Quote:Still, I was taught you should NEVER point a gun at someone unless you're prepared to fire. And I was taught that by someone who very much owns guns.
That is very much true. However, anyone that has been trained in any kind of tactical warfare (military, police, etc.) is also taught how to safely use a scope to observe things at a distance.
Quote:The Black Lives matters protesters actually fired at the police? And Occupy Wall Street burned parts of Oakland?
Oh yes, there was a nimrod that shot at the police. One person. And I believe that that person was not actually a part of the protest. But yes he was an idiot. Now imagine all the actual protesters were carrying guns.
You realize the Ferguson protesters that actually marched were not carrying guns, yet they were still dispersed with tear gas and military surplus equipment. It appears to me to be a double standard.
And correct me if I am wrong, but the Oakland occupiers began rioting after a veteran was badly injured by a tear gas canister that hit him directly in the head.
I don't know, it seems one group is treated differently than the other two.
Also, the first group we are discussing was trying to protect a person that did not wish to follow the law and pay his share of taxes.
The other two groups were protesting an injustice they perceived at a systemic level.
Quote:That is very much true. However, anyone that has been trained in any kind of tactical warfare (military, police, etc.) is also taught how to safely use a scope to observe things at a distance.
Does it take a very long time to go from observing from a distance to actually firing the weapon?
Probably like a few days, right?
I'm sure whoever he was"observing" would be ok with a peaceful protester pointing a gun at him.
"sir, I was just observing"
Again, it's a bad look. One that other groups would not have the luxury of imitating.
Quote:Isn't that what they call themselves? Has that name fallen out of favor?
No, they don't. It's slang for a sex act used by their political opponents in a derogatory fashion.
Quote:Oh yes, there was a nimrod that shot at the police. One person. And I believe that that person was not actually a part of the protest. But yes he was an idiot. Now imagine all the actual protesters were carrying guns.
You realize the Ferguson protesters that actually marched were not carrying guns, yet they were still dispersed with tear gas and military surplus equipment. It appears to me to be a double standard.
And correct me if I am wrong, but the Oakland occupiers began rioting after a veteran was badly injured by a tear gas canister that hit him directly in the head.
I don't know, it seems one group is treated differently than the other two.
Also, the first group we are discussing was trying to protect a person that did not wish to follow the law and pay his share of taxes.
The other two groups were protesting an injustice they perceived at a systemic level.
Notice the group that wasn't dispersed with violence was the group that was armed? Hence the importance of the right to bear arms....
I'm not arguing for or against any of the groups or their movements, just pointing out the differences.
Quote:Does it take a very long time to go from observing from a distance to actually firing the weapon?
Probably like a few days, right?
I'm sure whoever he was"observing" would be ok with a peaceful protester pointing a gun at him.
"sir, I was just observing"
Again, it's a bad look. One that other groups would not have the luxury of imitating.
They went a step further, instead of looking threatening both of those crowds engaged in destructive acts. You keep saying this group received special privileges and the other groups where dealt with more harshly but you're ignoring the reality this group did not engage in violence at all, both the other groups did extensively.
Quote:They went a step further, instead of looking threatening both of those crowds engaged in destructive acts. You keep saying this group received special privileges and the other groups where dealt with more harshly but you're ignoring the reality this group did not engage in violence at all, both the other groups did extensively.
Chicken or egg thing, right? Could it be that the the violence occurred because the authorities acted harsher in their situations? I think it's reasonable to have that deduction.
Again, can you possibly imagine the way the authorities would have reacted more harshly to a group of armed black protesters in the inner city? To me, it's a pretty easy extrapolation.
White tea... members were treated with much more respect, no swat teams, no tear gas... and they even came strapped...
Ferguson protesters got the full riot gear, even though they were unarmed and just walking the streets...
And the other thing to consider, the Ferguson protesters were all branded as thugs, when only a small minority of then got violent.
The white tea... dudes are not all lumped in as traitors or thugs or even bullies for what they did.
To me it seems like the white group gets privileges the other groups don't
Heck, in this very forum we have fellow members saying they want to have student protesters deported. Imagine if those Muslim protesters were walking around with guns exercising their second amendment rights!
Quote:Notice the group that wasn't dispersed with violence was the group that was armed? Hence the importance of the right to bear arms....
I'm not arguing for or against any of the groups or their movements, just pointing out the differences.
Lol, believe it or not, I actually did have that thought!! Even though, as you probably have guessed I'm all for gun control.
However, as my other post states, I think certain classes and cultures in this society would not be treated the same way as those white BLM armed protesters were treated...
Quote:No, they don't. It's slang for a sex act used by their political opponents in a derogatory fashion.
Well, then I stand corrected and apologize. I could have sworn I heard that term coming directly from that group...
But it's irrelevant, I'd prefer to continue our civil debates and not get into name calling.
I'll stop using the term moving forward. My bad.
Quote:Well, then I stand corrected and apologize. I could have sworn I heard that term coming directly from that group...
But it's irrelevant, I'd prefer to continue our civil debates and not get into name calling.
I'll stop using the term moving forward. My bad.
It also came from rallies they did where tea party members had tea bags hanging from hats as well as holding them dangling and shacking them. It's used in a derisive manner but their actions is what gave life to the term.
Quote:Chicken or egg thing, right? Could it be that the the violence occurred because the authorities acted harsher in their situations? I think it's reasonable to have that deduction.
Again, can you possibly imagine the way the authorities would have reacted more harshly to a group of armed black protesters in the inner city? To me, it's a pretty easy extrapolation.
White tea... members were treated with much more respect, no swat teams, no tear gas... and they even came strapped...
Ferguson protesters got the full riot gear, even though they were unarmed and just walking the streets...
And the other thing to consider, the Ferguson protesters were all branded as thugs, when only a small minority of then got violent.
The white tea... dudes are not all lumped in as traitors or thugs or even bullies for what they did.
To me it seems like the white group gets privileges the other groups don't
Heck, in this very forum we have fellow members saying they want to have student protesters deported. Imagine if those Muslim protesters were walking around with guns exercising their second amendment rights!
Look at the situation from this point of view.
The protesters were defending a rancher from un-reasonable seizure/destruction of his property. They were not violating any laws, nor were they being destructive to private and/or public property. They were also in no way acting aggressively towards any law enforcement.
Next look at the occupy protesters. They were violating city ordinances, littering, defecating and destroying public property, and were being disruptive.
Next look at what happened in Ferguson. A black felon gets killed by a white police officer legally, and people start to riot. They were looting, destroying public and private property and being very hostile towards law enforcement.
My point is, you seem to be looking at it and perceiving it from a racial "black vs. white" point of view rather than looking at the actions and demeanor of the people involved. Take race out of it all together and just look at the actions (reality).
Quote:It also came from rallies they did where tea party members had tea bags hanging from hats as well as holding them dangling and shacking them. It's used in a derisive manner but their actions is what gave life to the term.
Come on, be honest about it. It is meant to be derogatory and insulting.
Quote:Come on, be honest about it. It is meant to be derogatory and insulting.
I said it was meant to be derisive. It's also fair that they were waving around teabags and hanging them from their hats. That's the truth and very easy to come up with the nickname based on that imagery.
Quote:Look at the situation from this point of view.
The protesters were defending a rancher from un-reasonable seizure/destruction of his property. They were not violating any laws, nor were they being destructive to private and/or public property. They were also in no way acting aggressively towards any law enforcement.
Next look at the occupy protesters. They were violating city ordinances, littering, defecating and destroying public property, and were being disruptive.
Next look at what happened in Ferguson. A black felon gets killed by a white police officer legally, and people start to riot. They were looting, destroying public and private property and being very hostile towards law enforcement.
My point is, you seem to be looking at it and perceiving it from a racial "black vs. white" point of view rather than looking at the actions and demeanor of the people involved. Take race out of it all together and just look at the actions (reality).
I don't get this. Why was it unreasonable? He refused to renew his grazing license and was violating the law.
Quote:I don't get this. Why was it unreasonable? He refused to renew his grazing license and was violating the law.
The fact that someone is supposed to pay over $1 million for his cows to eat grass is pretty unreasonable. I don't care if it's over a 20, 40, or 100 year period.
Those fee's are in place for one reason, to snuff out the small ranchers so the factory farms have no competition. It's the power of the state picking winners and losers and Bundy simply said I'm not playing this game anymore take your fee's and shove it.
I for one applaud his stand, if more people would simply not comply we could see some real change.
Quote:The fact that someone is supposed to pay over $1 million for his cows to eat grass is pretty unreasonable. I don't care if it's over a 20, 40, or 100 year period.
Those fee's are in place for one reason, to snuff out the small ranchers so the factory farms have no competition. It's the power of the state picking winners and losers and Bundy simply said I'm not playing this game anymore take your fee's and shove it.
I for one applaud his stand, if more people would simply not comply we could see some real change.
Most of that $1,000,000 is fines though, and if he can't pay the fine, he shouldn't do the crime.
Quote:The fact that someone is supposed to pay over $1 million for his cows to eat grass is pretty unreasonable. I don't care if it's over a 20, 40, or 100 year period.
Those fee's are in place for one reason, to snuff out the small ranchers so the factory farms have no competition. It's the power of the state picking winners and losers and Bundy simply said I'm not playing this game anymore take your fee's and shove it.
I for one applaud his stand, if more people would simply not comply we could see some real change.
It's trespassing fines. Unless all of a sudden you are perfectly ok with trespassing and people using land not owned by them for whatever they please.
Quote:Most of that $1,000,000 is fines though, and if he can't pay the fine, he shouldn't do the crime.
So let's get this straight, $4800 for unpaid fines is unreasonable, but $1,000,000 for unpaid fines is acceptable.
hmmmmmm
Quote:It's trespassing fines. Unless all of a sudden you are perfectly ok with trespassing and people using land not owned by them for whatever they please.
The Federal government has no purpose in owning that land, they simply have held it hostage from the public for centuries. It's unused unmanaged lands where ranchers have traditional grazed forever. It wasn't until 1930's (coincidence the state needed money) they started charging ranchers fee's per cattle to graze on the land.
Quote:So let's get this straight, $4800 for unpaid fines is unreasonable, but $1,000,000 for unpaid fines is acceptable.
hmmmmmm
The Federal government has no purpose in owning that land, they simply have held it hostage from the public for centuries. It's unused unmanaged lands where ranchers have traditional grazed forever. It wasn't until 1930's (coincidence the state needed money) they started charging ranchers fee's per cattle to graze on the land.
Hey, I'm just going with what you said in the other topic. Don't see how $4800 is any less unreasonable than $1,000,000.
And I don't see a problem with the Federal Government charging people in exchange for a service on their land. If a private organization did it, you'd be fine with it I'm sure.
Quote:So let's get this straight, $4800 for unpaid fines is unreasonable, but $1,000,000 for unpaid fines is acceptable.
hmmmmmm
The Federal government has no purpose in owning that land, they simply have held it hostage from the public for centuries. It's unused unmanaged lands where ranchers have traditional grazed forever. It wasn't until 1930's (coincidence the state needed money) they started charging ranchers fee's per cattle to graze on the land.
As you like to point out a lot, that's a completely different argument. the grazing requires a permit to do so. To not have one is illegal and is trespassing.
Are you in favor of trespassing?