Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Powder Miner]

I did read the thread, the entire discussion, every single page for the better part of an hour, and that is exactly why I am complaining. The thread expressly contained arguing in favor of air strikes and people being angry that situations in Baltimore and Ferguson (which were ongoing violent and destructive situations) while this is not, which I can understand, and then therefore wanting them to be taken out violently, which I can't. I'm okay with them being removed, but not out of a sense of it being unfair they aren't being violenced too.

(And specifically in reply to RedKing, I've never advocated violence on people just because they're not white right wingers. I actually have consistency here, I'm not just flipping "yes" or "no" on violence based on who it is.)

[nenjin]

If they had been violenced at least I'd some faith that, somewhere, some overarching law of cause and effect still applies. That there is some standard we can expect out of law enforcement, even if that standard is "people get killed when the police show up."

But not even that is true. It's just good old fashioned "when blacks are involved, shoot first, ask questions later, admit no wrong doing in the end." And when whites are involved it's "let's not race to hasty judgment lest the wrong people get hurt. They should be afforded every opportunity to surrender peacefully so they can return to their families and, hell, maybe we'll even just let them go in the end because after all, it's just a building right?"

[RedKing]

Show me where anybody in Ferguson or Baltimore was walking around with AR-15s and promising to shoot anybody that tried to stop them. There's crime and then there's openly defying the United States government with armed sedition. You deal with crime with standard law enforcement measures. You deal with armed sedition in an altogether different manner.

EDIT:
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[Powder Miner]

I probably wouldn't be able to point it out between all of the arson and looting, RedKing. They're nuts with guns, but there's no actual violence yet and I would like to keep it that way. Do you think that no policemen would get shot and hurt or killed if a gunfight really did begin?

And I'd much prefer no standard than a standard of killing things, nenjin. Being fair doesn't make it better at ALL. No amount of equally sharing the wrongs will make them right. It's still violence.

[nenjin]

No standard is what you have right now. And all your concern for the sanctity of human life pretty much means fuck all if you're ok with the status quo we've had so far.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. Even CNN isn't giving this thing top billing. We're so inured to white militantism than even the most liberal news agency doesn't consider this a headline. After all, it's not Muslims, is it? Move along, nothing to see here.

[Powder Miner]

I don't have meaningful regard for human life because I don't want more people shot?

[RedKing]

I probably wouldn't be able to point it out between all of the arson and looting, RedKing. They're nuts with guns, but there's no actual violence yet and I would like to keep it that way. Do you think that no policemen would get shot and hurt or killed if a gunfight really did begin?

Wow. Such answer. Much evasion. And yeah, I do imagine cops would die which is why they're not up there. Whose fault would that be, especially if the gunfight is triggered by police attempting to arrest the militias?

And I'd much prefer no standard than a standard of killing things, nenjin. Being fair doesn't make it better at ALL. No amount of equally sharing the wrongs will make them right. It's still violence.

Somehow I don't think you'd prefer "no standard" if you were the one constantly getting the shit-end of the stick.

[Dorsidwarf]

I don't know that it's "fear of making it worse" as much as "fear of 150 gun nuts". The local sheriff's department is definitely not staffed or equipped to respond to something like that. According to their website, they have a sheriff and five deputies. The county has a population of 7700. This is Andy Griffith/Barney Fife territory (not that I'm casting any aspersions on their competence).

It's been what, 48 hours?

If backwater USA can't get state armed police forces to safeguard people from a paramillitary force in two days, I'm frankly shocked. I know distances are like, 4-10 times higher over there but shit man.
(Ignoring Federal stuff because it's a police matter until they declare for Allah apparently)

[TheBiggerFish]

The FBI is on the scene, I heard.

[RedKing]

FBI is "monitoring' but is not on the scene. Apparently the only ones on the scene are reporters.

FWIW, Ted Cruz has been the first candidate to speak to the issue, calling for the Bundy militia to stand down peaceably.

“Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds,” Cruz told reporters in Iowa. “But we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence against others. So it is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation.”

[Dorsidwarf]

FBI is "monitoring' but is not on the scene. Apparently the only ones on the scene are reporters.

FWIW, Ted Cruz has been the first candidate to speak to the issue, calling for the Bundy militia to stand down peaceably.

“Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds,” Cruz told reporters in Iowa. “But we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence against others. So it is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation.”

What no he's a republican he's not allowed to respond first and be reasonable I want a refund.

[Powder Miner]

The point I was making was that you don't need an AR-15 to cause destruction and violence, no gun doesn't mean things aren't being actively set on fire, and having a gun doesn't mean they are.

And somehow I doubt you'd be for a standard of police shooting every time if you were literally anyone involved with any situation that could go shooty but doesn't have to.

[Radio Controlled]

They should just roll in the big tanks up to the front door already.

Then set up some pipes and start pumping in raw sewage.

[nenjin]

I'd prefer no people being able to trust the police than some being able to trust them, then telling the groups that get killed by them that "everything seems to go ok for me."

Then something might actually change. But as long as white people don't really have anything to fear from police until they pull the trigger, I don't see them ever being a force for change in law enforcement. People only tend to care about shit when it directly impacts them, their families or their ethnic group.

So my apologies if I'm pigeon holing you, but I find the sanctity of human life to mean very little in America today, given how it's rarely applied except when it comes to white people. And so while I don't blame you or anything, when someone says "I respect human life" all I can think is "where is your outrage then when a black person a month is gunned down in cold blood by police and it's covered up" and "How can you stand there and talk about the sanctity of human life when these guys are sitting here, daring people to come at them and daring the government to apply the law to them?"

[RedKing]

The point I was making was that you don't need an AR-15 to cause destruction and violence, no gun doesn't mean things aren't being actively set on fire, and having a gun doesn't mean they are.

And somehow I doubt you'd be for a standard of police shooting every time if you were literally anyone involved with any situation that could go shooty but doesn't have to.

Hell, that wouldn't even be a fair standard, since half the cop shootings lately haven't even been "situations that could go shooty". Unless you count every single interaction with police in that category. Which might spur more people to push for police reform.

Look, you see this in the category of "just another crime". Or possibly even "not a crime, but a First Amendment exercise". I see it as armed sedition, which merits a different level of response. That's the crux of the issue. At this point, I'm beginning to think a white guy could jump the White House fence, run up and put a gun to Obama's head and everyone would be like "Well, let's not react too hastily now, maybe he has a very good reason..."