Oregon "Armed protest" at US wildlife building

Dugganator

Dugganator

Dugganator

Associate
Joined
7 May 2006
Posts
1,965
I haven't seen a post for this so apologies if there is already one but wondered what everyone's thoughts were on this?

I personally don't understand how this is allowed without saying this is why Americans have the second amendment etc and how different this would have been if a different group of people took up arms to take over a government building. While it has no impact on us of course it just seems very odd.

Maybe I'm missing something. Link below from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35216879
 
Oh it's finally made it to the BBC, it's been going on for days but now the FBI are involved it's worth reporting. Reddit have been deleting posts about it for days as well which is a bit odd.

Anyway, tinfoil back in the drawer it's a bit of a strange situation that if a shot is fired with rapidly descend into carnage and justify the position of the people occupying the building. Starving them out has to be the safest option IMO.

As an aside, I read someone's comment about race last night. Bunch of white guys with guns occupy a federal building for several days and nothing really happens or gets reported...
 
randal said:
Oh it's finally made it to the BBC, it's been going on for days but now the FBI are involved it's worth reporting. Reddit have been deleting posts about it for days as well which is a bit odd.

Anyway, tinfoil back in the drawer it's a bit of a strange situation that if a shot is fired with rapidly descend into carnage and justify the position of the people occupying the building. Starving them out has to be the safest option IMO.

As an aside, I read someone's comment about race last night. Bunch of white guys with guns occupy a federal building for several days and nothing really happens or gets reported...
Click to expand...

Because its constitutionally allowed.
 
Mucky_Pup said:
"Armed protesters" aren't those terrorists by another name? Or are none of them involved of the arab persuasion?
Click to expand...

Hx9qn73.jpg
 
Gilly said:
It's constitutionally allowed to take over government buildings using threat of armed force?
Click to expand...

Did they actually threaten to use any force at all or simply turn up and sit down with guns?

Two different things that require different responses by the FBI/ATF, those Americans love spinning words and meaning into something they can abuse (especially while at war).
 
StriderX said:
Did they actually threaten to use any force at all or simply turn up and sit down with guns?

Two different things that require different responses by the FBI/ATF, those Americans love spinning words and meaning into something they can abuse (especially while at war).
Click to expand...

Surely turning up with guns in itself is "threat to use force" - why bring a gun at all if you're not prepared to use it, or at least not prepared to make it look like you're going to use it?

You don't turn up at a "peaceful" protest with weapons ;)

Got to agree with the other posts saying that if these guys had brown skin I bet there would be a whole different reaction...
 
Haggisman said:
Surely turning up with guns in itself is "threat to use force" - why bring a gun at all if you're not prepared to use it, or at least not prepared to make it look like you're going to use it?

You don't turn up at a "peaceful" protest with weapons ;)

Got to agree with the other posts saying that if these guys had brown skin I bet there would be a whole different reaction...
Click to expand...

Then why is it legal for people to carry semi-autos in full view of Police Officers?

Oregon is a free-carry state.
 
Haggisman said:
Surely turning up with guns in itself is "threat to use force" - why bring a gun at all if you're not prepared to use it, or at least not prepared to make it look like you're going to use it?

You don't turn up at a "peaceful" protest with weapons ;)
Click to expand...

As said Oregon is an open carry state. So you can turn up to whatever you like with your rifle legally - be it a protest or picking your kids up from school.
 
Video I saw last night on ******** showing two guys with cowboy hat stood with hands twitching by there side armed seemed stupid and just for show I guess but still don't understand how this isn't being dealt with differently.

Although I understand why the best course of action might be to ignore or avoid them for the moment. Just wonder what the end result will be.
 
Gilly said:
It's constitutionally allowed to take over government buildings using threat of armed force?
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the militia is for? Weird situation though, they have these 'rights' but if they feel threatened by the government and exercise such 'rights' as a 'well armed militia' they suddenly become domestic terrorists... :confused:
 
shadow_boxer said:
Probably a lot of bloodshed and 24/7 wall to wall coverage around the world. Why these red-necks aren't labelled "terrorists" I don't know.
Click to expand...

The media's current flavour of terrorist for this decade is brown, it does not suit them to label anyone other than Muslims as terrorists. Wasn't too long ago when the flavour of terrorist was Irish or even a certain anti-apartheid freedom fighter and his buddies.

I personally am not a huge fan of vanilla or chocolate and much preferred it when the flavour terrorist of the day was cyber terrorists, mainly because the media knew as little as the next guy and it was hilarious what sort of made up tech terms was being thrown around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom