Oppressed white farmers occupy federal building in Oregon

[Kazan]

Peaceably assemble legally- don't break into a govt property then squat until your convict friends are released.  

Imagine the backlash if this works.  Should we all "occupy" a local courthouse or the dmv until our weed buddies' sentences are exonerated?

I don't see the word legally anywhere is the 1st amendment

[Kazan]

We pay for the white house.  We pay for Fort Knox.  We pay for military bases.  

Suppose I want to "occupy" any of these places with rifles until my demands for felons I know to be released?

They're criminals.  

Just because they have weapons doesn't mean shit, no one was shot, there for the protest is peaceful

[Kazan]

We pay for the white house.  We pay for Fort Knox.  We pay for military bases.  

Suppose I want to "occupy" any of these places with rifles until my demands for felons I know to be released?

They're criminals.  

And your a sheep who seems to think .gov is more important than everyone else and should be able to ignore the constitution at their convenience.

[chaos]

240 is only alluding to the fact that these men broke a law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Obviously, there is a huge difference between laws, and its affect on others. Apparently, these men are occupying a building that is vacant. So, whatever. If there were people inside, and they were being held as hostages,  different story. But its vacant. I wont lose sleep over it. Nonetheless, they did break some laws. We shall see what comes of it.

Which law did they break?
How do you feel about the two guys being sent back to jail years after already serving their original sentence?

[SF1900]

Which law did they break?
How do you feel about the two guys being sent back to jail years after already serving their original sentence?

Didn't they occupy a government building? Is that considered breaking the law? I always assumed that would at least qualify as trespassing. No?

[240 is Back]

And your a sheep who seems to think .gov is more important than everyone else and should be able to ignore the constitution at their convenience.

it's not a legal assembly spot.  

what if I want to hold an illegal assembly with 150 men with rifles at the white house or fort knox?  It's prison time for my ass.  Why should these dudes be allowed to tresspass with weapons on land they don't own?

[240 is Back]

How do you feel about the two guys being sent back to jail years after already serving their original sentence?

I don't like it, but there are legal means for dealing with it... not loading up 150 men with rifles for a standoff.

would everyone be supporting it if it was 150 muslims doing the exact same thing? 

[chaos]

it's not a legal assembly spot.  

what if I want to hold an illegal assembly with 150 men with rifles at the white house or fort knox?  It's prison time for my ass.  Why should these dudes be allowed to tresspass with weapons on land they don't own?

Who says they're trespassing?

[drkaje]

I don't like it, but there are legal means for dealing with it... not loading up 150 men with rifles for a standoff.

would everyone be supporting it if it was 150 muslims doing the exact same thing? 

If they're American citizens peacefully protesting, I'm fine with it.

[Kazan]

it's not a legal assembly spot.  

what if I want to hold an illegal assembly with 150 men with rifles at the white house or fort knox?  It's prison time for my ass.  Why should these dudes be allowed to tresspass with weapons on land they don't own?

Here we go again, then what exactly is a legal assembly spot? You seem to think .gov gets to tell people where they can protest, which of course negates the whole concept laid out in the constitution.

[Kazan]

I don't like it, but there are legal means for dealing with it... not loading up 150 men with rifles for a standoff.

would everyone be supporting it if it was 150 muslims doing the exact same thing? 

What the fuck do Muslims have to do with this?

[chaos]

I don't like it, but there are legal means for dealing with it... not loading up 150 men with rifles for a standoff.

would everyone be supporting it if it was 150 muslims doing the exact same thing? 

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.

[SF1900]

Here we go again, then what exactly is a legal assembly spot? You seem to think .gov gets to tell people where they can protest, which of course negates the whole concept laid out in the constitution.

Are there spots where people should not be allowed to protest, that are not government buildings?

[Kazan]

Are there spots where people should not be allowed to protest, that are not government buildings?

Doesn't seem to matter when #blacklivesmatter, blocks traffic and shoppers on the mag mile in Chicago, so why should it be different for anyone else?

[_aj_]

What the fuck do Muslims have to do with this?

If they were Muslim Americans and not hurting anybody, simply protesting, then I wouldn't care about them. Not citizens, here illegally? JDAM.

[Kazan]

If they were Muslim Americans and not hurting anybody, simply protesting, then I wouldn't care about them. Not citizens, here illegally? JDAM.

Its just more of 240's grabastic bullshit trying to derail things when he no longer has any ammo for the original point of the post.

[SF1900]

Its just more of 240's grabastic bullshit trying to derail things when he no longer has any ammo for the original point of the post.

Yes, but you tried to derail my question by alluding to BLM. Not much different than 240 derailing to muslims.

If we are going to stick to the topic, then lets stick to the actual topic, which is X people occupying a government building in Oregon, and stay within the confines of those parameters.

[Kazan]

Yes, but you tried to derail my question by alluding to BLM. Not much different than 240 derailing to muslims.

If we are going to stick to the topic, then lets stick to the actual topic, which is X people occupying a government building in Oregon, and stay within the confines of those parameters.

I never said one damn thing about BLM. Correction, only in response to your question about where people should be able to protest.

[_aj_]

Yes, but you tried to derail my question by alluding to BLM. Not much different than 240 derailing to muslims.

If we are going to stick to the topic, then lets stick to the actual topic, which is X people occupying a government building in Oregon, and stay within the confines of those parameters.

No, BLM is on-topic. If you're going to advocate deadly force against American citizens occupying government property, then it has to be consistently applied. Blocking a road = occupying an unoccupied building. Deal with it.

[Kazan]

You said, "Doesn't seem to matter when #blacklivesmatter, blocks traffic and shoppers on the mag mile in Chicago, so why should it be different for anyone else?"

I read the post to fast, but have since corrected my response

[SF1900]

I read the post to fast, but have since corrected my response

Okay, then I will remove my response.

[SF1900]

I read the post to fast, but have since corrected my response

Well, its a moot point, because I don't agree with black people or anyone blocking highways or stores that interfere with other people. A person's ability to protest ends when it affects another person's livelihood (getting to a job to earn a living to feed their family's, endangers their lives, etc.).

[_aj_]

Well, its a moot point, because I don't agree with black people or anyone blocking highways or stores that interfere with other people. A person's ability to protest ends when it affects another person's livelihood (getting to a job to earn a living to feed their family's, endangers their lives, etc.).

Sounds fairly libertarian. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. Libertarian creed: your right to swing your fist ends precisely at my chin.

[Kazan]

Yes, but you tried to derail my question by alluding to BLM. Not much different than 240 derailing to muslims.

If we are going to stick to the topic, then lets stick to the actual topic, which is X people occupying a government building in Oregon, and stay within the confines of those parameters.

And I will further expand on this, why does .gov get to decide which protest of redress of grievances is legal and which is not? The constitution contains the bill of rights, which are natural rights that .gov is constitutionally restricted from interfering with.

[_aj_]

And I will further expand on this, why does .gov get to decide which protest of redress of grievances is legal and which is not? The constitution contains the bill of rights, which are natural rights that .gov is constitutionally restricted from interfering with.

"Our" government found the Constitution to be an impediment a century ago and has been steadily eroding it through micro cuts since then.

"A republic, if you can keep it" -- B. Franklin