Legacy Fan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Reading up on the Hammonds (ranchers in question) leads be to believe they've been jerked around pretty severely by the Feds. They've conceded and gone to prison, and it seems like there are some mall ninjas and Bundy doofuses desperately seeking attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 On a serious note, do people support their actions? Their cause? The cause might be good but I really don't know enough about it, regardless I don't agree with breaking the law and they should be held accountable for breaking the law. Also looters and arsonists in the Baltimore and Ferguson riots should be held accountable for breaking the law. Furthermore leaders of sanctuary cities that are breaking the law should be held accountable. One of the problems I see is the hypocrisy going on with selective enforcement of our laws. All laws should be enforced and if they are not good laws work to change them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Reason I ask is, we hear a lot about the second amendment, and what it's "really" for - an organised militia with the ability to stand up to an oppressive regime inflicting its will upon the people. I have no doubt that in the minds of the people occupying this bird sanctuary (seriously, btw?) believe that this is exactly what they're doing. With that in mind, how do you feel about what they're doing, how it relates to the law and specifically the second amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 If this "militia" in Oregon does fire upon state or federal officials sent in to remove them peacefully, would that then make it acceptable the government to respond likewise? Well yes, I would say shooting at people is grounds for them to shoot back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Well yes, I would say shooting at people is grounds for them to shoot back. Or holding a toy gun apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 In this country we are told driving a car is a privilege and not a right...so we bend the rules and give illegal immigrants drivers licenses for what? Breaking the law? You would think voting was a right as well but it also is a privilege and not a constitutional right. The second amendment is a constitutional right to every American citizen and that should be kept in mind with every new gun law. It is not just a privilege to have firearms we have that right and it is a constant fight to keep that right. If it were not for the second amendment I have no doubt we would have had gun confiscation like in Australia and being floated today by Hillary Clinton and Obama as a model for this country. The battle the militia is fighting is what we have court systems for and appeals processes for verdicts we don't agree with and I think they are wrong to think they can achieve by force what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Or holding a toy gun apparently. A realistic looking toy gun that is being carried by someone pointing it at strangers. But lets all act like it was a good boy who was carrying a neon orange squirt gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 The battle the militia is fighting is what we have court systems for and appeals processes for verdicts we don't agree with and I think they are wrong to think they can achieve by force what they want. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Reason I ask is, we hear a lot about the second amendment, and what it's "really" for - an organised militia with the ability to stand up to an oppressive regime inflicting its will upon the people. I have no doubt that in the minds of the people occupying this bird sanctuary (seriously, btw?) believe that this is exactly what they're doing. With that in mind, how do you feel about what they're doing, how it relates to the law and specifically the second amendment? the "bird sanctuary " was arbitrarily assigned to that land by the Feds. It was family grazing land prior. The reasons the "birds" showed up was from the changes that were made to the land by the family essentially creating a natural oasis-like irrigation system for their herds. I'd also be upset if the govt just came and said "mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 This. Seems like you're both saying that that militia has no place in modern society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Seems like you're both saying that that militia has no place in modern society? It doesn't apply to this situation. If it was used anytime someone felt wronged by a government official, there would be standoffs over parking tickets. If the government is rounding people up or cooking the books on elections then those are definitely times that a militia would be important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 God save the Queen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Seems like you're both saying that that militia has no place in modern society? I think a militia might be good if we have a breakdown in society (a concern I do have). We have seen the anarchy and chaos after hurricane Katrina or the riots which always are just one video camera spark away from happening. If something were to happen on a national scale you could see the same results nationally as you did locally in Los Angeles (Rodney King riots) or New Orleans, Baltimore, Ferguson etc... I know we have the national guard but I see nothing wrong with a militia in place as well. I also see another scenario where we could have a break down in society and that is with an economic crisis. How would people act today if we had another Great Depression? I think there would be looting and rioting nationwide. The atheists may knock religion but I personally believe it was that people in the 30's had more (religious) morality than today and that was the reason people did not go on a looting rampage when things were very bad in this country and people persevered through the trial. I had someone tell me once that he and his family had a steady diet of lard sandwiches during the Great Depression. I think people today will riot and loot before eating lard sandwiches. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 It doesn't apply to this situation. If it was used anytime someone felt wronged by a government official, there would be standoffs over parking tickets. If the government is rounding people up or cooking the books on elections then those are definitely times that a militia would be important. Fair enough. FWIW, I'd be all in favour of an actual well trained, armed militia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Fair enough. FWIW, I'd be all in favour of an actual well trained, armed militia. As long as their mission our goal was in line with what you believe and want WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Actually, as is the case with most protests, I don't give a fuck about their cause at all and think they are attention hog pains in the ass. Less annoying but just as stupid as the Occupy Wall Street jerk offs that some of you may support. WSS but the occupy wall st people actually had a legit cause, you remember...the bullshit that wall st did that gave us the 08 recession? Annoying or not, they were right. Yes they were annoying full admission, but they were "right". I'm still trying to figure out what these Oregon people are about, and why they took over a wildlife refuge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 ok my buddy from that area just texted me that it's the last family in that valley that's rich in uranium that hasn't sold their property. So they're protesting being forced off their land by the govt so they can destroy the land with a uranium mine. Good on those folks. They're "right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erie Dawg Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 First I've heard of this uranium angle. From what I've read both sides have been in the wrong at one time or another. Been a quiet story for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 but the occupy wall st people actually had a legit cause, you remember...the bullshit that wall st did that gave us the 08 recession? Annoying or not, they were right. Yes they were annoying full admission, but they were "right". I'm still trying to figure out what these Oregon people are about, and why they took over a wildlife refuge. That's hilarious. These fucking morons had no idea what they were protesting. But if you'd like to believe they had some sort of understanding about subprime financing or the creation of mortgage backed securities then good for you. Seems to me that people who understood that would not be the sort to shit on a police car but who knows... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 That's hilarious. These fucking morons had no idea what they were protesting. But if you'd like to believe they had some sort of understanding about subprime financing or the creation of mortgage backed securities then good for you. Seems to me that people who understood that would not be the sort to shit on a police car but who knows... WSS ok yes, there were some people that FOX news went out and found that were like "yeah man, we need to go back to tribal life man...we need to live in teepees and wipe our asses with dew laden grass every morning man". Last part actually sounded nice but anyway....most of those people got the gist of the corruption gong on in wall st. "NONE" of us know the true depth of corruption that goes on there. We would have to have PHD's in economics and work on wall st for 20 years before we could uncover all the layers of schemes that to normal people seems innocuous. I don't have a PhD in economics, but I still know enough to smell a bunch of con artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 These are the same people that Jesus flipped his shit on cause he smelled the same bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 It was quite a bit more than a Fox News sting operation. MSNBC had self-appointed leaders of theach protesters on who didn't sound much more informed then the TP assholes. The big short starts off by warning that banks and financial institutions have their own language to make it impossible for the common man to understand what's going on. And then they go on to use that language to make their left wing diatribe. But I never heard anyone give any of those things as a reason for the protests. Attention seeking idiots just like protesters all over the world. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street I didn't see anything mentioned about subprime or mortgage based derivatives. I saw income inequality. Yes children some people have more money than others. Lots more. Lots lots and lots more. They always have. Man. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Ok first off, it's Wikipedia....2nd, even in that wiki it starts off by saying "one' of the original intents was to protest the influence of wall st/corporate America on democracy. Which goes entirely hand in hand with the 08 recession. Wall st, in collusion with our govt....put us economicall in a spot where we became vulnerable to such a collapse. But of course wall st didn't care all htat much cause they were playing mostly with our munnehs. I distinctly remember people getting up with microphones though and detailing the subprime horseshit right infront of one of the banks, I think it was Chase but not sure. So yeah plenty people in those protests knew exactly what was going on. Some of them were ex wall st employees who were there precisely for that reason, to add real substance to the protests. But most of htose people were gainfully employed so they couldn't be there 24/7. Broadstroking the protests with the homeless or near homeless people htat camped out there for months on end ain't exactly legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Pretending the unemployed rabble-rousers were for the most part PhDs it economics ( or had any clue besides the fact they didn't like rich people and it must be Wall Street's fault) ain't all that legit either. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Pretending the unemployed rabble-rousers were for the most part PhDs it economics ( or had any clue besides the fact they didn't like rich people and it must be Wall Street's fault) ain't all that legit either. WSS well I said that there were a lot of simply unemployed stoners. But there were also a lot of people who knew "exactly" what they were talking about. But they weren't there all the time. They used the unemployed people as a constant presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 well I said that there were a lot of simply unemployed stoners. But there were also a lot of people who knew "exactly" what they were talking about. But they weren't there all the time. They used the unemployed people as a constant presence. I'd say a tiny fraction knew anything about mortgage based securities. And I mean tiny. And those that might have wouldn't be the type of people who think you change it by shitting on a police car. Or even carrying a sign. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 you wouldn't be holding all the protesters responsible for one guy would you? One guy who decided he didn't like cops and shit on their car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 you wouldn't be holding all the protesters responsible for one guy would you? One guy who decided he didn't like cops and shit on their car? Not at all, I realize he's just one idiot and probably not much like the rest of them. I do, however, think that the protest is stupid and all of them are idiots. But the car shitter is not an across the board indictment. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 back on topic, I can't find anything about these guys that talks about planned uranium excavation. From what the "media" is reporting, the Bundy's are saying they're doing this cause the land was improperly ceded to the govt like a century ago or some shit like that. Now there's an Indian tribe that says that land was never ceded from their tribe to the govt NOR any ancestors of the bundy's. So the Indians are saying that these round eye's are basically squatters anyway so they don't know what all the fuss is about. Shit is getting convoluted and i'm starting to feel like we're not being told the real story. My friend is from that area but lives in Seattle, his family is apparently right around there and that's what people from that area know about this supposed dispute over the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.