quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

they think they can just hold federal building and its lands for their own use, ?
where is that allowed?
they want people to join them to make a "patriot paradise" is that like a sanctuary city?

No. In sanctuary cities, non-citizens are allowed to get out of jail despite a federal hold so they can resume their illegal life and activities...like committing murder.

Any evidence that the men illegally occupying Federal property have committed murder since occupying said property?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

<Fast reply.>

I started writing this post earlier today and took it down. I should have went with my first instinct.

Some of the things I'm reading on this thread do not make sense to me. I'm sorry, but comparisons to OWS, BLM, Waco, and all of the others really don't matter much where I sit. It's not like it's some kind of competition or grading on the curve. It seems to me there is an issue because a bunch of people have decided to take over a federal building and they are doing it with a bunch of weapons. Last time I checked, that's not something that's considered OK. This is a problem that is disrupting the operations of the area, keeping kids from being able to go to school because of threats, and all of the other effects.

This isn't a 'Johnny got away with this, so Billy should be able to do that' type of deal. That's a horrible mentality to have rather than for these people to have to be accountable for what they are doing. And, they haven't shot anybody yet, so no problem? In other words, basically, what they are doing isn't illegal enough and we want to make sure there's a felony?

I'm not saying go in there and blow them to Kingdom Come but I find it silly that they say they are doing it for people who have wanted to distance themselves from them. It's probably the exact measures that they are using that made the Hammonds want to stay away from being aligned with them in the first place.

[sarcasm font] I'm all for the salty snack and prune juice idea. My friends better be the ones with the toilet paper. [/sarcasm font]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

they think they can just hold federal building and its lands for their own use, ?
where is that allowed?
they want people to join them to make a "patriot paradise" is that like a sanctuary city?

No. In sanctuary cities, non-citizens are allowed to get out of jail despite a federal hold so they can resume their illegal life and activities...like committing murder.

Any evidence that the men illegally occupying Federal property have committed murder since occupying said property?

thank you, lmao..
NO and I never stated as such, as nothing has happened since they illegally took over a fed building, and "would it in TIME be like...yanno, people hiding out, people killing people and running to hide(like people who claim all sanctuary cities are doing such(like yourself))

I never stated it had or would happen...it was a rhetorical question dumbass
But I noticed you ignored the firsts two questions, got a response to those two?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

Lucy, didn't the Native Americans take over Alcatraz some years ago ? And they and many others at that time, believed they had the law on their side. I don't remember how the federal government eventually won that case but it went on for a while.

quote:

(like people who claim all sanctuary cities are doing such(like yourself))

quote:

NO and I never stated as such, as nothing has happened since they illegally took over a fed building,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
When I reference Waco and Ruby Ridge I am pointing out the realistic concern these people have that the government will do something violent, particualarly since the government has such a shakey position.
I am not saying that since people got away with burning down a large portion of Baltimore in what some black leaders acually called a revolution that these people should get a pass on trespassing.
I am saying that if you thought that the Baltimore rioters should be given room to destroy and these people should be gunned down are applying a double standard.
And keep in mind that at the Federal level the same people who supported "room to destroy" are the ones who will decide the level of force that comes into play here. They have established the standard are they going to do it or get tough because here they would only be shooting white people?
If I am setting the rules and have one set on rules for one group of people and another set of rules for a different group I am exhibiting bias.

This is much different from saying that because so and so got away with something in 1970 someone else should get away with something now.

There is a call on here to treat trespass more harshly than arson, looting, and murder. Don't you see a problem here?

And as long as they remain peaceful do you want to treat people more harshly for having guns that we do for misusing them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I think anyone who participates and or supports armed insurrection is a criminal or terrorist in my book... is that plain enough for you? Anyone who disobeys the law... as in Ruby Ridge. Many of the officers on the scene had no idea what was behind the charges and that asshole got someone killed by resisting... If he had given up it could have been straightened out in the courts... Bama there is NEVER a reason to take up weapons against the law of the land where there is judicial recourse.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
When I reference Waco and Ruby Ridge I am pointing out the realistic concern these people have that the government will do something violent, particualarly since the government has such a shakey position.
I am not saying that since people got away with burning down a large portion of Baltimore in what some black leaders acually called a revolution that these people should get a pass on trespassing.
I am saying that if you thought that the Baltimore rioters should be given room to destroy and these people should be gunned down are applying a double standard.
And keep in mind that at the Federal level the same people who supported "room to destroy" are the ones who will decide the level of force that comes into play here. They have established the standard are they going to do it or get tough because here they would only be shooting white people?
If I am setting the rules and have one set on rules for one group of people and another set of rules for a different group I am exhibiting bias.

This is much different from saying that because so and so got away with something in 1970 someone else should get away with something now.

There is a call on here to treat trespass more harshly than arson, looting, and murder. Don't you see a problem here?

And as long as they remain peaceful do you want to treat people more harshly for having guns that we do for misusing them?

I think it's a little off to be calling it just trespass. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to go back and find the right article but didn't I read that there were some threats to go along with that? I saw the claim about how these guys somehow got access to keys. (I'm not sure I'm buying that yet because I haven't seen that being substantiated but I won't completely rule that out.) If it's correct, those keys don't mean they had legal access.

It wouldn't be right to think I'm inferring that I'm all for guns blazing to remove these people without trying alternative methods. However, I can't sit here and say I think this is a situation that shouldn't be diffused. One of these people has been quoted as saying God wanted him to go to Oklahoma. Is that sounding like a level headed individual to you?

There isn't anything about this that says peaceful protest. The peaceful protesters were the ones that wouldn't join up with these other folks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
When I reference Waco and Ruby Ridge I am pointing out the realistic concern these people have that the government will do something violent, particualarly since the government has such a shakey position.
I am not saying that since people got away with burning down a large portion of Baltimore in what some black leaders acually called a revolution that these people should get a pass on trespassing.
I am saying that if you thought that the Baltimore rioters should be given room to destroy and these people should be gunned down are applying a double standard.
And keep in mind that at the Federal level the same people who supported "room to destroy" are the ones who will decide the level of force that comes into play here. They have established the standard are they going to do it or get tough because here they would only be shooting white people?
If I am setting the rules and have one set on rules for one group of people and another set of rules for a different group I am exhibiting bias.

This is much different from saying that because so and so got away with something in 1970 someone else should get away with something now.

There is a call on here to treat trespass more harshly than arson, looting, and murder. Don't you see a problem here?

And as long as they remain peaceful do you want to treat people more harshly for having guns that we do for misusing them?

I think it's a little off to be calling it just trespass. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to go back and find the right article but didn't I read that there were some threats to go along with that? I saw the claim about how these guys somehow got access to keys. (I'm not sure I'm buying that yet because I haven't seen that being substantiated but I won't completely rule that out.) If it's correct, those keys don't mean they had legal access.

It wouldn't be right to think I'm inferring that I'm all for guns blazing to remove these people without trying alternative methods. However, I can't sit here and say I think this is a situation that shouldn't be diffused. One of these people has been quoted as saying God wanted him to go to Oklahoma. Is that sounding like a level headed individual to you?

There isn't anything about this that says peaceful protest. The peaceful protesters were the ones that wouldn't join up with these other folks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
When I reference Waco and Ruby Ridge I am pointing out the realistic concern these people have that the government will do something violent, particualarly since the government has such a shakey position.
I am not saying that since people got away with burning down a large portion of Baltimore in what some black leaders acually called a revolution that these people should get a pass on trespassing.
I am saying that if you thought that the Baltimore rioters should be given room to destroy and these people should be gunned down are applying a double standard.
And keep in mind that at the Federal level the same people who supported "room to destroy" are the ones who will decide the level of force that comes into play here. They have established the standard are they going to do it or get tough because here they would only be shooting white people?
If I am setting the rules and have one set on rules for one group of people and another set of rules for a different group I am exhibiting bias.

This is much different from saying that because so and so got away with something in 1970 someone else should get away with something now.

There is a call on here to treat trespass more harshly than arson, looting, and murder. Don't you see a problem here?

And as long as they remain peaceful do you want to treat people more harshly for having guns that we do for misusing them?

I think it's a little off to be calling it just trespass. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to go back and find the right article but didn't I read that there were some threats to go along with that? I saw the claim about how these guys somehow got access to keys. (I'm not sure I'm buying that yet because I haven't seen that being substantiated but I won't completely rule that out.) If it's correct, those keys don't mean they had legal access.

It wouldn't be right to think I'm inferring that I'm all for guns blazing to remove these people without trying alternative methods. However, I can't sit here and say I think this is a situation that shouldn't be diffused. One of these people has been quoted as saying God wanted him to go to Oklahoma. Is that sounding like a level headed individual to you?

There isn't anything about this that says peaceful protest. The peaceful protesters were the ones that wouldn't join up with these other folks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

There isn't anything about this that says peaceful protest. The peaceful protesters were the ones that wouldn't join up with these other folks.
[/color]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

ALL Sanctuary cities being full of death and mayhem actually REALLY isnt happening.

quote:

(like people who claim all sanctuary cities are doing such(like yourself))

so Im correlating rhetoric
Seriously im LINKING them?? that was my POINT....Both of them are out of proportion
FFs get a grip.

See this part....

quote:

NO and I never stated as such, as nothing has happened since they illegally took over a fed building,

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
I think it's a little off to be calling it just trespass. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to go back and find the right article but didn't I read that there were some threats to go along with that? I saw the claim about how these guys somehow got access to keys. (I'm not sure I'm buying that yet because I haven't seen that being substantiated but I won't completely rule that out.) If it's correct, those keys don't mean they had legal access.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
5. Owning arms, even at a protest is not treason. Even firing on someone isn't necessarily treason. Do you really think you could call the protestors at ferguson treasonous? Of course not.
It is only when you are advocating the overthrow of the US govt - which by the way I have heard an MSNBC anchor do, (couldn't believe it), and multiple BLM protestors - that you are engaged in treason or sedition.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
making fun of the militia...
ALong with vanilla Isis, there now is also, Y'all-Queda, Still others have taken to using terms such as #YokelHaram and #al-Shabubba, and say the group is waging #YeeHawd.
#YeeHawdists #Talibundy
https://twitter.com/hashtag/YokelHaram

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)