Oppressed white farmers occupy federal building in Oregon

[Las Vegas]

Stop being stupid.

So, youre okay with people blocking highways that preclude people from getting to their job? What if person X needs to get to their job to feed their family? And lets say this person doesn't make much, and missing one day of pay will determine if they put food on the table for their kids? You're okay with this? If yo are, then you are a bigger idiot than the rest of the forum actually thinks, and this is coming from someone who actually agrees with you on some of the points you make. But, you just showed that you really don't care about people; you only care about people when it fits your agenda. You don't care that person X has to get to work to feed their kids. You're a vile piece of garbage.

As for protests blocking roads and commuter trains etc etc etc, which cause many regular people to turn against those protesting, I'd like to know exactly who the organizers are.  They are organizing efforts that couldn't possibly be more counter-productive to the cause they are supposedly trying to advance, and they know it.



It doesn't make sense.

If politicians or other key figures (relevant to the source of protest) were surrounded by angry mobs, wouldn't that be the most direct and effective way to get the point across?

[_aj_]

As for protests blocking roads and commuter trains etc etc etc, which cause many regular people to turn against those protesting, I'd like to know exactly who the organizers are.  They are organizing efforts that couldn't possibly be more counter-productive to the cause they are supposedly trying to advance, and they know it.



It doesn't make sense.

If politicians or other key figures (relevant to the source of protest) were surrounded by angry armed mobs, wouldn't that be the most direct and effective way to get the point across?

Fixed it for maximum effectiveness.

[TuHolmes]

Are you saying that these men believe that everyone that doesn't agree with them should be beheaded? Comparing these protesters to a group of people that would disembowel you and fuck your small intestines in the name of their "god"? Really? Pretty low, even for someone as scummy as you.

Not the same, but what they are doing is wrong.

Also, will anyone be shocked if the Feds go in there and lay waste to everyone?

I mean, certainly they aren't killing people, but let's be honest, if someone went into a court house by you and just took it over, would you be shocked if they all ended up dead?

I don't see this ending well.

[_aj_]

Not the same, but what they are doing is wrong.

Also, will anyone be shocked if the Feds go in there and lay waste to everyone?

I mean, certainly they aren't killing people, but let's be honest, if someone went into a court house by you and just took it over, would you be shocked if they all ended up dead?

I don't see this ending well.

If it was the BLM retards taking over the courthouse, the Feds would give them a 99-year lease to stay. And if any of the locals decided to move them out, the DoJ would prosecute them for civil rights violations.

[SF1900]

By SF's standards, the "militia" occupying an otherwise empty and unused building are impeding exactly zero people. Ergo, the real terrorists are the BLM in this story. I endorse this narrative.

I stated 2 pages ago that if the building is empty, I really don't care if they occupy it. However, if there were people inside (hostages) and they were being forced to stay, a whole different story. I wont lose any sleep over a bunch of gun nutters (   ) occupying a vacant building.

[TuHolmes]

If it was the BLM retards taking over the courthouse, the Feds would give them a 99-year lease to stay. And if any of the locals decided to move them out, the DoJ would prosecute them for civil rights violations.

I disagree.

[SF1900]

Not the same, but what they are doing is wrong.

Also, will anyone be shocked if the Feds go in there and lay waste to everyone?

I mean, certainly they aren't killing people, but let's be honest, if someone went into a court house by you and just took it over, would you be shocked if they all ended up dead?

I don't see this ending well.

I think it definitely becomes a more "sticky" situation when the federal building has A LOT of people occupying it, especially a court house, and if children are present. I am not necessarily saying they can't protest, but when there is people inside the building, who knows.

I found this:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-assembly

In sum, there is no unfettered right to protest on government property. Protests must be peaceable, and the government has the right to impose content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on expression. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court said in Kokinda, “the government’s ownership of property does not automatically open that property to the public.”

The government has greater power to regulate expression when it acts as a proprietor controlling its internal operations than it does as a sovereign lawmaker. This means that government officials could limit protests inside a courthouse because the government has important operations to conduct. It must be able to control its operations to carry out its functions. The government must be able to carry on its own speech and expression free from interference. Contrast this with the public sidewalks two blocks from a courthouse. Here, the government cannot argue that it is conducting its own internal operations. Speech restrictions there would implicate a forum analysis and trigger a higher degree of judicial scrutiny.

[Las Vegas]

Fixed it for maximum effectiveness.

Hard to deny it.  

Isn't it strange, though, that we see these rambling, pointless events which do nothing but hurt the livelihoods of good, innocent people, while being ready-made for every POS criminal to show up prepared for burning and looting.

Something doesn't add up.

[SF1900]

As for protests blocking roads and commuter trains etc etc etc, which cause many regular people to turn against those protesting, I'd like to know exactly who the organizers are.  They are organizing efforts that couldn't possibly be more counter-productive to the cause they are supposedly trying to advance, and they know it.



It doesn't make sense.

If politicians or other key figures (relevant to the source of protest) were surrounded by angry mobs, wouldn't that be the most direct and effective way to get the point across?

I get people who are protesting are protesting for a reason. They are frustrated about something. And they have a right to their frustration--although I may or may not agree with their frustration--and they have a right to vent that frustration via a peaceful protest.

They don't have a right to hinder other people from performing their daily functions in society (school, work, etc.).

[240 is Back]

the BLM protesters at the mall WERE arrested.  And I didn't see if they were armed to the teeth.

[240 is Back]

question...

did they break into the "closed" building they're occupying?

Cause it seems odd the govt would leave a closed building unlocked.

[TuHolmes]

I get people who are protesting are protesting for a reason. They are frustrated about something. And they have a right to their frustration--although I may or may not agree with their frustration--and they have a right to vent that frustration via a peaceful protest.

They don't have a right to hinder other people from performing their daily functions in society (school, work, etc.).

In this instance, they are protesting a conviction. I mean, that's not how the criminal justice system in this country works.

People are found guilty. They can appeal.

This goes against everything this country is based on.

[TuHolmes]

question...

did they break into the "closed" building they're occupying?

Cause it seems odd the govt would leave a closed building unlocked.

I do not know, but it is possible that wildlife refuge buildings are open for people to come in during nature hikes and things of that sort.

[SF1900]

In this instance, they are protesting a conviction. I mean, that's not how the criminal justice system in this country works.

People are found guilty. They can appeal.

This goes against everything this country is based on.

I was speaking in more general terms, since the conversation has evolved (moving beyond what is happening in Oregon).

[chaos]

In this instance, they are protesting a conviction. I mean, that's not how the criminal justice system in this country works.

People are found guilty. They can appeal.

This goes against everything this country is based on.

They're protesting because these two guys have already served time, were released and now a judge is saying they need to serve more time.

[Las Vegas]

btw, i mean the "protests" we've seen in the cities etc.  i don't know much about this one in original post

[240 is Back]

once the forest ranger tells them to leave, then it's trespassing and they should be arrested.

Interesting... possessing a WEAPON while trespassing on federal lands esclalates the legal penalty by TWO levels:
http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2011/2011-2b23

It may be prison time if they stay once asked to remove themselves.  I'm not sure if they're aware of this part of it.  A trespass protest when you're carrying a weapon is a very big big deal, particularly on federal property.

[timfogarty]

If it was the BLM retards taking over the courthouse, the Feds would give them a 99-year lease to stay. And if any of the locals decided to move them out, the DoJ would prosecute them for civil rights violations.

this shows the filter you see the world in.  a few years ago Cliven Bundy and his followers (with assault weapons)  had a standoff with federal marshals and the feds waited them out.  Yet police have used buldozers and water to break up unarmed BLM protests.  They did the same on OWS.

Civil disobedience means peacefully breaking minor laws to make a point, and willing to go to jail for your principles.  Lots of civil rights leaders and followers have spent days, weeks, and months in jail.  Are the members of this militia willing to go to jail for bringing assault weapons into a federal building to make their point?  I didn't think so.

[timfogarty]

They're protesting because these two guys have already served time, were released and now a judge is saying they need to serve more time.

and they appealed, it was taken to the Supreme Court, and they lost.

[Las Vegas]

I get people who are protesting are protesting for a reason. They are frustrated about something. And they have a right to their frustration--although I may or may not agree with their frustration--and they have a right to vent that frustration via a peaceful protest.

They don't have a right to hinder other people from performing their daily functions in society (school, work, etc.).

Get those people on your side, and you are strengthened.  Cause them to be against you, and you are weakened.

So why do the organizers of these events want to weaken the fight, I wonder.

[timfogarty]

As for protests blocking roads and commuter trains etc etc etc, which cause many regular people to turn against those protesting, I'd like to know exactly who the organizers are.  They are organizing efforts that couldn't possibly be more counter-productive to the cause they are supposedly trying to advance, and they know it.

the history of the civil rights movement in this country says otherwise.  look how much progress we've made in the last 60 years.  it would not have happened as quickly without peaceful civil disobedience.

but marching and occupying buildings while carrying signs is very different optics than occupying buildings while carrying assault weapons.

[240 is Back]

this shows the filter you see the world in.  Cliven Bundy and his followers had a standoff with federal marshals and the feds waited them out.  Yet police have used buldozers and water to break up BLM protests.  They did the same on OWS.

you're right.  I remember the Bundy groups stopping people, DEMANDING PAPERS.  Sickening.  

[240 is Back]

* They broke into the building.   huge deal there.  It was a closed facility and they breached a locked door.


I have to wonder how anyone here saying "it's their land, their taxes paid for it" have made it to adulthood.  Do they feel entitled to break into closed govt buildings because "my taxes paid for it!!" ?

imagine having to drop a deuce, it's sunday, the post office is closed but you really gotta go now... so just kick down the door and use the potty.  You paid taxes for that door, screw it.

[Kazan]

once the forest ranger tells them to leave, then it's trespassing and they should be arrested.

Interesting... possessing a WEAPON while trespassing on federal lands esclalates the legal penalty by TWO levels:
http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2011/2011-2b23

It may be prison time if they stay once asked to remove themselves.  I'm not sure if they're aware of this part of it.  A trespass protest when you're carrying a weapon is a very big big deal, particularly on federal property.

LOL, another violation of the constitution, where does it say that arms cannot be carried in federal buildings?

[timfogarty]

I have to wonder how anyone here saying "it's their land, their taxes paid for it" have made it to adulthood.  Do they feel entitled to break into closed govt buildings because "my taxes paid for it!!" ?

and would they feel the same no matter who did it?  is it just as ok for a non-white american to break into a federal building as a white american?

is it just as ok for a non-white person to "stand your ground" as a white person?