Bill of Rights we would still have the right to free speech, religion, the bearing of arms and the whole panoply of rights.  Repealing the Bill of Rights would not remove the right to keep and bear arms.  You'd have to make a positive declaration, like what was done with alcoholic beverages once upon a time.  And you'd have just about as much success with it, too.

And I think the chances about 0.0001% that the 2nd Amendment could ever be repealed.

Heck, there will still be guns even during the millennium. They won't spontaneously melt into pools of metal upon the Lord's return; there just won't be any use for them then.  And they might get recycled to make farming implements eventually.  Swords into plowshares and all that.

But until then they will be a necessity.

I think you are incorrect.  Without the Second Amendment the legislatures could ban weapons.  There is no such thing as a natural right much less one to bear weapons.   Guns are evil and government should not be set up to favor them, like abortion.   People should be free to choose, but not encouraged. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Not squatting. They were there when it was annexed from Mexico. They were practicing legitimate self-defense. If the Mormons had marched on California and occupied the capital and threatened to kill anyone sent against them then the situations might be comparable.

They had also provided troops to help annex those lands from Mexico by force, so they arguably assisted in the conquest of the land upon which they settled. 

Regardless of whether the Mormon Battalion actually engaged in combat or not, they earned for the Mormon migrants the right to settle upon that land.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think you are incorrect.  Without the Second Amendment the legislatures could ban weapons.  There is no such thing as a natural right much less one to bear weapons.   Guns are evil and government should not be set up to favor them, like abortion.   People should be free to choose, but not encouraged. 

You think I'm incorrect?  My opinion doesn't matter, and neither does yours.  What matters is the law which has existed from time immemorial.  Or at least as far back as it goes.  In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Scalia wrote for the majority (emphasis added):

Quote

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) , cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765).

The very wording of the 2nd Amendment, wherein it states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is in itself prima facie evidence that the right exists independent of the second amendment.  The right is not created by the amendment, it is merely acknowledged as preexistent to the 2nd Amendment. 

Of the 50 states, only 5 do not mention an explicit right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions.  From the Nebraska state constitution:

Quote

Article I, § 1 : “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.”

I emphasize Nebraska in particular because of the clearness of its proclaiming the right as being inherent.

And the right is inherent because of the right of self-defense.  I'm surprised that a Latter-day Saint could argue with this, and make such frivolous claims like you have made, that "guns are evil" and would espouse the banning of weapons.  The reason for this surprise is Alma 43:37.

Quote

 47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

Now I ask you, can you defend your family even unto bloodshed if you are disarmed, that you have no weapon with which you can make the defense?  The answer is plainly NO.  And this scripture is again evidence for an inherent right to self-defense, which by necessity requires an inherent right to bear arms.  Otherwise, you can tell someone they have the right to breathe, while you strangle them.

I get the feeling that it is perhaps GUNS that you have a special repugnance for.  Do you mind knives?  Swords?  Chains?  Clubs?  Spears?  Kung Fu?  Rocks?  If I possess a sling and a rock, am I in possession of an evil object?

Is any material object evil?  Don't be ridiculous.