I think I see your confusion. Let me break it down for you:
Using guns to legally defend your own property = defense.
Using guns to forcibly occupy Federal property = offense.
22 Likes
Wow, great article.
Turned out to be detailed and factual.
5 Likes
You wrote that at 10 am EST, which is⌠7am PST. So how is that them not showing up?
As I write, itâs only just turned 9 in Oregon.
also:
Oregon ranchers reported to prison amid heated protests over their convictions.
The criminals can defend themselves, you noble paladin.
Thatâs pretty much what the Hammonds said:
1 Like
Those are, in fact, and without dispute, some entirely other words
1 Like
It sounds like your definition of self defense precludes the defense of your body and only permits the defense of your property. Is your body not your property?
In the context of responding to someone leaping to defend armed insurrectionists from internet scorn? in an online forum? Yes, I said that.
I deleted those words, even though it appeared to me in my quick reading that you are blaming the Hammonds for the militia showing up, even though the Hammonds are not in contact with the militia, have stated the militia does not represent them, and planned on reporting (and did) to prison.
The feds have made it pretty clear that if you protest by occupying government property that they are more than willing to harm you.
âDefending my bodyâ doesnât mean I can illegally break into a Federal building and threaten to shoot anyone who gets in my way.
Imagine if a bank robber tried that one. âI was just defending myself from those security guards who were trying to stop me during the course of the robbery. IâM the real victim here!â
13 Likes
Itâs very important to keep the humors in balance.
8 Likes
Do we need to have a conversation about the right to violence being held by the sovereign? I happen to have a lot of sympathy for sovereign citzenry movement which equates each individual as equl to the entire government. etc etc etc.
Sympathy is not support. Itâs more like hearing someone has mono. You can only hope they get over it and can contribute to society again someday.
1 Like
There is a difference between what is right and what is illegal. Occupying a street in front of the G20 summit is illegal. Yet most activists would agree that it is right. Would it be acceptable if they were just having a sit-in waiting for the tear gas?
1 Like
Or a teenager, who fled to Mexico to fight for his right to party?
2 Likes
I would say that an illegal-but-peaceful protest is more acceptable and morally defensible than an illegal-and-violent protest, yes.
People who employ nonviolent protest techniques such as the followers of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. are essentially making a statement by saying "I believe so deeply in my principles that I am willing to endure prison (or worse) for them."
By contrast, the people participating in this armed occupation are essentially saying "I believe so deeply in my principles that I am willing to kill other people for them."
18 Likes
They just keep getting younger
1 Like
They surely will not, and do not, discuss the evidence of game poaching they destroyed that day, which is ANOTHER PART of the charges.
Funny thing is, the mandatory minimum sentence for arson on federal wildlands exists to SAVE FIREFIGHTERS LIVES. These two are being made an example of Every first responder should want them in prison.
And on the upside, they are today, because they lost. Those two left the refuge and showed up for prison. (The scolding I have recieved for news taking time to travel, aside.)
Perhaps they will recieve some clemency, but having an armed insurrection the day before you start your sentence is not something a friend does for you to help show the world you have learned enough to maybe not deserve the whole 5 years.
7 Likes
I was waiting for your inevitable reply!
1 Like
Are they carrying AR-15s and threatening to use them?
6 Likes
Thatâs the table of contents. Bureaucracies are good at making impressive tables of contents. The full report is here
1 Like
What act of violence has been committed? No one has been harmed. Is merely being in possession of a weapon an act of violence?
1 Like
