#OregonUnderAttack

#226
#226
ClearwaterVol said:
Having guns in and of it self is not violent, but it certainly ratchets up the pressure and when combined with violent rhetoric it is anything but a peaceful protest.

I talked to Ryan Bundy on the phone again. He said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary. - Ian Kullgren
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Bundy said on multiple occasions that they would only respond with with violence if they were attacked (ex. Waco or Ruby Ridge). That's a little bit different than what's being portrayed.

That being said, they still haven't fired shots that we know of, but the government has. Which side is the violent one up to this point?
 
#227
#227
ClearwaterVol said:
I don't like calling it terrorism and have avoided that term. I view more as a demonstration. My point was this takeover has violent undertones. When your armed and state from the beginning that you are willing to kill or be killed, it takes it out of the realm of a peaceful protest.
Click to expand...

Violent overtones only since neither parties wanted to back down. I outlined a peaceful end to this several times. You take away the violence on one side and it makes the other side look really foolish. And pressure would have ended the standoff.

Remove their supplies and they would have gotten hungry and cold.

But since you have people like Gramps screaming for armed intervention on an group of people that "stormed" a "federal building" you end up with dead people like we've just seen. There was a peaceful end to this that could have been accomplished, but neither side wanted it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#228
#228
davethevol said:
I'm pretty sure that Bundy said on multiple occasions that they would only respond with with violence if they were attacked (ex. Waco or Ruby Ridge). That's a little bit different than what's being portrayed.

That being said, they still haven't fired shots that we know of, but the government has. Which side is the violent one up to this point?
Click to expand...

By attacked, I assume you mean if the government attempted to remove them? So their position was that if the government attempted to remove them from a place which they had no right to occupy they would respond with force?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#229
#229
ClearwaterVol said:
If I came and stood on the sidewalk in front of your house with gun and yelled, "Hog, If you come out I am going to kill you." Would you consider me peaceful?
Click to expand...

There's an easy solution to that one:

image.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#230
#230
Grand Vol said:
Violent overtones only since neither parties wanted to back down. I outlined a peaceful end to this several times. You take away the violence on one side and it makes the other side look really foolish. And pressure would have ended the standoff.

Remove their supplies and they would have gotten hungry and cold.

But since you have people like Gramps screaming for armed intervention on an group of people that "stormed" a "federal building" you end up with dead people like we've just seen. There was a peaceful end to this that could have been accomplished, but neither side wanted it.
Click to expand...

I still think that there should be consequences from their actions. The Feds waited until they had left the compound when the Feds tried to initiate a traffic stop and arrest. The other issue is that the Feds, in order to avoid violence, let these guys come and go freely which makes starving them out kind of difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#232
#232
ClearwaterVol said:
Different strokes for different folks, huh?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't have a sidewalk in front of my house, so you will be in the middle of a four lane State Highway. I'd come out and wait for you to get plowed over by the tractor trailers that run rampant on that road.
 
#233
#233
hog88 said:
Should have came in guns a blazing and set an example, right? Show the subjects that this behavior will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

They could have set up a perimeter and shut off the water and electricity and allowed no one to enter or bring in supplies. They could have kept the media at a distance and not given them a platform.
 
#234
#234
Gramps said:
If you guys thinks this type of behavior by this group should be acceptable in America, I fell sorry for you. We don't allow thugs to arm themselves, take over a facility and make demands. If this were not a right wing group you guys would not be supporting them. These guys are criminals and should be locked up.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is acceptable. Who exactly where they terrorizing? The government? Great. They're Patriots and not terrorists. Our government governs with the consent of the governed and we can take that away at any time. These men have had enough of the Fedgov out there on the left Coast and they wanted to show it. Occupying that reserve and saying they'd only shoot in defense is hardly terrorizing people. It's an armed peaceful protest against an oppressive government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#235
#235
CNCVol88 said:
It absolutely is acceptable. Who exactly where they terrorizing? The government? Great. They're Patriots and not terrorists. Our government governs with the consent of the governed and we can take that away at any time. These men have had enough of the Fedgov out there on the left Coast and they wanted to show it. Occupying that reserve and saying they'd only shoot in defense is hardly terrorizing people. It's an armed peaceful protest against an oppressive government.
Click to expand...

OMG.........you're one of "them".
 
#236
#236
ClearwaterVol said:
By attacked, I assume you mean if the government attempted to remove them? So their position was that if the government attempted to remove them from a place which they had no right to occupy they would respond with force?
Click to expand...

No, by attack, I mean just like what happened at Waco and Ruby ridge where the government went in guns a blazing and slaughtered people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#240
#240
Grand Vol said:
Props to you for using terms that invoke deep set emotions within a reader base. "Terrorism, hijack and federal facility." Right out of the left wing playbook to incite fear in a host population.
Click to expand...

You're as dense as his buttermilk if you think that is a tool exclusive to the left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#241
#241
DinkinFlicka said:
You're as dense as his buttermilk if you think that is a tool exclusive to the left.
Click to expand...

Generally it isn't exclusive to that particular base (Patriot Act), yet in this situation as well as the one in Nevada, it certainly is being used to advance the agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#242
#242
Wording of the statute under which the ranchers were charged:


If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
 
#243
#243
Grand Vol said:
Generally it isn't exclusive to that particular base (Patriot Act), yet in this situation as well as the one in Nevada, it certainly is being used to advance the agenda.
Click to expand...

Yet you pin them specifically in this scenario. Talk about an agenda.

PA was eventually passed by the majority of both sides, by the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#244
#244
DinkinFlicka said:
Yet you pin them specifically in this scenario. Talk about an agenda.

PA was eventually passed by the majority of both sides, by the way.
Click to expand...

I think that by saying something isn't exclusive to one side, by default that means it includes more than one party (Patriot Act).

Looks like you need more coffee and less Mary Jane in the morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#245
#245
davethevol said:
I think that by saying something isn't exclusive to one side, by default that means it includes more than one party (Patriot Act).

Looks like you need more coffee and less Mary Jane in the morning.
Click to expand...

Wow, dave. Try to keep up. Re-read that exchange.
 
#247
#247
MT LeConte said:
OMG.........you're one of "them".
Click to expand...

If by them you mean a constitutional minarchist who thinks our elected officials should be thinking of the barrels of their constituents guns anytime they think about supporting legislation then yes I am one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#249
#249
DinkinFlicka said:
Yet you pin them specifically in this scenario. Talk about an agenda.

PA was eventually passed by the majority of both sides, by the way.
Click to expand...

I sure did pin them in this scenario. Namely because it's been used predominately by the left in this situation. Or did you forget about Harry Reid and his terrorism remarks from Nevada? Or how many of the leftist agencies have called this "terrorism."

Yeah, it's an agenda of making mountains out of molehills you should be concerned with as well. Because as soon as this gets labeled as "terrorism" how long before that broad reaching term gets used on practically anything. And don't say it's an overreaction, it's history.

And you do need some coffee or a toke this morning. You are a bit cranky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top