Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No. Nor would they legalize the armed intervention of private property. I am all for protesting the government and its ever increasing intrusions. But this is not the way to go about it. Just my opinion.
Militia takes over federal building in Oregon
- Thread starter Mr.Badguy
- Start date
No. Nor would they legalize the armed intervention of private property. I am all for protesting the government and its ever increasing intrusions. But this is not the way to go about it. Just my opinion.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
they have not threatened violence if their demands are not met.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so what if they then criminalized all protests on federal property? whats the way to go about it then?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Yes. Pretty soon they'll start to miss Burger King and Duck Dynasty.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
They have threatened violence if the feds try to remove them... and they won't leave if their demands are not met.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
hell yes. I'd threaten to respond with violence against force used against me as well. only a coward would not.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That would be unconstitutional. We have a right to protest our government. We do NOT have the right to protest anywhere, anytime we want... especially with weapons. Again, it is not their protest that is wrong. It is the manner of their protest.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
If THEY were the ones that were attempting to occupy YOUR property, then I would agree. But that is not the case here.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the founders would disagree with you. I side with the founders. and how unconstitutional would it become if the courts agreed with the government on that issue?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the state is a legitimate target, I am not.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
For context, here is how the FBI defines terrorism:
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So you think people should be able to grab guns, go into any federal building, take it over and demand whatever they want? anytime they want?
You understand the chaos that would follow?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
they also defined a shoestring as an automatic weapon. you're a bigger fool than is possible if you apathetically go with the governments definition of anything.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, they would not. What is the government 'oppression' in this case??? What has the government done that warrants this response?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I understand that there is a line to be drawn over government tyranny. once that line is reached, it's a matter of wills. especially if the government is the one crossing that line repeatedly.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Would you care to define terrorism in another manner? I don't simply take their word for anything, but that is a pretty apt description of terrorism.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I also agree there is a line. But I am not seeing the government tyranny here. Can you explain it from your viewpoint?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so the founders were terrorists for the shot heard round the world, the boston tea party, and the revolutionary war?
the government (including the courts) are using their power of the law to not only harass and oppress citizens, but imprisoning those who don't go along with their relocation plan. they are sanctioning and excusing the murder of unarmed citizens through judicially carved out exceptions to 'law', and THAT is certainly something the founders would not agree with.
face it, you are just plain wrong.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if you wish to use the FBIs definition of terrorism, you must then also concede that the US government, and all of it's subordinate entities, are terrorist organizations.