Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

[Dreaming100Straight]

When the Feds took up positions with guns trained on the protesters, the militia did the same.

Exactly what incident are you talking about when you say the Feds took up positions with guns "trained on protesters" and do you have any visual proof that such incidents ever occurred? I have seen a lot of video of tasers being pointed.

Protection is fine, calling out an army the way they did is not.

Just what are you calling an army? How many persons and what were their arms?

[Tom Servo]

Bundy didn't recruit all those people

Not in so many words. He did ask his friend Jerry DeLemus to show up, saying "I need bodies." Given DeLemus' history of armed gatherings, it's reasonable to expect those bodies to be armed.

I wouldn't call them armed thugs either

What else would I call someone who uses the threat of force to subvert the law? Some may argue that the Founders intended the RKBA to be a bulwark against tyranny, but I doubt this was what they had in mind.

People are romanticizing this and calling it a victory against oppression now. What happens when the militia types get bored and go home? The BLM will return to collect. If a few stay behind to resist, what exactly do we think will happen when a shot is fired?

Let's be bluntly honest. This was a bad idea, for a bad cause. It had, and still has, the potential to blow up into something that could hurt us very badly.

[LogicMan]

Don't know the specific situation, but I remember reading that for a period, there was an actual standoff. The whole thing has been called a standoff, but there was an actual standoff, with both sides pointing guns at the other for a while.

[LogicMan]

What else would I call someone who uses the threat of force to subvert the law? Some may argue that the Founders intended the RKBA to be a bulwark against tyranny, but I doubt this was what they had in mind.

I'd say it is. Thomas Jefferson said:

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

And threat of force against the law I think is fine when "the law" is acting unnecessarily forcefully itself. We have to have adherence to the law, but that doesn't mean by such heavy-handed tactics. Much of the Occupy Wall Street protest was illegally done, but it doesn't mean that the NYPD should have just sent in police to round up all of the Occupy Wall Street folk who were illegally camping in the area and if they resisted, tased and/or shot them.

People are romanticizing this and calling it a victory against oppression now. What happens when the militia types get bored and go home? The BLM will return to collect. If a few stay behind to resist, what exactly do we think will happen when a shot is fired?

Let's be bluntly honest. This was a bad idea, for a bad cause. It had, and still has, the potential to blow up into something that could hurt us very badly.

Armed citizens checking excessive governmental force is not IMO a bad idea or a bad cause.

[ronl]

As to numbers, there were over 200 armed federal agents. There were lots of M-4's, I saw at least one mp5. Every one of the Feds was armed with a sidearm, but I do not know the actual sidearm issued to the BLM. There were snipers there, too, but I could not with any specificity tell you the actual firearm they were using. The BLM had their region 3 SWAT team in full gear there as could be evidenced by the three stripes on the patches on their right shoulders. The LV SWAT team was also in residence there with all their kit.
There are some interesting sidenotes to this affair. Seems the western states themselves have been less than happy with the way BLM has been managing public lands. Big meeting today that was scheduled before all the mess at the Bundy ranch. Might be an interesting tussle shaping up that could further clarify state vs. federal rights. BLM also has taken a few paragraphs of interesting subject matter off of their website. Shades of Waco there. Just after Waco the FBI had the their entire report up on the web. I know because I read it. There were a few things in that one that were somewhat interesting, shall I say, but that lasted for only a very short time. And, by the way, Happy Easter to all on the site.

[Dreaming100Straight]

Don't know the specific situation, but I remember reading that for a period, there was an actual standoff. The whole thing has been called a standoff, but there was an actual standoff, with both sides pointing guns at the other for a while.

You said. LogicMan, that Feds were pointing guns at the protesters, but this is all you can say when I called you on it and asked when this happened. Could that be because it never happened?

Much of the Occupy Wall Street protest was illegally done, but it doesn't mean that the NYPD should have just sent in police to round up all of the Occupy Wall Street folk who were illegally camping in the area and if they resisted, tased and/or shot them.

No, LogicMan. Nobody was shot, unless you know something that no one else knows, and video shows that the only person tased was tased for good reason.

As to numbers, there were over 200 armed federal agents. . . . .

Ronl, I only asked about what "LogicMan" was calling an army, since he painted a vision of an army of out of control Feds pointing weapons at and tasering peaceful protesters. You are talking about the small army that showed up after the armed militia showed up. That was the day after the protesters turned into an increasingly violent mob. Then there reportedly was only two or three militia members on site. I think Tom Servo best sums up the situation:

Let's be bluntly honest. This was a bad idea, for a bad cause. It had, and still has, the potential to blow up into something that could hurt us very badly.

[LogicMan]

You said. LogicMan, that Feds were pointing guns at the protesters, but this is all you can say when I called you on it and asked when this happened. Could that be because it never happened?

That is possible, but I don't read sources such as Infowars for example which tend to blow things way out of proportion, so I think it was a reputable source I read it from. It is not something I am making up. Here is a Facebook of the Oath Keepers with the rules regarding camo, guns, media interviews, etc...they also say "to bring cameras, the more cameras, the better." I doubt that they would start pointing sniper rifles first at the feds and then film themselves. That would be a titanic level of stupidity.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...&stream_ref=10

No, LogicMan. Nobody was shot, unless you know something that no one else knows, and video shows that the only person tased was tased for good reason.

I never said anybody was shot. I'm saying that the OWS folk were violating the law, but that doesn't mean a bunch of SWAT teams would be justified to get them out. The Left generally had no problem with that sense of lawlessness when NYC basically did nothing.

And I disagree that Bundy's son being tased was for "good reason." It's not like that was a bunch of people armed with AR-15s blocking those agents, it was a bunch of unarmed people.

[Frank Ettin]

And now we're wandering in circles.