Also true, the one who successfully defended the soldiers in the boston masscre, who responded to a violent protest with violence, also wrote most of the Constitution.
1 Like
Iāll admit that there is a lot of risk involved by defending yourself against government violence. I wasnāt asking if it was pragmatic. I asked if people have a right to defend themselves against government initiated violence. Not everytime leads to a shootout. The last Bundy thing didnāt the Black Panther occupation of the ROTC office didnāt.
1 Like
not without sanction. This isnāt a comic book.
2 Likes
So you are allowed to defend yourself from the government only if the government says itās ok? Not one for inherent human rights I see.
1 Like
John Adams. That man championed the right to a fair trial in the way only a lawyer could (not a snark). Iād forgotten his role in that chapter of American history.
2 Likes
Quit trolling and making this a conversation about something other than a bunch of yahoos with guns taking over a government building and threatening to shoot cops if they come in.
The rest of you: quit replying to this idiot. Heās just going to keep going.
12 Likes
Before or after, yeah. Sanction was a carefully chosen word.
I am one for inherent human rights, and I understnd the inherent human resonsibilities from which they are derived. The government has nothing to do with my capacity to moderate my ego-drive in order to get along in a social setting.
1 Like
To the victors go the history. he shoudl be on the money.
And here I thought I was trying to have a civil discussion about the method of protest being utilized divorced from the content of the protest.
I guess Iāve been a little torn over that. I donāt know, I wonder how people living near the occupation feel about it, and whether they are scared. Are there towns full of people living with uncertain futures or are there just a few federal employees calling each other trying to figure out if they have to go to work at an alternate location or if they are on paid vacation? It might even have a lot to do with just how remote the location is and whether the group is likely (based on more extensive knowledge that I have) to try for further objectives if this goes well.
At any rate, if they are terrorists, I would certainly say terrorism 101 is not holing everyone up in the same building and telling the government where you are. And maybe Iām glad they arenāt being called terrorists for that reason. If the government starts saying āterroristā then the next thing might be a bomb, and that would be way scarier than this occupation.
1 Like
context. You are divorcing things from their CONTEXT. Itās oppressive and oily.
There are other ways to get attention from people. Please find a kind one.
5 Likes
That seems like a pretty positivist rights framework more than a natural rights one.
1 Like
sounds like quite a dilemma.
hook 'em horns!
They say they are going to stay for āyearsā if necessary, which will require resupply at regular intervals. The Feds will have to blockade two access routes into the facility to prevent that, say 5-10 officers per blockade, three shifts each. The regular staff are still drawing their paychecks and all that equipment on the site is now unavailable for use, which will lead to overtime later to get caught up.
Iād guess that the daily costs of all that are in the tens of thousands of dollars, all of which should be accrued and back-charged to the yeehawdists. Iāll guess this lasts about 7-10 days, max before they eat all the Twinkies in the vending machine and get hungry.
4 Likes
What is oppressive and oily about it? Iām just curious about how these actions are percieved and why. That involves some drilling down beyond, āthey have guns so itās violent.ā A lot of people reply with answers that beg further questioning. Iām trying to figure out specifically what part of the situation causes people to react one way or the other so strongly. Itās really quite fascinating how someone can view this as terrorism but not the Black Panther protest or vice versa.
2 Likes
