Church Condemns Peaceful Protest?

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Again armed seizure of government property is by definition violent. Not sure why this is difficult to understand

So, it must be an *unarmed* protest/seizure or is it the use of violence that's the determining factor. While being armed can make others feel threatened, it is not inherently threatening just to be armed. If a professional boxer protested next to someone completely untrained in fighting and both make the exact same choices in the way they protest and both are willing to fight if they determine that they should, is the boxer inherently non peaceful whereas the untrained companion peaceful?

Don't confuse pacifism with peaceful.

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, this libertarian (and gun nut) declares these particular idiots to be abhorrent boors.

Actually, you're wrong about the libertarian principle regarding the use of force.  It isn't the use of force, per se, it is the initiation of force.  If force is initiated against you, you are within your rights to defend with force.  And guns/clubs/swords/knives/tire irons are no more evil than the hands which may wield them.  

The Non-aggression Principle (NAP) is the key to libertarianism, not the passivism or pacifism your "not to use force or coercion to obtain any kind of political objective" implies.  When the farmers and mechanics of the Battles of Lexington and Concord opposed the government's attempt to disarm them of their non-evil weapons (including cannon), force was being initiated against them unlawfully, and their opposition was totally within libertarian principles.  If they were instead to follow the principle you're advocating, they would have passively allowed the troops to do what they were sent to do.

What these Bundy creeps are doing, on the other hand, is opposing the rule of law, and substituting mob rule in its place.  Their action has a bit of the flavor of Shay's Rebellion, but whereas Shay and his compatriots had valid grievances, Bundy and his compatriots do not.  Their hands are decidedly not clean, in the legal sense, as they are guilty of accepting largess from the federal government without accepting the conditions under which it is offered.  They have no justification at all for the occupation of government property which they have initiated.  The ones whom they are attempting to shield from legal action were found guilty of violations of law, and have the right of appeal that anyone else has.  Their lawful remedies do not include the use of force. 

"Actually, you're wrong about the libertarian principle regarding the use of force.  It isn't the use of force, per se, it is the initiation of force.  If force is initiated against you, you are within your rights to defend with force.  And guns/clubs/swords/knives/tire irons are no more evil than the hands which may wield them.   "

 

BINGO!!!

[Stargazer]

57 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. 

Oh, and by the way, you seem to have an irrational concern over firearms manufacturers getting the benefit of a constitutional amendment, when printing press manufacturers, word processing software  and communications companies have been getting the benefit of another constitutional amendment (the First) for just as long.  Shouldn't they be subject to your opprobrium as well? Or is there some sort of "favored nation" thingamabob going on here?

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, this libertarian (and gun nut) declares these particular idiots to be abhorrent boors.

Actually, you're wrong about the libertarian principle regarding the use of force.  It isn't the use of force, per se, it is the initiation of force.  If force is initiated against you, you are within your rights to defend with force.  And guns/clubs/swords/knives/tire irons are no more evil than the hands which may wield them.  

The Non-aggression Principle (NAP) is the key to libertarianism, not the passivism or pacifism your "not to use force or coercion to obtain any kind of political objective" implies.  When the farmers and mechanics of the Battles of Lexington and Concord opposed the government's attempt to disarm them of their non-evil weapons (including cannon), force was being initiated against them unlawfully, and their opposition was totally within libertarian principles.  If they were instead to follow the principle you're advocating, they would have passively allowed the troops to do what they were sent to do.

What these Bundy creeps are doing, on the other hand, is opposing the rule of law, and substituting mob rule in its place.  Their action has a bit of the flavor of Shay's Rebellion, but whereas Shay and his compatriots had valid grievances, Bundy and his compatriots do not.  Their hands are decidedly not clean, in the legal sense, as they are guilty of accepting largess from the federal government without accepting the conditions under which it is offered.  They have no justification at all for the occupation of government property which they have initiated.  The ones whom they are attempting to shield from legal action were found guilty of violations of law, and have the right of appeal that anyone else has.  Their lawful remedies do not include the use of force. 

"What these Bundy creeps are doing, on the other hand, is opposing the rule of law, and substituting mob rule in its place.  Their action has a bit of the flavor of Shay's Rebellion, but whereas Shay and his compatriots had valid grievances, Bundy and his compatriots do not.  Their hands are decidedly not clean, in the legal sense, as they are guilty of accepting largess from the federal government without accepting the conditions under which it is offered.  They have no justification at all for the occupation of government property which they have initiated.  The ones whom they are attempting to shield from legal action were found guilty of violations of law, and have the right of appeal that anyone else has.  Their lawful remedies do not include the use of force."

 

I disagree on this. Shay's Rebellion is something I had in mind just now so I'm glad you mentioned it. Shay's Rebellion fought primarily against taxation without representation. Such and irony. The Bundy's, while, of course, have representation, are fighting against what I'll call an equally unjust government. Read my National Review article. It's a great assessment on the background leading up to this protest.

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And I'd give it to you, of course!!!

Heh!

[Darren10]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to defend the state, fight off aggressors (mostly natives at the time), and prevent oppression. These idiots are not being oppressed.

So far I am not impressed with any community considering these numbskulls a pillar of. These people do not even seem able to articulate what their cause is. They have given no real demands. I begin to think they just want to fight and die because they listen to too much Hannity as opposed to have a cause.

These people have threatened. They have seized a government building and are refusing to vacate. The Federal government has every right to take it back. They are terrorists because they are attempting to use the threat of violence to coerce political change. They will fail but they are still terrorist.

To see if you are not biased by a feeling of camaraderie with these people I suggest a thought experiment. Suppose they were Muslims who seized the building. They use no violence but promise to defend themselves if attacked. They have issued no specific demands but insist they have the right to do this because the government is oppressing them and others and the Second Amendment gives them the right to bear arms in this situation. Would you be defending them and calling the government oppressive in this situation or would you label them terrorists?

The 2nd amendment was for what now???? You're missing a key piece or two there. Why do you think that the founding Fathers were so confident in its citizenry to codify the right to bare arms; something no other nation in the world has done so far as I know. essentially it is to empower its citizenry to stop injustice; wherever it shows itself.

Not being oppressed? I've no idea what narrative you're reading but it seems very naïve.

"So far I am not impressed with any community considering these numbskulls a pillar of." - OK, not even the very court and prosecutors who achieved conviction against them? They are a pillar way before these protests began which the Hammonds, so far as I now, have no direct part of.

"I begin to think they just want to fight and die because they listen to too much Hannity as opposed to have a cause." - (May the naivety ensue).

"They are terrorists because they are attempting to use the threat of violence to coerce political change. They will fail but they are still terrorists". - OK, when do the citizenry rebel and not be considered terrorists by your standards?

"Would you be defending them and calling the government oppressive in this situation or would you label them terrorists?" - In the exact same land dispute...ABSOLUTELY!!!!

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

"What these Bundy creeps are doing, on the other hand, is opposing the rule of law, and substituting mob rule in its place.  Their action has a bit of the flavor of Shay's Rebellion, but whereas Shay and his compatriots had valid grievances, Bundy and his compatriots do not.  Their hands are decidedly not clean, in the legal sense, as they are guilty of accepting largess from the federal government without accepting the conditions under which it is offered.  They have no justification at all for the occupation of government property which they have initiated.  The ones whom they are attempting to shield from legal action were found guilty of violations of law, and have the right of appeal that anyone else has.  Their lawful remedies do not include the use of force."

 

I disagree on this. Shay's Rebellion is something I had in mind just now so I'm glad you mentioned it. Shay's Rebellion fought primarily against taxation without representation. Such and irony. The Bundy's, while, of course, have representation, are fighting against what I'll call an equally unjust government. Read my National Review article. It's a great assessment on the background leading up to this protest.

No, it wasn't.  Shay's Rebellion was intended at least partially to stop tax and other foreclosures that were occurring because there was a shortage of specie available to pay taxes and loans, not over taxation without representation.  Farmers had produce, but couldn't sell them for legal tender, simply because there wasn't enough legal tender in circulation in Massachusetts.  And to compound the problem, the legislature passed a law saying that taxes had to paid in legal tender, e.g. gold and silver.

Quote

The rebellion started on August 29, 1786. It was precipitated by several factors: financial difficulties brought about by a post-war economic depression, a credit squeeze caused by a lack of hard currency, and fiscally harsh government policies instituted in 1785 to solve the state's debt problems. Protesters, including many war veterans, shut down county courts in the later months of 1786 to stop the judicial hearings for tax and debt collection.

Where do you get the idea it was to protest taxation without representation?

[Darren10]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You are absolutely correct as to the status in law of Social Security.  But none of that was admitted by the government.  It was sold to the people as a retirement plan whereby the funds collected were to be set aside in trust for disbursement back to the participants.  If the truth had been publicly admitted, that the government could legally do anything it wanted with the money, including refusing to pay anything at all, the people wouldn't have stood for it, and Congress would not have been able to make it law.  It was a fraud, ab initio.

And you're right, the government has no business providing for retirement incomes (except for government employees, I might qualify that).

I have made that entire sentence above RED in order to express my extreme agreement with it.  Amen and amen!

Land subsidies are a really big problem in this country. I too agreed with Crocket on this though I do not know enough background to say this definitively against Ammon Bundy, it would not be surprising to me if there were at least elements of truth of this with him.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

both make the exact same choices in the way they protest

The government coming in with guns is not making a protest.

[Darren10]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So the armed but peaceful takeover of the Crimea by Russia recently is perfectly O.K.?  Doesn't bother you at all?

There was nothing peaceful about it in the first place. Putin sent in the troops in his jingoist view of that part of the world in order to try and reconstruct some of Russia's past glory days of control. He sent them intending on war. These protestors seized a vacant federal building with the intent on preventing cruel and unusual punishment (that's even the exact position of the original court decision in their sentencing) being carried out upon the Hammonds.

[Darren10]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All these issues are actionable in a courtroom, something liars, cheats, and thieves have no time for -- they already know that they'll lose.

Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Chairman Mao Tse Tung,  "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, II:224.

"Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Chairman Mao Tse Tung,  "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, II:224. " - Leave liberal politicians out of this. It's not conservative vs. liberals here.

[Darren10]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You say that these idiots aren't being oppressed, and I agree.  But someone is going to argue that the second amendment was not intended to help the citizens to protect themselves from their own government.  And I am going to pre-empt this nonsense as follows:

James Madison enjoys the sobriquet "The Father of the Constitution", and it can be said nobody understood better the meaning of it.  In Federalist Paper No. 46 he wrote the following:

He clearly anticipates here the possibility that the citizens could find it necessary to defend themselves against an oppressive government.  

Noah Webster agrees:

During the ratification debates over the original constitution were occurring in Virginia in 1788, there were a number of delegates who didn't want to ratify it without a Bill of Rights.  One opponent of having a Bill of Rights (which would have included an enumerated right to keep and bear arms) was Edmund Pendleton.  He made the weak argument that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

At the same convention, George Mason (who was considered the Father of the Bill of Rights) said on this subject:

The fact that the Founding Fathers considered the militia to be the whole people, means that YOU are a member of the militia (assuming you're a US citizen).  Surprised?  When the 2nd Amendment is speaking of the militia, it is speaking of YOU.  Don't believe me?  Check 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes 

That's just the Federal militia.  Each state has its own militia statutes.  For example, in my state of Washington

Your state will have a similar law.

So, Mr. or Ms. Member of the Militia, may I ask you where your weapon is?  You better believe that the state armory doesn't have enough weapons to arm but a small number of members of the militia, should your governor call you up.  Or are you supposed to show up carrying a musket, as some of our politicians seem to think?

From United States v Miller, 307 US 174

In other words, when you are called up you are expected bring your M16 with you.  Or maybe an AR-15 will suffice.

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.

Fabulous post overall.

"You say that these idiots aren't being oppressed, and I agree." - Do you find the mandatory sentencing of five years as pursued by the federal government against the Hammonds as oppression or no?

 

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's a mistake for the Church to comment on this at all.  It's wrong for the church to suggest there is "no way" to justify this groups actions from scripture.  The Church should encourage individual interpretation while continuing to acknowledge scripture is not inerrant.  Scripture is pretty big and not all of it is useful.  We don't base all of our teachings and actions on scripture.  Why would it matter if another is trying to? 

Interesting position.

[Darren10]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In response to Stargazer I agree that the Founding Fathers intended that the right to have militias was to protect against oppression but I would also add that that purpose is mostly obsolescent. Having a gun gives you no real power to resist an oppressive government now. We live in an era where there are literally death robots flying through the sky. In the 1700s and 1800s a civilian militia with basic organization could challenge a detachment of the US military and possibly win (especially when you look at how small the federal army was at the time). Now a gun might help you resist the police but not much more. It is ironic to me that conservatives who imagine their firearms will protect them are also big proponents of a massive military that could squash them and their gun collection like a bug.

Here you seem to be recognizing the right of the citizenry to thwart oppression, even if it comes from government. That would be a step in the right direction.

If so, are these protestors not peaceful? Have they not been peaceful up until this point?

[Darren10]

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 9:56 AM, thesometimesaint said:

They were found guilty by a jury of their peers of arson to hide poaching. Governments have the legal authority to use violence, if necessary to enforce the law. The illegal use or implied use of force to achieve a political end is by legal definition terrorism.

Did not the code specify that seizing a federal building mandates a 20 year sentence?

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Fabulous post overall.

"You say that these idiots aren't being oppressed, and I agree." - Do you find the mandatory sentencing of five years as pursued by the federal government against the Hammonds as oppression or no?

 

I find that many mandatory sentences for whatever crime are oppressive, or out-of-proportion.  I find that civil forfeiture is oppressive, in general.  But I don't find that these problems are worth engaging in armed rebellion over.

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, saemo said:

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. 

Federal property is not theirs? Who's is it?

Who is blocking access to public land?

Who did you elect to conduct the federal government to act as they have with the federalization of land which originally belonged to private individuals?

The main point of this thread is peacefulness though freedom and democracy definitely find its place in this main argument.

[The Nehor]

Look Darren, if you are this hell-bent on defending them and see their cause as this just despite all evidence to the contrary shouldn't you go join them?

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, saemo said:

 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. 

Oh, I think it's quite arguable that private land owners can take care of a refugee far better than the government. Hunters are far and away the most conservationist people in the country and a private land owner has a high interest in maintaining his or land in pristine condition. Di you read about what the federal government is doing to force private homeowners in this wildlife refugee area to abandon their homes and sell to the government? Talk about environmental hazards.

 

[Darren10]

10 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.

"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." - Isn't their main point that the government is forcing people off their lands and offering pessimistically low amounts of compensation?

I've no argument against the Bundys being no Joseph Smith though.

[saemo]

10 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Federal property is not theirs? Who's is it?

Who is blocking access to public land?

Who did you elect to conduct the federal government to act as they have with the federalization of land which originally belonged to private individuals?

The main point of this thread is peacefulness though freedom and democracy definitely find its place in this main argument.

It is ours, and they act like it is their private property. It isn't.

Well, I visit NWR, and I wouldn't visit one while it had been taken over by armed weirdos.

What lands were federalized? I've heard this said since I was a teenager, starting with those Skousen seminars people would hold in their homes.  Never once heard of it actually happening, outside of eminent domain for public projects such as highways or dams. I find it to be a myth.  

Edited January 8, 2016 by saemo

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

And if the US-FED is *willing* to kill to defend the law are they being unpeaceful?

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, saemo said:

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.

 

 

 

"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." - From my understanding the courts ruled that the testimony regarding the poaching was to contradictory to be credible.

 

While they had no permission to set the fires it was still their own land they set it to. Ranchers have always done this. They were convicted of this and served their time. The federal government then made an appeals to the courts to mandate the mandatory five year sentence be carried out against the Hammonds. After the courts decided on the federal government's favor, the protests began. After this court decision, not before.

 

"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. "

 

Ewwwww. Who went to court for any of this? What were the results of the cases?

Edited January 8, 2016 by Darren10

[Darren10]

6 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.

What about burning a printing press. Would that count?

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

That the building was not vacant or that the protesting is not peaceful?