How dare you, the media has been for most part pro BLM and you still find a way to b****. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Although the Oregon protest seems rash & misdirected, SJW outrage is hilarious. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OregonUnderAttack?src=hash">#OregonUnderAttack</a> <a href="https://t.co/9kycN4yW8f">pic.twitter.com/9kycN4yW8f</a></p>— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) <a href="https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/684056460381302787">January 4, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/owillis">@owillis</a> "This is my tarp. There are many like it, but this one is mine." <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tarpman?src=hash">#tarpman</a> <a href="https://t.co/giWmn24PBR">pic.twitter.com/giWmn24PBR</a></p>— A 99er (@HelpThe99ers) <a href="https://twitter.com/HelpThe99ers/status/684588682322538496">January 6, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
when you let political correctness define every aspect of how you respond to ignorance in action - you create ineptitude and the inability to react. when you allow logic to determine your actions - you may piss off the winger's, and the rights advocacy groups; but you don't waste time, resources and energy doing it. Hell, i've never seen something good get done without pissing off someone. Ignorance is bliss. "One way of measuring the strength of an attacker is by looking at the sort of opponent he needs. You can always tell when something is growing because it will go looking for powerful adversaries or problems" FN these guys are insignificant. Paying them no mind is the most powerful recourse. Frankly, that's the most powerful recourse for most of our so called demons, yet with the 24 hour news circuit. BBS boards and social media - it's generally impossible anymore. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yHjjqYQpBQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If it was worth the time, I'd look up some google map satellite views of BLM protesters houses and show them next to the dead people being pulled out of the ruins of the Murrah Federal Building. but - no point.
If these guys had occupied the building without any guns, invited like-minded people to come join them without guns, and declared that they were willing to die or be imprisoned (but not willing to shoot at anyone, even in self-defense) for the sake of their cause, I'd be much more sympathetic and willing to listen to their grievances. I think it's interesting (as we are simultaneously talking about the legalization of open carry in Texas) to see how the mere presence of a gun changes the complexion of a conversation. I'm sure all these occupiers are carrying legally and I notice they often (probably not always) couch their threats in terms of self-defense ("ready to fire if fired upon"), but their tactic of arming themselves for their protests really undermines their position. Folks in the open carry thread seem to think I should be able to have a normal conversation with a passerby with a pistol on his belt. Guns change the conversation.
You should be able to, if you can't, there's something wrong with you. I mean, I can. Hell, I've had a civilian boss that literally always had a gun inside his belt. It didn't make it to where I couldn't have a normal conversation with him. There are all kinds of phobias out there, and if you have one, maybe you should seek help with it if it starts to interfere with your everyday life.
Eh, bosses are people you know. Passersby are people you don't know. Can I have a conversation with one packing heat? I can, but it will be a different one. Just like my conversation would be different if he's wearing gang colors or he's wearing a dress. And what kind of dialogue can we have if we get cross-wise with each other? Say, a dispute over a fender-bender or that he didn't like how I was talking to his girl? I'm supposed to feel comfortable saying the things to him that I would say to an unarmed person in the same interaction? If I was at Malheur, I imagine I'd sooner ask about why they are threatening people with guns and engaging in open sedition than I would about the privations they feel they suffer because half the land is owned by the federal government. The latter actually sounds like an issue that warrants discussion and perhaps change (though not the wildlife refuge land that they are currently occupying, lol), but I don't care to debate it with them because they are holding rifles. Would you like to talk to Black Lives Matter protester about police brutality when he's holding a gun? Do you want to talk to an imam about blasphemous depictions of Mohammed while he's holding a gun? No, put the gun down first and then we can talk. Guns are a dialogue-killer. It's easy enough having a beer with a friend with a pistol on his belt and quite a different thing to have important conversations with armed people with whom you serious disagreement.
I think the difference is that the BLM people have a history of violence against those that don't agree with them and the idiots in Oregon do not. Same goes for Muslims, they have a history of violence against people who speak out against their religion. Of course when trying to talk to the BLM folks for random Muslim Imam you could potentially be in danger even if they didn't have a gun and we've seen evidence of that. I'd MUCH rather talk some sense into these idiot ranchers with guns than either of those other two groups. I don't feel like a person would have anything to fear by simply disagreeing with them....that might not be the case with the BLM group or the Muslim Imam.
You left out the part that there are probably militia members within the group that could be involved in other factions. Timothy McVeigh was a militia who took "the Turner Diaries" to heart.
Wait, you think people who identify themselves as militia don't have a history of violence? You think the guys who pointed guns at federal agents in 2014 don't have a history of violence?
I haven't heard of them attacking people for disagreeing with them. There have been incidents where BLM groups have attacked people nearby for having different opinions, I'd argue they are the much more violent group.
The idiots in Oregon have a history of threatening and pointing guns at law enforcement. They've made declarative threats against law enforcement now. These guys have actually stated their intent to commit violent acts against law enforcement. I'm not sure what other kind of violent history you would need. That being said, I believe they can should be apprehended without violence if at all possible. On a separate note it's strange that some folks made a huge deal about Quentin Tarantino's comments about law enforcement, but these guys are actually out there threatening to shoot law enforcement officers. These guys are way worse than anything QT has done.
Most members and supporters of BLM do not have a history of violence and are against the rioting and arson even if they have grievances against law enforcement. Many spoke out explicitly against these acts. The vast majority of American Muslims and American Muslim organizations have spoken out against the San Bernardino shooting, too. To the extent that libertarians or others identified with the American right condemn acts of violence, I would not slump them in with the violent fringe. But to say that some folks with these sympathies have not committed violence is ignoring reality. As for these specific people at the refuge, the fact that they brought guns and said they are willing to use them should make law enforcement and the rest of us take them seriously as a potential violent threat. No reason to go in shooting them dead at this point, but to think of them as simple peaceful protesters would be naive.
Since they are not complying with the law, shouldn't the police firebomb them and kill them all? That's the justification used to shoot black people, right? Why aren't these people being shot?
