Armed domestic terrorists take over federal building, but it's OK, they're white

[anon68952647]

@skr1

What act of violence has been committed? No one has been harmed. Is merely being in possession of a weapon an act of violence?

[Brainspore]

@skr1

What act of violence has been committed? No one has been harmed. Is merely being in possession of a weapon an act of violence?

That’s like saying it’s not “armed robbery” as long as the cashier puts the money in the bag and the robber leaves without pulling the trigger.

When armed gunmen use threat of deadly violence to illegally occupy a building they don’t get to call it a “peaceful protest.”

[OtherMichael]

@AcerPlatanoides

Those two left the refuge and showed up for prison.

They [the Hammonds] were never at the refuge, were not part of the protest, and are not connected to the glory-seeking-militias.

Stop muddying the waters with your this-is-too-good-to-verify rubbish.

---

UPDATE: are you, by any chance, confusing the fire-starting-Hammonds with the inflammatory-Bundys?

Also, I don’t think the Hammonds were at the rally, but I haven’t been able to verify that part, yet. From everything I’ve read, the militia charge-into-town was supposedly “Rally behind the Hammonds”, but the Hammonds, while no doubt sympathetic to larger themes of the militias, were not party to any of it.

[OtherMichael]

I do NOT represent the points of view in the following article or website, but think it’s a useful look into some involved lines-of-(so-called)-thought:

Full Story About What’s Going on In Oregon – “Militia” Take Over Malheur...

[skr1]

That’s a terrible analogy. Theft is inherently an act of violence. Being armed compounds that act. Protest is not inherently an act of violence so how does being armed make it an act of violence? I could see the argument that occupation of land is theft and that is an act of violence, but that would make a lot of protest action that is generally viewed as peaceful as being categorized as violent.

[Brainspore]

@skr1

Protest is not inherently an act of violence so how does being armed make it an act of violence?

“If you attempt to enforce the law by evicting us from this building we are illegally occupying, we will shoot you.”

How is that NOT inherently violent?

[SteampunkBanana]

Because they haven’t yet. Of course. They’re just waving their guns around yelling “YeeHawd!” and stuff.

[skr1]

That’s a threat of violence not an act of violence. I don’t suppose that the feds would be as careful with a group of pacifist hippies with guns knowing that thwy are just for show.

Is there any form of protest activity that can be undertaken while possessing a weapon to be used in defense of your body that you wouldn’t consider violent?

[Brainspore]

@skr1

That’s a threat of violence not an act of violence.

See, the thing about actual non-violent protests like those led by Ghandi and MLK is that they didn’t need to make such distinctions.

@skr1

Is there any form of protest activity that can be undertaken while possessing a weapon to be used in defense of your body that you wouldn’t consider violent?

If your protest hinges on a credible threat of violence against anyone who tries to enforce the law then no, I don’t think you get to call it “non-violent.” That goes for guns, knives, bombs, clubs, tear gas and scorpion launchers.

[daneel]

Ted Cruz Says Oregon Militia Should Stand Down

[anon15383236]

@skr1

That’s a threat of violence not an act of violence. I don’t suppose that the feds would be as careful with a group of pacifist hippies with guns knowing that thwy are just for show.

“hippies”

[skr1]

Well then I guess we’re at an impasse. I don’t see why what amounts to a sit-in needs to subject themselves to the whims of a demonstrably violent government in order to peacefully protest that government.

[William_Holz]

@skr1

Well then I guess we’re at an impasse. I don’t see why what amounts to a sit-in needs to subject themselves to the whims of a demonstrably violent government in order to peacefully protest that government.

So bringing guns and threatening to shoot people who try to get rid of us whenever we protest government policy is something that’s okay?

You sure you’ve thought this through?

[Brainspore]

@skr1

I don’t see why what amounts to a sit-in needs to subject themselves to the whims of a demonstrably violent government in order to peacefully protest that government.

“Sit-in,” “shoot-out,” whatever.

[skr1]

Is it ok for the government to taze, pepperspray, gas, club, and arrest people for assembling on public property in order to protest the government?

[skr1]

Shoot out? Oh you mean like Kent State?

[Brainspore]

@skr1

Shoot out? Oh you mean like Kent State?

Do you see anyone here defending the government’s actions at Kent State? Or referring to said actions as “non-violent?”

[Missy_Pants]

Did the kids protesting at Kent have guns?
Don’t seem to recall that…

[skr1]

Of course not, my point is that sit-ins have tirned into shoot outs before and it doesn’t require the protesting side to being weapons. You know the government will bring weapons and they have a long history of using them. Of course bringing weapons to defend yourself from the goverent you are protesting does bring certain risks, but does that risk invalidate the right to defend yourself from the weapons the government has brought which include things other than just guns?

[Brainspore]

The reason a “sit-in” is considered a legitimate form of non-violent protest is that the protesters are willing to endure the consequences of said action themselves. “I will remain here until you arrest me” is not the same as “I will remain here until you try to make me move, at which point I will shoot you.”

If you can’t understand the difference then I agree we seem to be at an impasse.