dondon151 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 "Fine" is such a cynical measure of success. For that matter most non western countries are more or less "fine", but I wouldn't want to live there. whoa whoa whoa there don't let's pretend that western countries and non-western countries are doing equally well there are many reasons why the USA is the world's leading superpower and the right to bear arms is most definitely not one of them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) The right to bear arms is a natural right, which means that it is universal and protected under the law. Protected from what, exactly? The government itself. Hundreds of years later and the idea is still an incredible novelty. Yes, I'm so grateful that the NRA and Gun Industry lobbyists make it so difficult to put even background checks that could decrease senseless murder every month. God bless Murrica. Edited January 4, 2016 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) also The right to bear arms is a natural right, which means that it is universal and protected under the law. Protected from what, exactly? The government itself. Hundreds of years later and the idea is still an incredible novelty. you gun nuts have to get it through your heads that you have to do better than quoting the constitution and pithy, mostly irrelevant statements from historical figures to justify the right to bear arms. i dispute that the right to bear arms is a natural right; i don't think that it should be a right at all. Edited January 4, 2016 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Not so natural now because the lines between East and West have blurred, but when you had to share a continent with your former kinsman, "savages", and other Europeans you're not so sure about (even though they were our friends), it seems pretty natural to own a gun and know you can. I know how to use a firearm, and I'll tell you that laws do not prevent the acquisition of firearms by those desperate enough to want to cause harm. Gun control is just that: control. By restricting one's ability to look out for themselves, it leaves one to rely on the authorities to protect them. And authority often trades security for obedience, no matter who is in charge. No thank you. I'm a Libertarian Democrat, so even though I don't think you need a six-barrel minigun sitting in your garage, I think semi-auto pistols and assault rifles need to be left alone. If you have to pull the trigger for every round, you can have it, even if it looks like it can do more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amiabletemplar Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) They are fighting against the federal government. That is treason in spirit if not letter. It would be the best way to deal with it. The other option would be to storm the place, which would cause a ridiculous amount of deaths. Another, more hilarious, option, is to bring in a tank, wait for them to waste all their ammo, and taser them all. The terrorists do not have hostages here. As soon as we start defining "treason in spirit, if not in letter," we have abandoned the rule of law. What they are doing is not treason. They are not aiding nor abetting the enemies of the United States. They are US citizens, claiming to refuse the authority of the United States government. Refusing to accept the authority of the government is not, and never has been, the same as treason. At times, in the past, it has been called things like "sedition" (incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government) or, as you noted, "rebellion." For it to be treason, these people would need to be seeking the (total) overthrow or termination of the federal government, and their actions reflect neither capability nor special desire (for the moment) to do that. I absolutely believe what they did was wrong. Changing political institutions by force does not produce stable effects. But, by that same token, trying to suppress dissent by force doesn't resolve the reason for that dissent, and often inflames things further. These guys feel that justice has been abrogated by their government, and they have some reason to feel upset. I'd be pretty upset too if I'd already served and completed a jail sentence, and then a judge said, "oh, no no, you HAVEN'T DONE ENOUGH TIME YET, now take another sentence twice as long as the one you already served!" Does that make their response correct? Not in the least. But unless and until government representatives acknowledge the grievances--recognizing that "acknowledgement" doesn't mean you have to do any particular thing about them, and regardless of the current situation or how it shakes out in the end--the problem isn't going to go away. And executing some guys for holing up in a relatively infrequently used, far-from-civilization building* is taking the absolute strongest response you possibly can, which is precisely what these guys are protesting against. Are you sure you want to make LEGITIMATE martyrs, people who died for the cause of "stopping the federal government from handing out massive, disproportionate punishments"? Oh, and don't forget, this isn't just two or three people; according to the articles I've read, there's well over a dozen, possibly multiple dozens of people participating. The furor over summarily executing 20+ people for this would be immense. Again, I cannot stress this enough: what these people are doing is wrong, and they should be tried and sentenced for it. But automatically leaping to the death penalty is an EXTREMELY unwise choice. Plus, if these people are gonna be tried, it'll be here in Oregon (where I live). There's been a gubernatorial moratorium (no pun intended) on capital punishment here since 2011. No new death convictions can be handed out by Oregon courts until that moratorium is removed, and even if it were, Oregon doesn't assign a death penalty for treason; the constitution itself doesn't specify any particular penalty for treason, and the body of state laws (the Oregon Revised Statutes) explicitly states that the punishment shall be "imprisonment for life": Treason (1) A person commits the crime of treason if the person levies war against the State of Oregon or adheres to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. (2) No person shall be convicted of treason unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in open court. (3) A person convicted of treason shall be punished by imprisonment for life. [1971 c.743 §217] (And, as an aside: the Oregon definition of "treason" doesn't include the activities occuring here. Occupying a federal building, especially if it were largely or entirely empty before the occupation, is not "lev[ying] war against the State of Oregon," nor against the federal government, and there are no "enemies" to adhere to or give "aid and comfort." Treason, under any legal definition of the term, does not and cannot apply. The US constitution gives an essentially identical definition of "treason," and having investigated further, it appears "levying war" requires specific intent to attack the nation/state in question, which has not happened in this case, not yet anyway. So it would literally be an unconstitutional charge to claim these people had committed treason, as of the current moment; this could change, but has not changed yet.) It's a good thing that they don't have hostages--that would make it a pretty unambiguously bad situation, and WOULD call for faster, more drastic action. But since the public safety risk is fairly minimal--at least at present--a measured response is far, far more appropriate at this time. --- All of this talk of whether or not personal armament is a natural right or not is pointless: at this time, in this nation, it IS a right listed in the highest law of the land, so the fact that they possess weaponry is not a crime that can be prosecuted. And any political body that actually respects the rule of law recognizes that ex post facto criminal charges and punishments are a deep and fundamental abrogation of justice. Even Iran's constitution forbids such things! Instead of getting mired in a debate that literally does not and cannot affect the outcome of this case, focus instead on the ACTUAL illegal activity happening here. They have illegally occupied government property (presumably trespassing, resisting arrest, possibly assault with a deadly weapon if they evicted anyone on the premises); they have threatened with violence anyone who attempts to approach or remove them; their statements indicate this was a long-term, planned affair, and thus premeditated; etc. At this point, their guilt for the vast majority of these actions is unquestionable, so the bigger questions (if/when this goes to trial) will be how they conducted themselves, that is, whether there are any "mitigating" or "aggravating" circumstances. There's also a much bigger irony involved here: These individuals--protesters, terrorists, insurrectionists, revolutionaries, whatever you wish to call them--are claiming to wish to oppose the authority of the federal government...by exercising a right provided to them by that very government. That's what really gets me about this whole debacle. Edited January 4, 2016 by amiabletemplar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 By restricting one's ability to look out for themselves, it leaves one to rely on the authorities to protect them. And authority often trades security for obedience, no matter who is in charge. No thank you. and yet you're perfectly willing to leave it to authority to protect you from various crimes of a non-violent nature don't be a hypocrite, please. gun rights advocates try to paint the world in black and white while neglecting the shades of grey in which they live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) That viewpoint is naive. I don't trust the government to do anything for me; If they do, it is purely out of the goodness of its heart. If I did, then my disappointment would know no bounds, because of government in general, regardless of regime, ideology, or preferences, whether circumstantial, consequential, or optional. Don't be so closed minded that your brain implodes. Edited January 4, 2016 by Hylian Air Force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amiabletemplar Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Having dug a little deeper and read both some sections of the USC (United States Code--basically "US federal law"), Supreme Court cases, and legal analysis on the subject, it would appear that the correct charge in this case is probably sedition. Sedition is a conspiracy to disrupt or upset the normal operation of the government. In this case, the armed occupying group has unequivocally employed a conspiracy (many members working together to plan an illegal action over an extended period of time), whose goal was disruption of a particular government building (the headquarters for a wildlife preserve). Since they are not trying to destroy or eliminate the Oregon or US governments, their actions cannot be "treason" as specifically defined in the US constitution (though I will admit, they are closer than I thought to the "levying war" thing). Edited January 4, 2016 by amiabletemplar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Do you have another source besides Huffington? I don't trust them. why You're infringing on personal liberty, a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. Take away one right, and who's to say what they decide to take away next? Citizens were given the right to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government. Disarming them only empowers the government. This quote by Benjamin Franklin sums it up best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amiabletemplar Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) why http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century Everyone has the right to question news sources if they wish. No news organization can claim to be utterly free of bias. Multiple attestation is considered utterly essential in numerous disciplines of the humanities. Why is it so weird to want it for contemporary events as well? Particularly when it's so easy to trim a fact here, add an adjective there, and transform the meaning or significance of an event--whether or not it actually happened. Edit: Note that I am not actually saying anything for or against the Huffington Post. I read their articles. I also read other articles, and try to find multiple, distinct sources for just about everything. It's simply good practice. The NPR thing about the quote is very interesting, and I'll remember it for future discussions. But, again, in this case, it is completely unimportant. The current Constitution of the United States provides citizens with the right to keep and bear arms. What that means, how it works, etc. is certainly a worthy topic of discussion...in a different thread. That protracted debate has no bearing on this discussion, because it's about a 'rebellion'/'insurrection'/'sedition'/'occupation'/'liberation'/whatever you want to call it--and the fact that they possessed guns is legally irrelevant. Edited January 4, 2016 by amiabletemplar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 i'm ok with questioning a source. not "trusting" it? that means that she actively avoids reading huffpost, which is fine, but i'd like to know why. hence, "why" and the link was posted so that that quote won't be shared so often. franklin's arguments shouldn't be spun in a way that benefits the person quoting him if it's not in the correct context. i don't care about the gun debate. i take issue with the op, though. blatant rebellion is absolutely ok, if you feel a govt has been unjust. sedition laws are merely a way to censor the public. i'm not sure a rebellion necessarily requires violence, but if it does, i retract my statement that it's absolutely ok. protest should always be allowed, though. violent rebellions are okay depending on how badly the govt has fucked up. that's subjective, but it's the basic idea behind my belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyborgZeta Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century That's interesting, was not aware of that. I will keep that in that mind. Regardless of the context though, I think it's something to keep in mind. I disagree with the idea of giving up (any kind of) freedoms just for the sake of security. Edited January 4, 2016 by CyborgZeta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amiabletemplar Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 i'm ok with questioning a source. not "trusting" it? that means that she actively avoids reading huffpost, which is fine, but i'd like to know why. hence, "why" Guess I'm just not sure what the difference is between "questioning" a source and "not trusting" it. If you "trust" a source, what would make you "question" its statements? It seems to me that having questions about the accuracy, specificity, or breadth of a news source is how we define "not trusting" that source. Sure, there's a spectrum involved, but if you read enough articles from a particular news source that you later learn were inaccurate/inspecific/over-broad/over-narrow, I can understand having a blanket stance of, "Okay, I've seen that <news outlet A> has said something. What are their sources? Has anyone else talked about this?" And that, in my opinion, is directly equivalent to "not trusting" that news outlet--their output is questionable. And it just seems...I dunno, kind of a waste of time to ask "why," since the most likely answer you'll get is exactly what I said: "I saw one too many 'wrong' [inaccurate, inspecific, over-broad, over-narrow] articles from them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 The military cannot be deployed on US soil, nor can it be used to enforce domestic policies. The bit about drones and tanks is moot. The way you phrase this suggests that rebellions are either inherently wrong, or pointless. The US itself was founded upon a rebellion, so you will have to clarify this for me. Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but the amendments need to be ratified by the states. To go outside the Constitution is just ignoring it. If things have gotten so bad that it is needed to rebel presumably the military will be deployed. Also, the National Guard is still a thing, and I was joking about the Drones. Secondly, I am suggesting that the right to rebel against an unjust government means nothing in practice, because moral rights do not mean anything in practice. For example, the American rebels did not have the right to rebel against an unjust government in the war of independence. Basically, it needs to be said that you can't just rebel over any little thing. Thirdly, I am not suggesting bypassing the Constitution, I am suggesting changing the Second Amendment. "Fine" is such a cynical measure of success. For that matter most non western countries are more or less "fine", but I wouldn't want to live there. The prosperity of America is due to a variety of factors, and possibly the most important among these is that our civil liberties are codified in a series of documents in such a way that they cannot be simply handwaved or rewritten on a whim by the leaders of the day. Sweeping policy changes are difficult to implement in America, and that is intentional. The right to bear arms is a natural right, which means that it is universal and protected under the law. Protected from what, exactly? The government itself. Hundreds of years later and the idea is still an incredible novelty. Why not Louix XVI, Richard II or Mary, Queen of the Scots? Poor American leaders eventually leave office, and they wield much less power. The increasingly grotesque offspring offered by European royalty ruled for life and had full control over all matters of policy. The only guarantee out of a Hapsburg was the shape of his jaw: Everything else was a dice roll. What good is a dictatorship if it doesn't even offer the stability of modern liberal democracies? While I would argue that Louis is heavily underrated, I was making a joke, not seriously suggesting an absolute monarchy. I favor a best of both worlds approach anyway that is too complicated to explain here. And the prosperity of America is due by no means to the fact that we have any sort of liberties. America could be a totalitarian hellhole and we still would have two enemies: a Mexico that was going through ridiculous internal issues, and a bunch of under armed Natives. Oh, and one more thing: that some Serb brat decided to murder the Heir to the Austrian throne, devastating Europe and giving the USA the chance to invest big. Also, please define a natural right.That viewpoint is naive. I don't trust the government to do anything for me; If they do, it is purely out of the goodness of its heart. If I did, then my disappointment would know no bounds, because of government in general, regardless of regime, ideology, or preferences, whether circumstantial, consequential, or optional. Don't be so closed minded that your brain implodes.The government' job is to protect you, and it can certainly protect you from, for example, ISIS, better than you can. What would you do during a second 9-11, shoot the planes. No. The government's airport security is what is keeping you safe here. And if you really don't trust the government, I have news for you: America is a democracy. That means that you can vote in a government that you feel you can trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 why 1. I believe that straight news should be unbiased. I don't think Huffington Post is capable of doing that. 2. They screwed with my browser way back when, and I'd rather not have a repeat of that. 3. For an event centered in a state, I'd rather read it from the state's newspaper, especially if the reporters are residents. They're more likely to know the culture and circumstances behind the story, and should (theoretically) be able to produce a better story. Also, I'd like the original newspaper to get credit where it's due. (theoretically) - This sentiment does not apply to my local newspaper, at least when it comes to politics/education. They don't keep the bias to the editorial section. Guess I'm just not sure what the difference is between "questioning" a source and "not trusting" it. If you "trust" a source, what would make you "question" its statements? It seems to me that having questions about the accuracy, specificity, or breadth of a news source is how we define "not trusting" that source. Sure, there's a spectrum involved, but if you read enough articles from a particular news source that you later learn were inaccurate/inspecific/over-broad/over-narrow, I can understand having a blanket stance of, "Okay, I've seen that <news outlet A> has said something. What are their sources? Has anyone else talked about this?" And that, in my opinion, is directly equivalent to "not trusting" that news outlet--their output is questionable. And it just seems...I dunno, kind of a waste of time to ask "why," since the most likely answer you'll get is exactly what I said: "I saw one too many 'wrong' [inaccurate, inspecific, over-broad, over-narrow] articles from them." . . .and that's enough for that tangent, which at this point isn't even part of a serious discussion, just a semantics one. --- Apparently, these types of standoffs aren't new. But I still don't approve of the mindset. It reminds me of a toddler who's throwing a temper tantrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Guess I'm just not sure what the difference is between "questioning" a source and "not trusting" it. If you "trust" a source, what would make you "question" its statements? It seems to me that having questions about the accuracy, specificity, or breadth of a news source is how we define "not trusting" that source. Sure, there's a spectrum involved, but if you read enough articles from a particular news source that you later learn were inaccurate/inspecific/over-broad/over-narrow, I can understand having a blanket stance of, "Okay, I've seen that <news outlet A> has said something. What are their sources? Has anyone else talked about this?" And that, in my opinion, is directly equivalent to "not trusting" that news outlet--their output is questionable. And it just seems...I dunno, kind of a waste of time to ask "why," since the most likely answer you'll get is exactly what I said: "I saw one too many 'wrong' [inaccurate, inspecific, over-broad, over-narrow] articles from them." ok, skepticism is fine and i expect everyone to be skeptical of things. one source isn't good enough. but, as i alluded to earlier, an untrustworthy source is one in which you avoid reading at all. i don't read cnn or fox at all because i don't think their information can be trusted past a certain point. (crimes, general happenings and stuff are ok, opinion pieces and coverage on things like world news, politics, etc. i'm not okay with.) i find huffpost to be trustworthy, so i was wondering why she didn't feel that way. 1. I believe that straight news should be unbiased. I don't think Huffington Post is capable of doing that. 2. They screwed with my browser way back when, and I'd rather not have a repeat of that. 3. For an event centered in a state, I'd rather read it from the state's newspaper, especially if the reporters are residents. They're more likely to know the culture and circumstances behind the story, and should (theoretically) be able to produce a better story. Also, I'd like the original newspaper to get credit where it's due. (theoretically) - This sentiment does not apply to my local newspaper, at least when it comes to politics/education. They don't keep the bias to the editorial section. . . .and that's enough for that tangent, which at this point isn't even part of a serious discussion, just a semantics one. --- Apparently, these types of standoffs aren't new. But I still don't approve of the mindset. It reminds me of a toddler who's throwing a temper tantrum. (1) is any source capable of that? (2) what does that have to do with quality of content? (3) whilst that's ideal, writing off other sources because they aren't local doesn't mean the information can't be trusted, it's just (perhaps!!) not as good as it can be. that doesn't mean it's not good. i think this is a good thing to talk about in general. Edited January 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (1) is any source capable of that? (2) what does that have to do with quality of content? (3) whilst that's ideal, writing off other sources because they aren't local doesn't mean the information can't be trusted, it's just (perhaps!!) not as good as it can be. that doesn't mean it's not good. i think this is a good thing to talk about in general. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Gosh, they are done for without supply from a powerful country. Whoever supplied the rebels in Syria should also give aids to these people in the name of justice and freedom. I hope the government will not ask Russia to bomb the rebels! Edited January 4, 2016 by Magical CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 Gosh, they are done for without supply from a powerful country. Whoever supplied the rebels in Syria should also give aids to these people in the name of justice and freedom. I hope the government will not ask Russia to bomb the rebels! Please, for the love of god, be serious here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Please, for the love of god, be serious here. I am serious. From all of the sources I have read, the government seems to be the jerk here. And when people, free people, cant stand anymore, they rebel. What about it that you dont understand? They are the same with people in Syria and in many other places. The oppressed should be helped. If the rebels in Syria got helped then I dont understand why these people shouldnt be helped. After all, all of the rebellions start from somewhere, no? The moment the suppressors pour in and kill these freedom fighters will be a very sad moment for me. If these people were black, the media could have stand with them. But since they were white, everything is blamed on them. America, a country that values freedom and justice, a country that is friend to all the righteous causes, a friend of freedom fighters everywhere, should help them. Edited January 4, 2016 by Magical CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 I am serious. From all of the sources I have read, the government seems to be the jerk here. And when people, free people, cant stand anymore, they rebel. What about it that you dont understand? They are the same with people in Syria and in many other places. The oppressed should be helped. If the rebels in Syria got helped then I dont understand why these people shouldnt be helped. After all, all of the rebellions start from somewhere, no? The moment the suppressors pour in and kill these freedom fighters will be a very sad moment for me. If these people were black, the media could have stand with them. But since they were white, everything is blamed on them. Oh goddammit. These people are rebelling because they don't want their neighbors to face justice. The precedent of violent rebellion should not be set. Also, don't pull a reverse racism on me, if black people were doing this it would be just as bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Oh goddammit. These people are rebelling because they don't want their neighbors to face justice. The precedent of violent rebellion should not be set. Also, don't pull a reverse racism on me, if black people were doing this it would be just as bad. You mean they dont want their neighbors to face injustice? The precedent of the rebellion is always important. You cant make a chemistry reaction by just staring at it, no? Everything has a cause, and if the cause is righteous, it's your duty to look upon with admiration. Jeez, where is America when you need them. Edited January 4, 2016 by Magical CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 · Hidden by Florete, January 5, 2016 - No reason given Hidden by Florete, January 5, 2016 - No reason given The moment the suppressors pour in and kill these freedom fighters will be a very sad moment for me. If these people were black, the media could have stand with them. But since they were white, everything is blamed on them. lmao i know you're a maladjusted psychopathic basement dweller from bumfuck vietnam, but the media bent over backward to avoid labeling them as militants and called them "peaceful protesters" and the like, whereas they tend to portray peaceful black protests as "looting" and being violent, no matter what they're actually doing—see this dolt on cnn, for instance of course, that's nothing new Link to comment
tuvarkz Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Oh goddammit. These people are rebelling because they don't want their neighbors to face justice. The precedent of violent rebellion should not be set. Also, don't pull a reverse racism on me, if black people were doing this it would be just as bad. The issue is, they had already been trialed and served a sentence for it. Instead, you could set a precendence for new laws being retroactive, which would be far more dangerous. lmao i know you're a maladjusted psychopathic basement dweller from bumfuck vietnam, but the media bent over backward to avoid labeling them as militants and called them "peaceful protesters" and the like, whereas they tend to portray peaceful black protests as "looting" and being violent, no matter what they're actually doing—see this dolt on cnn, for instance of course, that's nothing new Actually, from what I've seen, they are named as Militia in multiple sites, which unless I'm wrong, is the same as calling them militants. Edited January 4, 2016 by tuvarkz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) there's a distinction to be made between militants and militia, which refers to the militia movement that dates back to the 90s and was primarily composed of disaffected, rural, right-wing white christians; bundy's sons, who lead the yeehawdists who seized the refuge shed, are part of this movement That's interesting, was not aware of that. I will keep that in that mind. Regardless of the context though, I think it's something to keep in mind. I disagree with the idea of giving up (any kind of) freedoms just for the sake of security. you talk a big game on this here internet forum from the safety of your home and while enjoying the amenities of modern society, but you know, you can always move to somalia, where you can enjoy absolute freedom Edited January 4, 2016 by I.M. Gei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.