The theory that Dems want to ban guns

[D.W.]

This is a group of white armed men who are going largely unopposed and facing no use of force for doing something far more inflammatory than non-white, unarmed people have have had the use of force justified against them.  (ignoring how shakily or wrongly justified)  Toss in the armed people using religious justifications and it's no big secret that if the holy book was a different one it wouldn't matter how remote that location was.  There would be a tactical team picking them off in a matter of hours not days.

That is a HUGE issue symbolically even if it is a tiny blip as a threat to innocent lives.  It forces into the spotlight so many hypocrisies that it makes people deeply unsettled. 

[Fenring]

This is a group of white armed men who are going largely unopposed and facing no use of force for doing something far more inflammatory than non-white, unarmed people have have had the use of force justified against them.  (ignoring how shakily or wrongly justified)  Toss in the armed people using religious justifications and it's no big secret that if the holy book was a different one it wouldn't matter how remote that location was.  There would be a tactical team picking them off in a matter of hours not days.

That is a HUGE issue symbolically even if it is a tiny blip as a threat to innocent lives.  It forces into the spotlight so many hypocrisies that it makes people deeply unsettled.

Wait, are you saying it's a double standard because if it was Muslim radicals they've have been taken out by now? I think we should remember that radicalized Muslims have as their MO that infidels should die, and so if a group of them were to have taken over a government compound it would be assumed they're terrorists with the goal of killing Americans. Here even if you want to paint the Bundys as terrorists it doesn't mean their agenda is that of killing innocent Americans, and so going in with a tactical team to take them out with make little sense. Based on their comments, even if nutty, they are radical libertarians, and if so that means killing innocent people is against their creed. Pretty hard to compare that with Islamic radicals, wouldn't you say? The one touchy point, though, is that they might not consider government agents to be innocent.

[D.W.]

I'm in no way advocating violence against them.  I'm with Pete that a simple supply blockade or cutting power and waiting them out is the best plan.  Inconveniencing a few snowshoe hike or cross country skiing aficionados seems like a small price to pay to avoid violence. 

My point is that an unarmed protest in an urban setting is more likely to face a use of force than an armed protest in a rural one.  That sends a dangerous message.

And yes there is a double standard.  I don't even think it's "wrong" there is a double standard for some of the reasons you list.  A lot of people however are made very uncomfortable when faced with double standards like that.  While prudent in many eyes it DOES fly in the face of our inward facing propaganda. 

I don't worry about this group who are on what amounts to a camp-out.  I worry about the impact it has on the wider public when they make us face our own hypocrisy.

[Pete at Home]

I don't understand you, DW. At one point you seem to understand that the reason they aren't being taken out is that they are not endangering anyone.  But in other paragraphs you are out in Wessex land claiming that this is an issue of racist and religious hypocrisy.

If this crazy armed protest in the wilderness by honkies reveals hypocrisy, it"s the hypocrisy of social justice nutcases asking for affirmative atrocities.

[Pete at Home]

"My point is that an unarmed protest in an urban setting is more likely to face a use of force than an armed protest in a rural one.  That sends a dangerous message."

What the lefty press lies about the incident sends a dangerous message.  Honest intelligent people should grasp that guns can't kill people in absence of actual people. That's not hypocrisy. That's common *censored*ing sense.

[D.W.]

Let's say you are an anti-gun liberal.  You are appalled at protests against police brutality being branded unfairly (or ruined by a few outliers) as riots and met with sometimes harsh opposition.

Suddenly there is an armed occupation of federal land by a bunch of non-minority people.  They are treated with caution if not respect.  Suddenly you are confronted with a problem.  You have what COULD be proof that being armed DOES prevent mistreatment and DOES get you the attention you may want without instantly devolving into horrific bloodshed.  That flies in the face of your ideals.

That these "nut job religious zealots" may be pointing out a truth that people want desperately to reject IS important.  It may cause people to do seemingly irrational things like asking for the issue to be forced and risk violence just to resolve it quickly.  It may cause people to consider that when respect fails to protect you that the ability to threaten may be almost as useful. 

This would loose people to your (the anti-gun, peaceful protest liberal) ideals and potentially spark violence or give others the excuse to use violence on the larger group.  This is terrifying and all because some jackasses are camping out where they shouldn't be and antagonizing the feds for publicity? 

I'm not saying we should take a "wait and see" approach when dealing with groups who's stated goals is the death of innocent American's .  I'm not saying we should rush in and kill all these occupiers because they dared to mix guns and religion.

I'm saying that one of the (as I see it) ugliest arguments for the need to have guns is to protect you from our law enforcement or federal government is NOT as nuts as we would like to think.  That a group who the overwhelming majority thinks are misguided or dangerous criminals are "teaching us" that ugliness about ourselves... well it sucks.

Oh and if they said that they were claiming this as a beachhead for their own American caliphate because Allah told them to... they'd already be dead.  It wouldn't matter if there was nobody out there for them to hurt Pete.  (and I'd be just fine with that)

Pretending we don't have double standards has as much a corrupting effect on our country as the double standards we acknowledge. 

[AI Wessex]

What the lefty press lies about the incident sends a dangerous message.

Where do you see that and what are they saying?

[Pete at Home]

Let's say you are an anti-gun liberal.  You are appalled at protests against police brutality being branded unfairly (or ruined by a few outliers) as riots and met with sometimes harsh opposition.

Suddenly there is an armed occupation of federal land by a bunch of non-minority people.  They are treated with caution if not respect.  Suddenly you are confronted with a problem.  You have what COULD be proof that being armed DOES prevent mistreatment and DOES get you the attention you may want without instantly devolving into horrific bloodshed.  That flies in the face of your ideals.

That these "nut job religious zealots" may be pointing out a truth that people want desperately to reject IS important.  It may cause people to do seemingly irrational things like asking for the issue to be forced and risk violence just to resolve it quickly.  It may cause people to consider that when respect fails to protect you that the ability to threaten may be almost as useful. 

This would loose people to your (the anti-gun, peaceful protest liberal) ideals and potentially spark violence or give others the excuse to use violence on the larger group.  This is terrifying and all because some jackasses are camping out where they shouldn't be and antagonizing the feds for publicity? 

I'm not saying we should take a "wait and see" approach when dealing with groups who's stated goals is the death of innocent American's .  I'm not saying we should rush in and kill all these occupiers because they dared to mix guns and religion.

I'm saying that one of the (as I see it) ugliest arguments for the need to have guns is to protect you from our law enforcement or federal government is NOT as nuts as we would like to think.  That a group who the overwhelming majority thinks are misguided or dangerous criminals are "teaching us" that ugliness about ourselves... well it sucks.

Oh and if they said that they were claiming this as a beachhead for their own American caliphate because Allah told them to... they'd already be dead.  It wouldn't matter if there was nobody out there for them to hurt Pete.  (and I'd be just fine with that)

Pretending we don't have double standards has as much a corrupting effect on our country as the double standards we acknowledge.

That depends whether I, as an anti gun liberal, love human life more than I hate guns.

When we consider sending in armed troops, whether a group has stated violent goals is less relevant that whether people are in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious harm. 

I am a cripple today because some poor stupid *censored*er was denied benefits by a stingy system and was brainwashed by social justice types to believe that anything bad that happens to him was because of his skin color. So the dumb bastard took a couple shotguns into a court to try to kill the most liberal fed judge in Nevada. 

I don't appreciate Al basically soliciting a mass shootout based on skin color and religion. 

[D.W.]

"When we consider sending in armed troops, whether a group has stated violent goals is   should be less relevant that whether people are in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious harm." 

[Pete at Home]

I love this thought experiment by DW.

"Oh and if they said that they were claiming this as a beachhead for their own American caliphate because Allah told them to... they'd already be dead.  It wouldn't matter if there was nobody out there for them to hurt Pete.  (and I'd be just fine with that)"

Ah, I strongly disagree that it would be OK to take them out. Anyone who does a peaceful nonviolent protest for ISIS in the USA is probably legally insane, and deserves to be handled with mittens.

[Seriati]

I worry about the impact it has on the wider public when they make us face our own hypocrisy.

It's not hypocrisy or a double standard to treat different circumstances differently based on relevant distinctions.  It could be hypocrisy to insist they be treated in the same way because of irrelevant distinctions (ie we must react harshly because these men are white).

An Urban stand off by this same group would cause a much more aggressive and hostile response.  A middle of no where protest by a minority group wouldn't see the mobilization of thousands of extra police officers.  The response in all cases is proportionate the risk to uninvolved parties, and even in an urban setting where violence is present is typically limited in as far as is possible to non-lethal and targeted responses.

[D.W.]

Well then I'm glad I make a poor hypothetical crazy person.  I would think that such actions when viewed through the lens of mistrust of the government, the other party, those at the other end of the economic spectrum or of another race would cause more instances like what happened to Pete. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  I hope I'm wrong. 

I suppose if it was easy to anticipate what thought process and what influences may trigger people to violence we'd be a lot better at stopping it.  I'm not advocating what you use as an example Seriati.  I'm pointing out that there may be those who fail to acknowledges such distinctions.  You know, like a crazy person who tries to solve their problem or push their agenda through armed violence...

[AI Wessex]

[Pete:] I already did recognize that they are religious extremists in spite of you repeatedly pretending I had said otherwise.

Read again, Pete, I was saying that you *did* say that.  Accept that I sometimes acknowledge *and* agree with you .

[AI Wessex]

The response in all cases is proportionate the risk to uninvolved parties, and even in an urban setting where violence is present is typically limited in as far as is possible to non-lethal and targeted responses.

It's more complicated than that.  My guess is that the BLM figured the group would embarrass themselves and slink away, leaving a trail of their shame behind.  But we're apparently in an era where humiliating yourself with stupid or unconscionable actions doesn't harm your reputation.  The only ways to get people to active confront you, it seems, is to be in the act of pulling the trigger or more generally to be black or Muslim whatever the circumstances.

[Pete at Home]

[Pete:] I already did recognize that they are religious extremists in spite of you repeatedly pretending I had said otherwise.

Read again, Pete, I was saying that you *did* say that.  Accept that I sometimes acknowledge *and* agree with you .

If I misunderstood you I apologize. What set me off wascyour quoting me, then saying right after the quote, when will Christians recognise extremism in their midst.

Remember, it's Faux News, not anyone here, that uses the Islamic extremist mantra.  The danger in Islamist groups, or in violent Christian groups like some of the crusaders, is not their extremism with regard of their overall religion.  Say "extreme Christians" and I think of the Amish.  I have know some extremely devoted Muslims that are no more dangerous than the Amish.   

If a pro ISIS group took over an abandoned govt facility in mid nowhere, I would say exactly the same. Cut the power and arrest them when they come out.

Not perfectly analogous since Mormons probably have a generator and a year's supply of food.  But that doesn't change the principle of preventing unnecessary bloodshed.

[Pete at Home]

The response in all cases is proportionate the risk to uninvolved parties, and even in an urban setting where violence is present is typically limited in as far as is possible to non-lethal and targeted responses.

It's more complicated than that. 

Based on what?

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?   If a simple explanation works, why complicate it with death dealing insinuations?

If it weren't for bloodbath seeking lefties, maybe black lives matter or other groups might take a page from this and stage some big cathartic Woodstock out in the middle of nowhere instead of breaking the peace in the cities. The press could come along.

[Pete at Home]

OK, that last bloodbath seeking lefties thing looks like I was zinging Al, and that's hardly reasonable in a discussion of a dozen people.  I'be jest been reading that whole "what if Ammon was black" horse crap from mainstream newbies, calls for affirmative violence, etc.  Given my history, it raises my ire.

[D.W.]

Are they newbies because they are asking a question with an obvious answer? 

Also I would suggest that there are few bloodthirsty calls for equality through shootout.  The opposite is the goal actually.  That if you can restrain the urge to "do something" to "handle the situation" when it comes to guys like this, then you can certainly keep your cool in the face of an urban unarmed protest.

[Pete at Home]

Are they newbies because they are asking a question with an obvious answer? 

Also I would suggest that there are few bloodthirsty calls for equality through shootout.  The opposite is the goal actually. .

They are newsies. Newbies was an automangle.  Al didn't make that stuff up. Big talking lefties are drooling for white Christian nutjob blood.  It's been too long since Waco and the hippy establishment wants another fix.

" That if you can restrain the urge to "do something" to "handle the situation" when it comes to guys like this, then you can certainly keep your cool in the face of an urban unarmed protest"

Unarmed protesters in an urban setting pose more of a threat than armed protesters in the wilderness.

Unarmed protesters just burnt someone alive in Maryland. 

The issue is preventing harm to human beings.  Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity. 

It's about public safety.

Why is this so hard to grasp?  It's not.  The only difference if this was a group of gay black Muslims doing this, is that the far lefties and the far right would be arguing opposite sides.  My recommendations would remain the same. Cut the power, wait, then arrest them.

[AI Wessex]

Big talking lefties are drooling for white Christian nutjob blood.  It's been too long since Waco and the hippy establishment wants another fix.

This is why talking to you seems pointless.  You made about five gratuitous insults or slanders against unattributed "lefties" in those two short sentences.  You've been on a rampage lately, and it's kind of unsettling to watch.

[D.W.]

Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity.

You can occasionally learn something being obtuse or temporarily shedding your humanity.  Attempting to view or force human behavior constantly into some ideal of "humane" and relying on "common sense" can easily lead you astray as well. 

[Fenring]

Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity.

You can occasionally learn something being obtuse or temporarily shedding your humanity.  Attempting to view or force human behavior constantly into some ideal of "humane" and relying on "common sense" can easily lead you astray as well. 

I think what he's trying to say is that blinding oneself to the common sense facts on the ground and instead interpreting events based on some preconceived narrative or agenda is a manner of thinking that requires dehumanizing the situation and ignoring what people (other than the echo chamber) are saying. Regardless of whether anyone here is doing this at the moment, I agree with Pete's sentiment fully and bemoan the fact that so much information people receive is filtered through a lens not of their own making. It probably wouldn't be unfair to say that many people literally don't live in the same world as each other. The lack of ability to see what's right in front of you can be a great obstacle to overcome, especially when you're sure you see just fine. That being said I agree with DW also that it's excellent to be able to see the matter from all perspectives, if possible. The trouble is that doing so requires putting yourself in the other person's head to see their thinking, and if you have no respect for the other person then it would certainly be off putting to think of inhabiting their head for any period of time.

[Pete at Home]

Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity.

You can occasionally learn something being obtuse or temporarily shedding your humanity.  Attempting to view or force human behavior constantly into some ideal of "humane" and relying on "common sense" can easily lead you astray as well. 

If someone consistently plays obtuse and sheds their common sense and humanity when talking about a specific class of people, I respectfully submit that they are not "trying to learn" something new, DW.

If someone on a public forum, calls for policy that would lead to needless mass homicide, it seems appropriate to call them on on it.

Al Wessex: bla bla bla, unattributed "lefties" bla bla bla

Sorry: I needed a while to look up one of the articles that I was reading. (Remember paper news? Apparently it still exists.). EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities. 

[Pete at Home]

"That being said I agree with DW also that it's excellent to be able to see the matter from all perspectives, if possible."

My trouble is that I can sympathize and see from the warped perspective of the poor dumb *censored*ers whose mass shooting crippled me, and I feel that he's even more a victim than me, of these bloodthirsty demagogues that turn rejection into a racist event.  So when I see some educated gated community dwelling honky newspaper writer spewing this sort of blood libel, I feel a bit like Inigo Montoya.  And I have done nothing for years but study wordplay.

[Fenring]

Sorry: I needed a while to look up one of the articles that I was reading. (Remember paper news? Apparently it still exists.). EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.

Are you quite sure you understood what he said? The point of such commentary is to make the claim that black people are treated worse than they should be, not that white people should get the same. You're looking for consistency and changing the wrong variable to attain it.

[Pete at Home]

Sorry: I needed a while to look up one of the articles that I was reading. (Remember paper news? Apparently it still exists.). EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.

Are you quite sure you understood what he said? The point of such commentary is to make the claim that black people are treated worse than they should be, not that white people should get the same. You're looking for consistency and changing the wrong variable to attain it.

He's telling black protesters that if they walk through neighborhoods burning and breaking things, that it's only racism that gets the police to respond violently.   That's a message that, if believed, will cause death.  Mostly the deaths of angry black prptesters.  If Robinson gave a floundering *censored* about black protesters who wanted to get their message out, he could have pointed to Ammon's methods as a clever recipe for catching the news without getting marchers harmed.

It actually might work out better for a small well armed black group willing to go to jail, because unlike Ammon and company, they would be celebrities by the time they got to the joint.

[Pete at Home]

" The point of such commentary is to make the claim that black people are treated worse than they should be,"

Dude, I KNOW to that black people are treated worse than whites in many situations.  But I also know, from defending black clients, that expecting racism where it does not exist, is often more crippling than actual white on black racism. Not to mention much harder to defuse.  "When the wrongg words go in the right ear," Robinson's arguments literally have the same function as the programming of a suicide bomber.  This sort of gibberish feeds on the desperation of angry blacks in the same way that Fox News feeds on fear of white suburbia. But this message is more immediately dangerous to people living on the edge.  This is how the New York train shooter was born.

[Pete at Home]

Robinson is the one pointing to the wrong variable. He attributes the difference to skin color rather than to a remote location far away from anyone's home. 

If Ammon had seized a post office in downtown Ferguson, bullets would be flying.  That's not to say that race is NEVER a factor, or even that it's not OFTEN a factor. But obviously , here, race is not the dispositive factor. 

[Pete at Home]

Obtuse: "The only ways to get people to active confront you, it seems, is to be in the act of pulling the trigger or more generally to be black or Muslim whatever the circumstances"

Think harder.  Even the act of pulling the trigger makes no bloody difference if you are in rural Oregon miles from any innocents who might get hurt and miles from any private store or residence.  Think harder. The dispositive difference here is location, not skin color or religion.

Yes, bigotry happens and often results in unfairness.  But to attribute an advantage to race and religion and to play stupid about the obvious determining factors which have nothing to do with race and religion, is a sort of bigotry of its own.  Hell, isn't that the standard historical form that antisemitism has taken? Attributing advantages to Jew's as a group to foment death dealing envy? 

[Gaoics79]

Jason, just two notes:
1. "Obama's a liberal, and liberals believe X" is a tiresome bore of a statement. None of the usual political labels are quite as significant as that, and people are complicated. Take it from me - I am now regularly called "conservative" and "liberal", to my amusement each time. I'm not saying you're wrong about Obama, but I am just tired of that line of argument.

Josh, I'm usually one to eschew labels like this, but in this case I don't think it's terribly complicated or nuanced. You know exactly what I mean when I say "liberal" in this context. And you know why there isn't much speculation required to guess that an urban educated person with Obama's political background is going to favour far more severe restrictions on 2nd amendment rights than the average person.

It's like if I told you that I'm a rural evangelical from Louisiana who attends church and rejects the theory of evolution. You wouldn't need to jump to some kind of enormous leap of logic to guess that I might be pro life or that I wouldn't be comfortable with gay marriage.

2. I would note that a majority of gun owners in America (and about 90% of the general population) support background checks, which is a key element of what is being discussed. Yes, again, this is not necessarily "what's in his heart", but again it's not as clean as you are making it appear to be. Many, if not most, gun owners support reasonable gun control measures.

Yes, but here's where we come to the problem. Most of us would agree with some sensible restrictions. Some of those restrictions are already in place, even in the USA, but there are a few that aren't. We know that Obama and co. will not stop with a few background checks. They will use that as a start to put into place even tighter restrictions. Every time there's a new shooting, you'll see a new wave of laws to plug the latest "loophole". Moreover, there are people who (rightly) don't trust the Federal government to implement the laws that it does pass in a way that is sensible and fair to gun owners.

And they're right not to. Take Canada for an example. Here our governments have been hostile to gun ownership for years. Shoot an invader in your house in the dead of night, and it's you who will be charged.

http://www.630ched.com/2015/11/21/northern-alberta-homeowner-charged-after-shooting-intruder/

Want to own a gun? Sure, no problem! Just so long as it's "safely" stored, meaning that the gun needs to be locked up in a safe somewhere with the bullets locked up two towns down the road in a bank vault (that's barely an exaggeration)

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/lorne-gunter-canadas-laws-on-the-safe-storage-of-firearms-need-clarifying

... The Liberals intentionally wrote the 1995 Firearms Act to be as ambiguous as possible and give prosecutors as big a net as possible in which to ensnare gun owners. Their intention was to make gun ownership as complicated and onerous as possible so as to encourage owners to give up their firearms.

When there was a flood disaster a few years back in Alberta, as RCMP officers went through certain rural areas that had been abandoned or evacuated due to flood, they literally went through empty homes confiscating "unsafely" stored firearms (although in some cases, residents allege that they simply bashed open locked doors and whatnot and just took the guns).

http://globalnews.ca/news/1827143/class-action-lawsuit-launched-against-high-river-rcmp-over-gun-seizures/

“The door was completely destroyed,” laments Jane White. “The bolt from the door was sitting halfway up the stairs on a landing. There was a large amount of mud brought into my home, taken up the stairway on my new carpet. It was on my beds, it was on my jewelry boxes, it was in my closet. There were footprints in my kitchen around by the sink, over around by the dining room area. And when they took the guns they did damage to the walls… left dents and black marks.”

“I was rather angry,” said Doug White. “I was rather angry that somebody can come into your house and steal your property.”

Did those residents get their guns back? Not to my knowledge. That's what can happen when you have a government inherently hostile to gun ownership. I don't blame average citizens in the USA who are hostile to any measure of gun control.

It's like when evangelicals try to pass laws on abortion. The law may not be a ban on abortion. It might even be a restriction that's reasonable and that most people can get behind. But when it's certain people proposing the laws, the hairs on the back of any solidly pro choice citizen's neck are going to rightly stand up.

I don't know how to cut the Gordion knot. It's just the sad truth when you have two extreme groups warring over and ideological issue, often the middle ground gets burned to cinders.

[D.W.]

EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.

I take it by your tone and adjective choice, you feel the statement is absurd?

I am uncertain myself.  I don’t think it’s a given that it would be “point and shoot” but  I think the odds of it tipping that way are significantly higher.  If they were claiming Islamic motivation, higher yet.

My larger point (scattered in my rambling) was that if you believe that what I say is wrong, WHY?  IMO the answer is… guns.  So if the answer is guns, then what conclusions do an advocate to peaceful protesting, racial equality and who is against guns reach?  As someone who advocates the right to carry a firearm for defense and keep one in your home I don’t fit this description so I can only speculate.

I think this line of thinking makes a certain group of people question their entrenched beliefs and ideals.  When that happens people either become more receptive to new points of view, or lose their damn minds…  (or they just try to reel in the person diving too far down the hypothetical rabbit holes)

Robinson's arguments literally have the same function as the programming of a suicide bomber.  This sort of gibberish feeds on the desperation of angry blacks in the same way that Fox News feeds on fear of white suburbia.

This is exactly one of the points I was trying to make.  It’s not Ammon and crew that is the threat, it’s what seeing their actions and the reaction to them and what it makes others THINK and DO as a result that is the problem.  The situation pushes a lot of buttons all at once.  The situation isn’t all that physically dangerous, it’s a catalyst for trouble down the road.  I think you are approaching this line of thinking (unless it really is totally absurd and I’m the kook) as TOO rational.  Put on your less informed social media “I only read the headlines” hat.  Now try again.

[Pete at Home]

EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.

I take it by your tone and adjective choice, you feel the statement is absurd?

I am uncertain myself.  I don’t think it’s a given that it would be “point and shoot” but  I think the odds of it tipping that way are significantly higher.  If they were claiming Islamic motivation, higher..

Yes, I think the question is absurd.  Because if people "filled with rage" and Islamic extremists, were to demonstrate in a way that WASN'T likely to make people afraid for their lives families and homes ("we get no justice, you get no peace") then the wor "rage" does not mean what Mr Robinson thinks it means.

Ammon Bundy is a misguided religious fanatic, but he hasn't threatened innocents, and any newsman that fails to recognize that when drawing moral equivalencies is a death dealing son of a bitch.

[D.W.]

I don't think you are wrong, but that means that words are more likely to instigate a violent response than guns?  Again, I think that's true (for a lot of reasons) and I think that realizing this is blowing a lot of minds.

[Seriati]

EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.

I take it by your tone and adjective choice, you feel the statement is absurd?

I am uncertain myself.  I don’t think it’s a given that it would be “point and shoot” but  I think the odds of it tipping that way are significantly higher.  If they were claiming Islamic motivation, higher yet.

Why speculate?  There are thousands of peaceful protests each year that do not devolve into even the point and shoot scenario.  What's different about them?  It's not race, there are plenty of protests that are populated principally by minorities that never run any risk of an armed response.

There are even protests that devolved into riots or looting where the armed response was limited, or even not present.  Show us an actual comparable that was handled differently, rather than a vague 'everyone knows' its handled differently assertion.

My larger point (scattered in my rambling) was that if you believe that what I say is wrong, WHY?

I believe you're wrong because you're not referencing actual fact patterns, but instead you are referencing "common knowledge" of how situations turn out differently.  Put up some examples and we can see why they turned out differently.

IMO the answer is… guns.

And how does that explain the differences between the thousands of protests where guns are not involved?  I do think this will turn out differently on another basis as well, I think these men will face charges after they leave the compound, which is not something that is common in protests where guns are not involved.

So if the answer is guns, then what conclusions do an advocate to peaceful protesting, racial equality and who is against guns reach?

If guns make a difference (which honestly I don't think is a valid premise), then it ought to cause the conclusion that peaceful protesters carry arms if they want to slow down an armed response.  However, I also think carrying guns shuts downs sympathy for your positions, gets you branded as lunatics and subjects you to the real risk of serious legal consequences afterwards. 

I think you're trading a nominal amount of "extra" time, which won't be present if you conduct a protest in an Urban area because of the conflicting needs for the space and the enhanced risk of harm to bystanders, for a lot of credibility and effectiveness.  You're maximizing a lesser goal at the expense of your prime goal.

[D.W.]

I agree that these men will face charges.  I agree that a "just add guns" directive will make a mess of things. 

I'm not articulating the point I'm trying to get across well at all. 

I think the overwhelming majority of people are not deep thinkers.  They react to narratives.  Race, religion, guns, mistrust of the government are all in the forefront here.  Any agenda you want to push, this situation gave you a leaver. 

Show us an actual comparable that was handled differently, rather than a vague 'everyone knows' its handled differently assertion.

  I'm uncertain turns into everyone knows?    "Actual comparable" would require I read your mind and give you two examples that fit YOUR criteria as you may dismiss two that just fit mine.

Would it even matter if I had one or a dozen instances?  How many Goldilocks zone comparisons would it take to be statistically relevant?  I don't have ANY by the way, nor am I inclined to look for them.  If you think everyone get's a fair shake on how their protesting is reacted to, fine.  I'm glad to hear it.  I think the more of us who believe that (no matter what the truth is) the better off we will be as a country.  It will BECOME reality if it's not already true.   

It's not like we can discuss how a particular protest "would be better served to present their message" without creating a *censored*storm.   

In this political climate we like our opponents evil or stupid or crazy and anything which contradicts an adopted narrative is dangerous.  I see this as a gray area.  If others can not only fit it into their narrative but also believe that the country at large can do the same, then I hope your optimism rubs off on me.  Or if it's not optimism but partisan tunnel-vision then I guess at least things won't get worse.

[NobleHunter]

Whatever the reason for the Fed's low-key approach to these idiots are, I hope the militias have a strong understanding of it. If these anti-government types miss the key factors in the Fed's decision not to force the issue, the next stand-off won't be so stable. If that happens, it could get very bloody very quickly.

[scifibum]

Admit that I haven't spent much time reading the thread, just want to offer an opinion:

I think some Democrats DO want to ban guns.  However, their policy proposals don't usually resemble this end goal.  Their policy proposals are usually either designed to make people feel like something is being done, or chip away at the edges of the problem that there are too many guns out there and it's too easy for criminals and dangerous nuts to get them. 

Ironically, GOP/NRA resistance to any gun control measures is probably going to work against them in the end.  We'll just stick with the status quo and body count until there's a sufficient national disgust to modify the 2nd amendment. 

[Pete at Home]

I don't think you are wrong, but that means that words are more likely to instigate a violent response than guns?  Again, I think that's true (for a lot of reasons) and I think that realizing this is blowing a lot of minds.

I mean that on the street among young black men (some of whom I offered legal counsel to in jail) that sort of talk breeds death dealing hopelessness.

[Pete at Home]

"I don't think you are wrong, but that means that words are more likely to instigate a violent response than guns?  "

A word into the ear of angry people is more likely to provoke violence than a bunch of guns in the middle of nowhere.  Again, guns can't kill people in absence of people. 

If Ammon Bundy had taken over a post office in East Los Angeles, and scaring the neighbors, then it would be a different conversation.

[Pete at Home]

"We'll just stick with the status quo and body count until there's a sufficient national disgust to modify the 2nd amendment. "

And that's probably what most of the vicious folks want who call for a BLM raid on Bundy. Dead bodies make a good platform for legislation that strips away constitutional rights. Patriot act all over again. The Reichstag Fire. Slaves are made this way.

[NobleHunter]

"We'll just stick with the status quo and body count until there's a sufficient national disgust to modify the 2nd amendment. "

And that's probably what most of the vicious folks want who call for a BLM raid on Bundy. Dead bodies make a good platform for legislation that strips away constitutional rights.  Bloody minded ideologues.

Assuming there are people who want a raid to end in slaughter, I suspect it's more to convince the white, rural, anti-government set that police brutality is their problem, too. Considering dead first-graders did SFA to budge the gun control debate, I doubt anyone would count on dead feds and ranchers having much of an effect.

[D.W.]

It wouldn't.  That's because two sides see it through different lenses.

If the feds went in guns blazing and took these guys out would it be "police/government brutality"?  Would it be justice?  Would it be proof that we are living under tyranny already?

If school kids get murdered by someone wielding a gun is it a time for gun control changes?  Time to address mental health?  Time to abandon gun-free sacrifice zones?

People reach the conclusions that do NOT conflict with their beliefs if there is room to do so.  There's usually room to do so...  At least if you don't pick at it too long.

[Pete at Home]

Whatever the reason for the Fed's low-key approach to these idiots are, I hope the militias have a strong understanding of it. If these anti-government types miss the key factors in the Fed's decision not to force the issue, the next stand-off won't be so stable. If that happens, it could get very bloody very quickly.

Explaining that to the duller elements of the public is basic PR responsibility of the Fed.

As long as militia don't take hostages, stage armed protesters in inhabited areas, or occupy delicate industrial or military areas (missile depots, chemical processing, power plants, etc, or call for violent overthrow of the government, there is no imminent threat, no making war on the USA. therefore no forceful assault.  No need to turn Camp Yahoo into another mass shooting.

[Pete at Home]

"We'll just stick with the status quo and body count until there's a sufficient national disgust to modify the 2nd amendment. "

And that's probably what most of the vicious folks want who call for a BLM raid on Bundy. Dead bodies make a good platform for legislation that strips away constitutional rights.  Bloody minded ideologues.

Assuming there are people who want a raid to end in slaughter, I suspect it's more to convince the white, rural, anti-government set that police brutality is their problem, too. Considering dead first-graders did SFA to budge the gun control debate, I doubt anyone would count on dead feds and ranchers having much of an effect.

I don't believe in killing people who have committed no violence in order to accomplish a public relations objective .  That's what distinguishes US from Al Qaeda.

[NobleHunter]

Explaining that to the duller elements of the public is basic PR responsibility of the Fed.

As long as militia don't take hostages, stage armed protesters in inhabited areas, or occupy delicate industrial or military areas (missile depots, chemical processing, power plants, etc, or call for violent overthrow of the government, there is no imminent threat, no making war on the USA. therefore no forceful assault.  No need to turn Camp Yahoo into another mass shooting.

The Fed can explain it but that doesn't mean this lot will understand. Granted, I don't really think these idiots should be shot pour encourager les autres but one potential consequence of keeping this low key is people might think this kind of stunt is low-risk and that's not necessarily true.

I don't believe in killing people who have committed no violence in order to accomplish a public relations objective .  That's what distinguishes US from Al Qaeda.

By that logic, the US is indistinguishable from Al Qaeda.

[Pete at Home]

Explaining that to the duller elements of the public is basic PR responsibility of the Fed.

As long as militia don't take hostages, stage armed protesters in inhabited areas, or occupy delicate industrial or military areas (missile depots, chemical processing, power plants, etc, or call for violent overthrow of the government, there is no imminent threat, no making war on the USA. therefore no forceful assault.  No need to turn Camp Yahoo into another mass shooting.

The Fed can explain it but that doesn't mean this lot will understand. Granted, I don't really think these idiots should be shot pour encourager les autres but one potential consequence of keeping this low key is people might think this kind of stunt is low-risk and that's not necessarily true.

I don't believe in killing people who have committed no violence in order to accomplish a public relations objective .  That's what distinguishes US from Al Qaeda.

By that logic, the US is indistinguishable from Al Qaeda.

Was your remark obtuse or can you point to nonviolent people has the United States targeted for PR purposes? 

[NobleHunter]

Was your remark obtuse or can you point to nonviolent people has the United States targeted for PR purposes?

You didn't say "targeted," you said "killed." So see War on Terror, Collateral Damage of.

I can't think of any non-violent people specifically targeted by the US for PR purposes off the top of my head, but it's certainly within the range of historical behaviors.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki might count.

[Pete at Home]

"I suspect it's more to convince the white, rural, anti-government set that police brutality is their problem, too. "

OK, a bit of remedial United States government and politics is in order. The Black lives matter bunch are concerned with STATE police and see the fed as their friend. The white extremists see the FED as their enemy.  Ruby Ridge and WACO did not have the effect you describe.  The result was a bit of non gun violence in a place called Oklahoma City.

[NobleHunter]

"I suspect it's more to convince the white, rural, anti-government set that police brutality is their problem, too. "

OK, a bit of remedial United States government and politics is in order. The Black lives matter bunch are concerned with STATE police and see the fed as their friend. The white extremists see the FED as their enemy.  Ruby Ridge and WACO did not have the effect you describe.  The result was a bit of non gun violence in a place called Oklahoma City.

We're talking about people suggesting as a massacre. I don't think such fine distinctions are going to occur to them.

[Pete at Home]

"We're talking about people suggesting as a massacre. "

?