Fair enough - I guess from a British PoV where carrying a gun isn't treated like carrying a mobile phone, it seems like turning up to a protest armed to the teeth is the very definition of "threatening" behaviour
Oregon "Armed protest" at US wildlife building
- Thread starter Dugganator
- Start date
Fair enough - I guess from a British PoV where carrying a gun isn't treated like carrying a mobile phone, it seems like turning up to a protest armed to the teeth is the very definition of "threatening" behaviour
From the article the OP linked to:
Those occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge centre in Burns say they plan to stay for years and may use violence if police try to evict them.
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...
It's not a "Well armed militia" it's a "well regulated militia", a slightly massive difference, given that one suggests they just need weapons, the other that they're trained and organised (typically in historical contexts a "well regulated militia" would have been raised by the local town/city/state in addition to the standing army and have been trained on a regular basis - the old longbow men in England were part of such, and I believe the "Home Guard" would have been classed as such).
These guys sound like they're almost hoping for a violent confrontation because they disagree with the laws, there is certainly no logical reason for them to all be heavily armed if they're just protesting, as it's not like they're going to be mugged or burgled by the officers of the law.
The best thing to do would probably be for the security services to basically cut off all supplies and access to the facility, I suspect they won't last out the winter, then arrest them as they leave.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
Fair enough - I guess from a British PoV where carrying a gun isn't treated like carrying a mobile phone, it seems like turning up to a protest armed to the teeth is the very definition of "threatening" behaviour
Regardless of whether it is legally allowed, i would still consider it threatening behaviour. If you have grouped together to protest a grievance and the group is armed to the teeth with sem-autos, then i cant imagine it is for any reason other than to make a statement that they are people who have the tools to kill. Going around armed by yourself i can understand as a precaution to protect from attacks (i may not agree with it but i can understand) and yes you can argue that people in a protest could still be attacked but i imagine arming a group like this puts more people at risk. There will be armed police at such a protest, more weapons are not needed.
Yes it is their right to carry them but that doesn't not mean there are no occasions that it may be considered inappropriate. The average american may not see it that way as it seems [exercising a right] = freedom/patriotism/etc to many of them. You should not celebrate exercising a right but rather the freedom to exercise it and its appropriate use.
The issue they are protesting about is a man went to jail for a year for starting a controlled fire to beat back another fire (apparently this is a thing), and now after the man was released the feds decided that's not enough it should have been 5 years and want to put him in jail again.
The backstory is the government has been trying to buy this guys land for years but he keeps refusing, it's been a long campaign against this guy to get the land off him and the locals are fed up with it.
The backstory is the government has been trying to buy this guys land for years but he keeps refusing, it's been a long campaign against this guy to get the land off him and the locals are fed up with it.
Werewolf said:
If they weren't armed the police would have just come in all heavy handed like our police do during peaceful protests and it wouldn't have even made the news. It's no different to the UK having Trident, they probably feel safer armed.
Last edited:
That sounds very much like one side of the story.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 1 year sentence with additional time on parole or similar, and he's broken the terms of the parole leading to them wanting to put him back inside (in the same way that in the UK if you're released early from jail you can end up back inside if you breach the law even in minor ways)
Remember the American parole and prison system tends to be a lot stricter than ours.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
I cant comment on the story behind the protest much as i dont know too much about it, though i am unsurprised if what the locals are saying is too far off the truth.
The fire thing is true though, burn out an area before the main fire gets to it to stop it travelling further was a common method to prevent the spreading of fire, as you are essentially using up the fuel in a controlled fire.
The fire thing is true though, burn out an area before the main fire gets to it to stop it travelling further was a common method to prevent the spreading of fire, as you are essentially using up the fuel in a controlled fire.
What you mean is, if they'd been unarmed the police would have simply evicted them once the court order had been processed.
Exactly the same as tends to happen here when people take over buildings they're not entitled to.
The police here don't tend to "go in heavy handed" unless other options have failed.
All these nuts have done by being heavily armed is to ensure that the chances of a lot of people getting hurt is going to be high. All it takes is for one idiot to do something stupid or think he's seen something and you've potentially got a lot of guns going off and no one on either side being sure who exactly fired the first shot or being able to stop it easily.
Aye controlled fires are a normal thing, but I suspect there are some conditions on their use and where you do them.
Otherwise you get idiots starting fires without understanding how they are going to burn.
nah they were sentenced for setting a fire on federal lands (allegedly after illegally poaching deer)... not just a small fire either but burining over 100 acres..
the minimum sentence for arson destroying federal property is 5 years... the original judge decided to be lenient with them and give them less than the minimum sentence
the prosecutor appealed arguing that they need to serve the minimum sentence
That sounds more likely.
Lol a lawyer statement.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
Yes you are right. I was not suggesting the alleged arsonists were correct but rather was responding to the post below
As for the guns, as you say, it only takes one nut-case or an itchy finger to start a problem that could end with disaster. Regardless of constitutional right or not, using guns to deter police from doing their job should be considered a crime.
There was a similar type of incident involving Armed Militia men a couple of years back where it became a stand off with the FBI/Govt in Texas(?). over grazing rights for cattle in an area deemed super important for the wellbeing of some rare Tortoise that the Govt. said must be protected at all costs, grazing cattle would cause the rare Tortoises far too much endangerment.
Interestingly enough the exact same area in contention was used by the US Govt. until the early '70s to test allsorts of very dangerous and toxic munitions...But all of a sudden the Feds did an amazing U-Turn on the 'Bomb the **** out of the Tortoise' Policy when some rancher found a way to graze his cattle and avoid a few State Taxes by grazing them on that land...It all fizzled out in the end and was pretty much blanked by Mainstream Media too.
Interestingly enough the exact same area in contention was used by the US Govt. until the early '70s to test allsorts of very dangerous and toxic munitions...But all of a sudden the Feds did an amazing U-Turn on the 'Bomb the **** out of the Tortoise' Policy when some rancher found a way to graze his cattle and avoid a few State Taxes by grazing them on that land...It all fizzled out in the end and was pretty much blanked by Mainstream Media too.
But coincidently you can't take guns into federally operated buildings.
it is the same group as that incident
#vanillaISIS, #YallQaeda, #Talibundy
#YeeHawdists
#YokelHarem