C) He was a lying coward who brought death upon himself
3 Likes
that is very sad.
1 Like
it just keeps getting more bizarre and loony and never stops.
Those ships could never survive 12 nukes. Maybe 6. Maybe this belongs in the X Files thread.
3 Likes
For those decrying any use of arms in protest, the Black Panthers and the Deacons for Defense and Justice might disagree with you.
However, the jerks in question are rich white privileged men who want to be able to use whatever land they can take in whatever way they want. These are people who are overreacting to a perceived injustice, Where the people who may need arms to defend themselves from real injustice generally do not take them up for their own reasons.
The police donât respect individuals with guns, but they do seem to respect groups with guns. See the recent armed Panther protests. Iâm not saying every protest group should take up arms. Iâm saying that armed protest has its place, and the situation in Oregon isnât it.
2 Likes
Those people arenât here yet. Please wait for them?
5 Likes
One guy got shot. The very same guy who said on more than one occasion that he would rather be killed than go to jail. At least one account so far has him lunging at or charging officers immediately prior to being shot.
There is âpolice brutalityâ and then there is âsuicide by cop.â An armed guy who talks about going out in a hail of bullets is a lot different than an unarmed guy being beaten to death or shot in the back as he runs away.
I would have preferred that Lavoy Finicum (great name BTW) be arrested instead of shot. I think many of us here are happy that the standoff might be ended without a Waco-style disaster (so quite the opposite of what you claim.) We donât want âpolice brutalityâ, but we still want the police to do their job.
3 Likes
-
The New Black Panther Party is considered a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Even members of the original Black Panther Party condemn them; itâs NOT the old Black Panther party. So any âyeah, but THEY get respect for the same tacticsâ argument is invalid.
-
These recent armed protests - got a link? Were they breaking other laws, using guns to force police to back off as the Bundy crowd was? Or was it more like those armed protestors - legally enjoying their 2nd amendment rights - who occasionally show up at Obama speeches?
1 Like
Look at it this way:
A.) The PLO takes a plane hostage and makes demands of the Israeli government.
B.) Cowboys take a Federal building hostage and make demands of the US government.
The cowboys to their credit did not take any people hostage, but the idea is still the same: if you are going to use arms as a way to change the law then you are basically privatizing war, and that can easily be defined as terrorism. In both cases they may have legitimate grievance with the government, but that doesnât change the nature of the act. This is a far cry from dedicated non-violent protest, where the protesters are willing to be beaten and thrown in jail to make their point; Gandhi and MLK never threatened violence.
2 Likes
I will give him props for mentioning Boogieland, though Iâm not sure he knew what he was talking about at that point.
1 Like
I see that this article frames this as a terrorist plot so I canât really take it seriously. If it was an objective appraisal of the civil disobedience in Oregon then I might have read further but itâs just trash. I expect more from BoingBoing but I guess I wonât anymore.
Two comments above did,
ânemomeno:
easy first pass filter:
nonviolent protest - acceptable
armed paramilitary operations - never acceptableâ
âCarlMud
Iâd say the opposite. If you need a gun in order to protect a supposed act of free speech, then youâre not using your 1st amendment rights, but rather committing a criminal act. The presence of the gun changes the nature of the speech because it carries the potential threat of violence (not even counting the actual stated threats of violence that these guys made). If you have to resort to being armed, youâre not truly free.â
I couldnât figure out how to multi-qoute and didnât want to make the same reply twice. Apoligies for not sourcing better.
[quote=âJosephCool8, post:172, topic:72851â]
If it was an objective appraisal of the civil disobedience in Oregon then I might have read further but itâs just trash.[/quote]
Your problem is that people here HAVE done an objective appraisal of the âcivil disobedienceâ in Oregon, and are responding accordingly.
11 Likes
A brand new user disappointed in BoingBoing⌠quick someone add him to the list.
14 Likes
Sorry bro, but using weapons and the threat of violence to try and change the law fits the definition of terrorism in my book.
14 Likes
I bet you do with your long tenure on the siteâŚ
It isnât âcivil disobedienceâ if youâre carrying guns and threatening to shoot anyone that tries to stop you, especially law enforcement. Thatâs sedition and terrorism.
12 Likes
@codinghorror you were looking for a testcase thread with a troll and reddit pile on by new folks, werenât you?
5 Likes
A hate group? Sure,if the experts who know say so. The historical protests also were generally unmolested, when the members were in groups. The police targeted individuals etc to break up the groups. And if they are a hate group that makes the comparison to armed groups of white supremacists even closer, right?
Let me google that for you, hereâs an article:
http://www.startribune.com/armed-demonstrators-protest-sandra-bland-arrest-death/321644691/
Heresâs another heavily armed group of protesters who are people of color going unmolested by police
Neither is an occupation but an armed group of people of color watched, but not interfered with.either. the point being that armed groups are afforded more leeway from cops then unarmed groups, regardless of color.
Admittedly it is hard to gather good statistics on this as most armed groups are white and most people of color choose not to arm themselves or organize armed groups for various reasons. And those reasons have merit. But the idea that it is never OK is a poor one for minority groups. Those who are most likely to need arms are generally the least likely to chose them.
The racist history of gun control doesnât help this either.
1 Like
Is there some requirement that we all must agree with the tactics of the Black Panthers and the Deacons for Defense and Justice? I missed that in the Ts & Cs. Sorry, Iâm more of a Thoreau/Gandhi/MLK non-violent protest person. Feel free to disagree if you believe threats of violence are a politically acceptable form of protest, itâs off the table for me. People carrying guns in the US to politically intimidate and coerce others can all go to hell, regardless of whether I agree with their concerns, and regardless of their race.
5 Likes
