150 Armed Militia take over Oregon Federal Building

[TheDan]

The point of pointing it out was that you made no comments supporting your position.

The points supporting my position have already been made. We were having a pretty good conversation about legal and moral positions until people started getting called crazy.

My point was not supporting government over reach. It was stating that you can't have effective govt if it is set up so there is no possibility of govt over reach. That we should punish those officials or employees that do over reach not cripple the govt in an effort to prevent over reach.

I know you don't support govt over reach, but you do support the possibility of it. That's exactly what I was talking about. I'm not intentionally attacking you personally, but you're taking it personally. We need to be having the serious conversations about why does the government have these powers, is the government effective at the stated goal, is it possible to achieve the goals through private means instead, and most importantly is it a moral use of force to impose these powers on people that disagree with it?

 

[bones_708]

The points supporting my position have already been made. We were having a pretty good conversation about legal and moral positions until people started getting called crazy.

What position? V max went off about the "government over reach" and my "desperate defense of tyranny" and the discussion was fine until I called people nutters? You said I accepted abuse of power, but that is all good! Now you are trying to do some rolling argument where what you talk about in every post keeps shifting. Dude whatever cause you are working you are doing more harm than good. All philosophy and no facts. You might as well be a liberal because it's all about feelings isn't it?

 

[Younggun]

Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[zincwarrior]

The issue is the Constitution and government overreach. Not religious

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

I'll note nothing concerning the BLM relates to terrorist threats to government workers, townspeople, felony trespass, conversion, and theft of government equipment. If this were MS-13 doing this, they'd be dead already.

Having said that, those legally protesting BLM activities may have very good points in many of their arguments. Its just that the one group is drawing all the oxygen with its crimes. A discussion of their claims may be more efficacious in another thread where it can be discussed without the penumbra of the illegal activities occurring by this particular group.

And....I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday...

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Some people believe in civil disobedience, others don't. The vast majority only believe in it when they agree with "the cause."

Nothing new here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

Some people believe in civil disobedience, others don't. The vast majority only believe in it when they agree with "the cause."

Nothing new here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Stealing government vehicles, threatening officials, and seizing government property cannot be considered civil disobedience.
Protesting, having sit ins at the courthouse, etc. thats civil disobedience. As noted I am all for legal protest, but I've never had ause for people breaking the law, tying up roads etc.



Looks like one was arrested for public intoxication and resisting arrest-also he was impersonating a veteran.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Stealing government vehicles, threatening officials, and seizing government property cannot be considered civil disobedience.
Protesting, having sit ins at the courthouse, etc. thats civil disobedience. As noted I am all for legal protest, but I've never had ause for people breaking the law, tying up roads etc.



Looks like one was arrested for public intoxication and resisting arrest-also he was impersonating a veteran.

Legal protests aren't civil disobedience. By definition it requires disobeying the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[vmax]

Legal protests aren't civil disobedience. By definition it requires disobeying the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

this man is correct.^^^

 

[zincwarrior]

Legal protests aren't civil disobedience. By definition it requires disobeying the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is a fair point. I guess I am not very down with civil disobedience. I am specially not down with it when it involves threats of violence.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

This is a fair point. I guess I am not very down with civil disobedience. I am specially not down with it when it involves threats of violence.

Can Civil Disobedience involve threats of violence?

 

[Captain]

The war for Independence started as civil disobedience. If they outlaw guns, are you going to turn them in. If not that is civil disobedience. Don't think politically correct or you will be a slave.

sent from a Galaxy far away

 

[zincwarrior]

Can Civil Disobedience involve threats of violence?

"Whats so civil about war anyway"

The war for Independence started as civil disobedience. If they outlaw guns, are you going to turn them in. If not that is civil disobedience. Don't think politically correct or you will be a slave.

sent from a Galaxy far away

This topic is not about gun control. Thats three doors to the left.
If you consider this some sort of act of independence, then the government would completely be in the right if they JDAMMed the entire group then no? If the group is professing violence, then it is just and right to commit violence against them.

Again, a peaceful protest obeying the law is one thing. "Civil disobedience" as our favorite Hippy said - if nonviolent- is not greatly different and time honored, even if I am not a fan.
Violent, damaging actions are completely different.

 

[vmax]

This is a fair point. I guess I am not very down with civil disobedience. I am specially not down with it when it involves threats of violence.

Every man has his limit to what he will tolerate

We saw this during the American Revolution and the Civil War they were the also acts of civil disobedience that led to insurgency

 

[zincwarrior]

Every man has his limit to what he will tolerate

We saw this during the American Revolution and the Civil War they were the also acts of civil disobedience that led to insurgency

This is true. Then I revert to my other point on that. If they are not being "civilly disobedient" then there is no reason the government can also act uncivil. Although the could start firing the artillery, I'd imagine a nice C130 dropping cow poop would be way more fun.

Having said that, I prefer how the government has handled it to date. But if they keep making threats against citizens it should be acted on, and if any of them make the mistake of doing something violent then the government should hit them with everything and treat them as dangerous felons.

 

[Younggun]

.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Whistler]

Occupying a place in dispute of government ownership is likewise time honored. I'm not in total agreement with the so-called militia though I am somewhat in agreement the federal government has excessively overreached in seizing ownership of public resources. I don't perceive it to be insidious or malicious in intent though perhaps in practice. That said much tyranny has it's roots in good intentions. What I categorically do not agree with is the federal government has any right to use force to seize state resources justified by laws they themselves created. I'm the biggest so I make the rules and that's right because I say it is. WTH?

I'm likewise a bit nonplussed at folks who perceive legal recourse to be the only appropriate recourse when in effect our legal system has been reduced to whoever has the most money wins. Our legal system is rigged, was from shortly after it's inception and it's my opinion sometimes you have to refuse to play the corrupt game. Disagree with the government and then ask the government to decide who's right, well they are of course. My sister used to make up games and always won because she made up the rules, it's sort of like that.

 

[zincwarrior]

Occupying a place in dispute of government ownership is likewise time honored. I'm not in total agreement with the so-called militia though I am somewhat in agreement the federal government has excessively overreached in seizing ownership of public resources. I don't perceive it to be insidious or malicious in intent though perhaps in practice. That said much tyranny has it's roots in good intentions. What I categorically do not agree with is the federal government has any right to use force to seize state resources justified by laws they themselves created. I'm the biggest so I make the rules and that's right because I say it is. WTH?

I'm likewise a bit nonplussed at folks who perceive legal recourse to be the only appropriate recourse when in effect our legal system has been reduced to whoever has the most money wins. Our legal system is rigged, was from shortly after it's inception and it's my opinion sometimes you have to refuse to play the corrupt game. Disagree with the government and then ask the government to decide who's right, well they are of course. My sister used to make up games and always won because she made up the rules, it's sort of like that.

Occupying a place and threatening violence is not time honored, however.

If you go beyond the law then the response will likewise be extrajudicial.

 

[Davetex]

Two key members of the Oregon militia, who continue to hold the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, say Arizona officials took their children from their homes as an act of revenge.

According to a report from the Arizona Republic, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum and Blaine Cooper say federal officials pressured local child protection officials to take custody of their children in retaliation against them for their siege on the wildlife refuge.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ssure-them-into-surrender-heres-what-we-know/

Looks like the children of some militia are being removed from their homes.

 

[zincwarrior]

Yes I am sure thats it.

 

[Whistler]

Occupying a place and threatening violence is not time honored, however.

If you go beyond the law then the response will likewise be extrajudicial.

I see, one of those "we can but you can't" things, government agencies do it all the time. It's already extrajudicial in some folk's opinion, what's good for the goose is apparently NOT good for the gander. Tell me again how you occupy a place and not threaten violence? Do you think they would simply ignore your peaceful "sit in" or do you think they would forcibly (violently) remove you?

Of course we will never agree as I do not perceive "rule of law" inviolable and sacrosanct. I don't believe deferring to legal recourse to equate to an appeal to justice. Had our Republic remained the ideal envisioned by it's founders, with the Federal government limited in scope and constrained by the Constitution and separation of powers, I would have no choice but to agree with you however that is not the case. Our federal government bears no resemblance to that lofty ideal of individual self determination.

I can't in good conscience concede what I perceive the right of the individual to the will of the corrupt oligarchy and certainly consider an appeal to that authority deleterious.