The theory that Dems want to ban guns

[NobleHunter]

Suggesting a massacre, rather. Calling for the feds to go in shooting.

[Pete at Home]

 

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.

Agreed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki being terrorist acts where innocents were killed for PR purposes.

Targeted is inherent in the phrase innocents killed FOR PR PURPOSES. If their death was purposeful then they were the target. Innocents that died at Nagasaki were not collateral. They were part of the target.

Nevertheless Nagasaki was 75,years ago, and Al Qaeda is today.  We lack both good and bad attributes we had 75 years ago.

[Pete at Home]

Suggesting a massacre, rather. Calling for the feds to go in shooting.

Al did just that on this forum.  Robinson did not, but I say other lefties calling for such affirmative massacre.

[Seriati]

Claiming Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist acts where innocents were killed for PR purposes is a bit too much of judging through a revisionist modern lens.  The people involved were fighting a war where targeting civilians and infrastructure were deemed legitimate tactics to degrade the enemies ability and will to fight.  I get why you're tempted to do it, but it's not terribly accurate to hold the decision upto modern concepts that are based on an established belief in Geneva Conventions that were drafted after that war.

Their deaths certainly sent a message, but the purpose was way beyond public relations.

[Pete at Home]

You'd guess wrong as to my motives.  My definition  of terrorism as targeting innocents for PR purposes is NOT a product of any treaty or convention since WWII.

I have long defended the Hiroshima bombing as necessary to end the war, but when I was hired to assist  the terrorism and counter terrorism project back in law school, none of my research turned up any plausible non PR purpose for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The sole reason was to "send a message"

If you are saying that the bombings are less evil then because of laws and treaties encoded since then, I agree.  That's not at issue.  I am seeking to define terrorism to understand the act and it's consequences on the world.  I am not calling for an ex post facto criminal indictment.

[Pete at Home]

"The people involved were fighting a war where targeting civilians and infrastructure were deemed legitimate tactics to degrade the enemies ability and will to fight"

There was no significant infrastructure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  From what I researched, that is precisely why they were chosen as targets. Because they were pristine and untouched by the war, since there were no targets except for the people themselves.  The message was that the USA was throwing out the rule book. Targeting innocents to destroy the enemy's will is terrorism per se.  If that was considered legitimate, well, that's not the first nor the last time that terrorism was treated as a legitimate state tool. 

[Pete at Home]

Also, saying that it was terrorism doesn't necessarily mean I think it was not justified.  When a terrorist act saves five or more times as much life as it took, and inflicts less survivor trauma than otherwise would have occurred, then I tend to think the act could be argued justified.  The US action allowed an end to the war without the horror that was previously occurring every time any Japanese island was taken. Civilians leaping to their death.  No A bomb would have resulted in a Japan partitioned between the US and Russia ... and on the four islands Russia did take, not a single Japanese person lives to this day.  Sometimes Russia let's them visit their ancestors graves, but that's it.

[Seriati]

Pete, I didn't make a judgment about your motives.  And I'm not disputing that Hiroshima and Nagaski were evil acts.  I'm just pointing out that the universal recognition, and agreement, on that judgment came as a result of those acts and after those acts.  I was struck when I was reading Triplanetary, which was written in the mid-30's by the attitude of the characters towards weapons of mass destruction and targeting of civilians.  They didn't see a difference, other than scale in using regular weapons versus biological, chemical, nuclear weapons.  The main characters gas an entire city (killing everyone in it) to escape from a prison, and expected (and were correct) that it would be water under the bridge when treating with the enemy commander as a reasonable and legitimate tactic of war.  That's a very different mentality than what we hold as basic tenants today.

[Pete at Home]

Evil and vindictive I would slap on the firebombing of Dresden.

I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were correctly calculated to end the war with fewest casualties.  Horrible, yes, but I would not say evil.  God will judge.

[Pete at Home]

Good point about the targeting of civilians being considered legitimate pre Wwii.  But even then there needed to be some military objective.  If pr were legitimate then the motives behind Dresden would not have been "classified" for half a century.  They knew it was wrong when they did it.

[AI Wessex]

Suggesting a massacre, rather. Calling for the feds to go in shooting.

Al did just that on this forum.  Robinson did not, but I say other lefties calling for such affirmative massacre.

No, I didn't.

[Pete at Home]

Ah, so when you called for the BLM to raid that little armed fortress of folks you characterize as religious fanatics, you suppose it will go down NOT like Ruby Ridge or Waco?  Please explain how what you said was a call for anything other than a bloodbath.

[AI Wessex]

Ah, so when you called for the BLM to raid that little armed fortress of folks you characterize as religious fanatics, you suppose it will go down NOT like Ruby Ridge or Waco?  Please explain how what you said was a call for anything other than a bloodbath.

I don't enjoy being held hostage to your continual motive speculations and misreadings of what I say.  I said they should go in and arrest them.  I'd be quite happy if one lone BLM agent went in with a white flag and collected them.  If they refuse that gracious request, then a more forceful statement would be needed.  At the far end of absurdity would be going in with guns blazing.  Every possible measure should be taken to make sure that nobody is harmed.  If it comes to violence, the BLM agents and the bystanding members of the local population's safety comes before the armed occupiers.  They are breaking the law, destroying property and threatening to use weapons to "defend" themselves.  What they would be defending themselves against, no matter how little or much shooting might occur, is their lawful expulsion and/or arrest and any future legal and criminal proceedings taken against them.

Get me now?

[D.W.]

All morality is situational.  It does however have a lot of mass.  It isn't shifted easily or quickly, but it's far from immutable or absolute.

It only moves in a positive direction with extended periods of contentment.  The idea that we somehow became more enlightened during or post the Geneva convention would be laughable if not so sad.

We avoid atrocities because we don't need them to attain our goals.  Because we want shame or the threat of allied reprisal to shied us from falling victim to those atrocities.  And because it's valuable domesticly and among our allies to paint ourselves as "good guys".

Good auto corrects as google?  Suspicious android phone, very suspicious. ..

[AI Wessex]

And because it's valuable domestic and among our allies to paint ouselvrs as "Google guys".

Gosh, I hope you don't correct that .

[D.W.]

Too late. 

[Fenring]

Al, it seems your explanation of what you'd like to see amounts to "get them out of there using any means necessary, but try using peaceful methods first." Under the assumption that waving a white flag won't get them to leave, you therefore endorse going in and gunning them down? They have, in fact, stated directly that they won't leave and are willing to die for their cause. It doesn't sound like your white flag strategy is likely to work, which basically means you think they should be taken out. Or am I misreading what you wrote?

[D.W.]

While I think "wait them out" is a good plan, choosing not to enforce some laws seems to generate a lot of criticism for a certain high profile someone.

[Pete at Home]

Ah, so when you called for the BLM to raid that little armed fortress of folks you characterize as religious fanatics, you suppose it will go down NOT like Ruby Ridge or Waco?  Please explain how what you said was a call for anything other than a bloodbath.

I don't enjoy being held hostage to your continual motive speculations and misreadings of what I say.  I said they should go in and arrest them.  I'd be quite happy if one lone BLM agent went in with a white flag and collected them.  If they refuse that gracious request, then a more forceful statement would be needed.  At the far end of absurdity would be going in with guns blazing.  Every possible measure should be taken to make sure that nobody is harmed.  If it comes to violence, the BLM agents and the bystanding members of the local population's safety comes before the armed occupiers.  They are breaking the law, destroying property and threatening to use weapons to "defend" themselves.  What they would be defending themselves against, no matter how little or much shooting might occur, is their lawful expulsion and/or arrest and any future legal and criminal proceedings taken against them.

Get me now?

Getting you would require a motive inference.  Anyone with more brains that gallstone understands that "going in" as you recommended in an earlier post, would result in a bloodbath.  Go in and arrest them was the instruction at Ruby Ridge and Masada.  When I say that you called for a massacre, I do not accuse you of being smart enough to know that's what you called for.  But haste makes human paste in these situations.

Sure, blm personel lives deserve hight consideration that trespassing gunmen.  But my proposal, cut the power, freeze them out, then arrest them, is safer for everyone.

[Pete at Home]

While I think "wait them out" is a good plan, choosing not to enforce some laws seems to generate a lot of criticism for a certain high profile someone.

Choosing not to enforce what laws?  What law is there requiring an immediate raid?  A competent executive will time the arrests to minimize risk and loss of life.

[D.W.]

That a riddle Pete?  A joke?

I don't know.   What laws?

[Pete at Home]

I wasn't being rhetorical.  Trying to understand what you were referring to in that sentence.

[D.W.]

MY comment, was a barb at all the anti-Obama crowd (I rank you among them).  Part of his immigration policy (or at least a frequent criticism of it) is to just choose not to aggressively enforce laws.  It was an example of dark humor, and I thought another way to illustrate that this situation really can be used as a lightning rod for pretty much any topic either directly or by pointing out hypocrisy.

However, you instead interpret it (despite my totally contrary qualifying lead sentence) as a call to act with all haste and against logic to storm the gates.  Suggesting not only that I think it's a good plan but that I somehow suggested they were legally obliged to do just that.

So rather than dignifying that with the usual "Pete, you are putting words in my mouth" that others seem to favor, I decided to be a smartass in my reply.

Does that sufficiently explain things and squeeze every attempt at wittiness or humor out of the conversation?

To be even less fun, Pete, you seem to WANT any liberal leaning individual to demonstrate the bloodlust you are talking about.  I agree that it exists but you are acting like you want to paint the whole party with that brush and it's disturbing.

[Pete at Home]

I know you don't think it's a good plan.  My response is that it's also not required by law.

I don't have a problem with Obama so much as his worshippers, and don't count you among them.

[AI Wessex]

Al, it seems your explanation of what you'd like to see amounts to "get them out of there using any means necessary, but try using peaceful methods first." Under the assumption that waving a white flag won't get them to leave, you therefore endorse going in and gunning them down? They have, in fact, stated directly that they won't leave and are willing to die for their cause. It doesn't sound like your white flag strategy is likely to work, which basically means you think they should be taken out. Or am I misreading what you wrote?

I have no idea, it's *your* interpretation .  If you think I'm advocating violence and violence must not be used and they won't come out willingly, then you are saying it's ok for them to have done what they did and to do whatever else they want to do.  Or am I misreading you?

I don't have a problem with Obama so much as his worshippers, and don't count you among them.

You seem to have a bottomless well of ill-will and willful misunderstanding.  I'm waiting for you to reassert that I have a blood lust urge to go in guns ablazing and wipe out them varmints.

[Fenring]

Al, it seems your explanation of what you'd like to see amounts to "get them out of there using any means necessary, but try using peaceful methods first." Under the assumption that waving a white flag won't get them to leave, you therefore endorse going in and gunning them down? They have, in fact, stated directly that they won't leave and are willing to die for their cause. It doesn't sound like your white flag strategy is likely to work, which basically means you think they should be taken out. Or am I misreading what you wrote?

I have no idea, it's *your* interpretation .  If you think I'm advocating violence and violence must not be used and they won't come out willingly, then you are saying it's ok for them to have done what they did and to do whatever else they want to do.  Or am I misreading you?

Not sure if you're being coy or what. I was trying to ask you if I read your statement correctly. Saying that any attempt to understand your comment is just *my* interpretation pretty well throws out the window the notion of communication, does it not? I would appreciate if you could just answer the question about whether you meant that or not. If not then you meant something else; in which case, what? My opinion of whether violence must not be used is immaterial to understand first what you wrote. Once I understand it I can add my opinion to it. Pete has already expressed, for instance, a way of dealing with this non-violently although it could be a slow process.

It also does not follow that declining to use lethal force to deal with these people implies that it's ok for them to have done what they did.

[Pete at Home]

Funny thing is that it's traditionally the arch conservative flatulosauruses that talk about police brutality and military like shooting of protesters as "teach them a lesson."  That talk as if extrajudicial punishment was the neatest thing since *censored*able hunting trophies.  But every couple decades the lefties get this itch of their own.

It never occurred to the feds to try to serve that warrant on Ruby Ridge peacefully.  There was a dog sniffing about so they shot the dog.  Then a 14 year old came looking for his dog ... he'd heard the shot, and came with his rifle.  So the feds took him out too.  Couldn't risk the surprise party for his dad.  By the time they got round to the house, the pregnant housewife in the doorway holding a baby looked like an irresistible target...

Wonderful opportunity for white supremacist gun nuts to sympathize with blacks who protest police brutality?  That's awful optimistic.  Anyway that's not what happened.  Oklahoma city happened.  Which in a way was a triumph of progressive social engineering since it was carried out without guns.

[Pete at Home]

To be even less fun, Pete, you seem to WANT any liberal leaning individual to demonstrate the bloodlust you are talking about.  I agree that it exists but you are acting like you want to paint the whole party with that brush and it's disturbing.

Nope.  First of all I'm part of the party, and have been for 15 years.  Strong Sanders fan.  Second, if you look back, I've only zinged people on this thread that have used terms like "Double Standards" to describe the Ammon Bundy standoff.  I've explained why I think that is death-dealing bullcrap. 

I credit Barack Obama's administration for being smarter than his dumb-ass worshippers who say that his only flaw is being too patient with those who stubbornly refuse to bow down and worship him.  I credit Barack Obama for being a better crisis leader than Bill Clinton and for picking subordinates less bloodthirsty than Janet Reno.

What do you want from me, "Hail Barry Full of Grace"?

Not all Democrats or lefties are so stupid as to think that this is an issue of double standards.  A slow safe approach in this situation is protocol, since sending in the troops is something we only do when there's a breach of the peace, when people are in danger, etc.  Unless that post is a secret chemical weapons depot, there's no reason to get them out that's worth putting Fed agents at risk.  And when you consider the history of incidents like Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City, that's all the more reason to avoid a stupid unnecessary shootout.

[Pete at Home]

"MY comment, was a barb at all the anti-Obama crowd (I rank you among them).  Part of his immigration policy (or at least a frequent criticism of it) is to just choose not to aggressively enforce laws."

Evidently you don't have any idea who the hell you are talking to.  Were you not on the forum in 2009 when I was talking about my clients with immigration concerns?  One of my clients, a Mexican married to a US citizen, three kids with her plus raising and supporting two of her kids from a previous marriage. One of the daughters was dying of cancer.  At one point they changed his jail, refused to let him see me, his attorney, for 24 hours while they deprived him of food, water, and sleep until he agreed to sign away his rights to contest his deportation.  And the Admin that I tried to appeal it to said that none of that was a "HUMANITARIAN CONSIDERATION."  If you think for one moment that I'm upset with Obama for not being vigorous ENOUGH on immigration, you are ... wrong.

Wrong.

WRONG.

[Athelstan]

Apologies for not finding the right quote but the Peterloo Massacre, in England, was mentioned so I thought I’d butt in.

The Manchester Yeomanry that first charged the peaceful protest meeting held at St Peter’s Field (Peterloo), August 1819, were in fact the Militia. The Militia was not popular among the dispossessed of Britain, being seen as a tool of the Government and vested interest. No mill worker could afford the equipment or the unpaid time for training needed to belong to the Militia in the 19th Century.

The Peterloo Massacre was used by others to preach the idea of non-violent protest. Something used in later political struggles in Britain although perhaps not as a Foreign Policy. In the year of Revolutions (1848) the Chartists adopted non-violence to press their claims for Parliamentary Reform. So successful was this non-violent action that Britain’s 1848 revolution turned into something like a picnic.

The Militia in Britain are seen as the oppressors of Liberty whereas, I guess, in the US the Militia are seen by some as the supporters of Liberty. This might affect our different positions on gun control. I suppose the US, Britain and Canada all have their Militia Myths.

Far from being a political Left/Right split over the issue of gun control in the UK it is more of a Town/Country (i.e. Rural) split.

[AI Wessex]

Not sure if you're being coy or what. I was trying to ask you if I read your statement correctly. Saying that any attempt to understand your comment is just *my* interpretation pretty well throws out the window the notion of communication, does it not? I would appreciate if you could just answer the question about whether you meant that or not.

I don't know how to clarify further.  I did see that one of the occupiers was arrested for theft after taking a government vehicle into the nearby town to buy groceries.  If they can talk them into surrendering or blockading anyone else from entering the compound, this might all end fairly quickly and peacefully.  There are two fairly obvious problems with the current situation that increase the urgency to get it resolved:

1. They are illegally occupying federal land and committing other crimes while present. They have no rights that endow them with that privilege.  Why should armed criminals who have committed many crimes be treated with deference?

2. They are zealots who believe they are acting in accordance with God's commands.  That raises the risk that they would, like fanatics in other religions and cultures, prefer to go out in a blaze of glory to provoke a wider violent conflagration.

The problem for everyone who is not one of the occupiers is that not that our laws are being tested, but that their willingness to submit to our laws and our determination to enforce them are.  In other words, they are a product of the anti-government fringe elements in our country who believe that they can wave the Constitution in our faces as if it is in itself a weapon while violating its principles at the same time.

To put it yet another way, WE are their hostages because believing in the rule of law somehow has made us powerless.  If the government doesn't end this insurrection soon, more of us will be taken hostage at other locations.  If that happens the parallels and similarities between such "home-grown" groups and foreign ones we look down on will become stronger. 

Violence is the last resort to resolve this situation, but the situation needs to be resolved sooner rather than later before others take their cue from the lack of an effective response.

[Pete at Home]

Apologies for not finding the right quote but the Peterloo Massacre, in England, was mentioned so I thought I’d butt in.

The Manchester Yeomanry that first charged the peaceful protest meeting held at St Peter’s Field (Peterloo), August 1819, were in fact the Militia. The Militia was not popular among the dispossessed of Britain, being seen as a tool of the Government and vested interest. No mill worker could afford the equipment or the unpaid time for training needed to belong to the Militia in the 19th Century.

The Peterloo Massacre was used by others to preach the idea of non-violent protest. Something used in later political struggles in Britain although perhaps not as a Foreign Policy. In the year of Revolutions (1848) the Chartists adopted non-violence to press their claims for Parliamentary Reform. So successful was this non-violent action that Britain’s 1848 revolution turned into something like a picnic.

The Militia in Britain are seen as the oppressors of Liberty whereas, I guess, in the US the Militia are seen by some as the supporters of Liberty. This might affect our different positions on gun control. I suppose the US, Britain and Canada all have their Militia Myths.

Far from being a political Left/Right split over the issue of gun control in the UK it is more of a Town/Country (i.e. Rural) split.

The difference is that the militia that cut up women and children with Sabers at Peterloo were operating under color of law and were not prosecuted.  (My masters Thesis was on William Hazlitt so my sources may be a tad biased against George IV and his toadies, so feel free to correct, Athelstan). A better analogy for the militia at Peterloo would be our weekend warriors, the National Guard. The US groups called "militia" today have no legal equivalent in Great Britain.  Private clubs with no color of law.  And no, they aren't popular.  The only disagreement here is between those who are willing to treat them as ordinary nonviolent criminals so long as they don't do anything violent, and those like Al, who talk as if not creating a butch/Sundance shootout situation constitutes some sort of special white "privilege" and "deference."

"They have no rights that endow them with that privilege.  Why should armed criminals who have committed many crimes be treated with deference?"

Al, your false insistence that Obama is treating these guys with "deference" as if they were "privileged" over other protesting groups, is either cynically calculated to inspire violence, or as irresponsible as a human being can be without being critical reckless.  You are standing outside a movie theater door and screaming fire at a street lamp.  Than heavens Ornery is not a big crowded theater.  In another venue you could have provoked violence with these death dealing falsehoods.

[D.W.]

AI's last post said a lot of what I was going to, better, as far as why "doing nothing" is bull*censored*, but that doesn't mean "go in guns blazing". 

Wonderful opportunity for white supremacist gun nuts to sympathize with blacks who protest police brutality?  That's awful optimistic.

No, it's just dumb.  And not what people expect to happen.  But if you wanted to show a culture of "use force in the face of any questioning of authority" both sides COULD use the events of the other for their own argument.   If that was the narrative you wanted to push.  So even action, as well as failure to act is fodder for potential trouble down the road.

The whole situation is death-dealing bullcrap.  Labeling aspects of this situation as double standards strips away context.  You see that loss of context as premeditated.  I think SOME people are doing that.  Most of them however have just been trained to not give a *censored* about context.  They want the catchy character limited tweet, the topical meme with a funny picture on it that they can share.  They want to read the headline and go "I knew it!" and probably never bother clicking the link.  But that's OK, it was probably just a 5 page load click bait to say nothing of substance anyway, if it was even related to the headline. 

I could care less if you are a tried and true Democrat that just has an amazing amount of disdain for Obama or Hillary and can't help but bash anyone who refuses to say at least one bad thing about them.  But to answer your question, I did miss your anecdote when you discussed it previously.  I run hot and cold on my participation here.  Guess that was a cold week.  The only reason I brought up immigration at all was to make the point that one of his exercising of executive power was to decline to deport some illegal immigrants.  I was drawing an (apparently bloodthirsty) parallel to not attempting to enforce the law.  I wasn't implying anything about your opinion of Obama's immigration policy or even that this criticism of him, or of the federal officers in this standoff is a fair one.

Al, your false insistence that Obama is treating these guys with "deference" as if they were "privileged" over other protesting groups, is either cynically calculated to inspire violence, or as irresponsible as a human being can be without being critical reckless.

Obama's fault huh?  He's calling the shots here?  The president called them up in the field and said, "WOAH, don't start shooting, these guys are white and if we make martyrs out of them it will totally blow Hillary and my grand vision for the next 9 years!" 

Luckily we have AI, myself and others demanding the president personally green light an immediate assault leaving no survivors that would make Tom Clancy go, "Damn I wish I thought of that, that was some action packed patriotic *censored* right there!"

That about it?  The way I see it we are all on the same page yet partisanship or dislike of specific politicians is making us jump at shadows.

[Pete at Home]

"
To put it yet another way, WE are their hostages because believing in the rule of law somehow has made us powerless"

That sounds like sheet head talk.

There's nothing powerless about waiting for them to come out for groceries.  Fortunately Obama seems to understand that you don't lose control of yourself to gain management of a situation.  I think Sanders will fill those shoes well.  Not as confident about Clinton. 

[Pete at Home]

Pull your head out, DW.  I am the one defending Obama here.  Al is the one attacking Obama's policy even though he doesn't admit it's Obama's policy.

I don't think that Obama is being restrained because these guys are white.  Don't put that into my mouth.

Sarcasm doesn't work well when you don't understand what you are responding to.  Unless you are intentionally playing a Homer Simpson.  I can't tell.

[D.W.]

I don't think Obama has anything to do with this...

[Pete at Home]

"Obama's fault huh?  He's calling the shots here?  The president called them up in the field and said, "WOAH, don't start shooting, these guys are white and if we make martyrs out of them it will totally blow Hillary and my grand vision for the next 9 years!" 

Isn't that more or less what Al is saying?

 Myself, I think Obama is making the right call (wait and arrest when they come out) for the right reasons (because this isn't a situation where lethal force is justified). 

This isn't the first time that I have praised the Obama admin for acting correctly.  You have mischaracterized me, while I at worst have misunderstood a few things you said and misunderstood sarcasm over the internet.

As far as judging YOU, Politically you are closer to my own views than anyone else in ornery's history, including my own Alternate avatars. So I'm amused that you think I would demonize you.

[Pete at Home]

I don't think Obama has anything to do with this...

I find myself in the position of defending Obama against your charge of incompetence against him.  I recognize that you may not be aware that you have so charged him, but I don't want to insult your intelligence by explaining it to you. 

Why don't you explain it?  What does Truman's buck stops here aphorism mean with respect to Obama's oversight in this situation?  What's the best thing he could do as president at this point?

[D.W.]

I have the ridiculous notion that our federal law enforcement officers do not consult with Obama and his press secretary before wiping their ass.  I believe that while they are probably reminded often by their superiors that all eyes are on them and they can't afford any mistakes they do NOT, give a crap what the president thinks.

Now maybe he does micromanage each field agent to that level.  If so, WOW.  I already thought the guy pretty much walks on water but now?  Amazing!

Now, if the SHTF on this one, do I think he will make a statement on how we as a nation need to do more to fight against a gun culture which allows such tragedies to happen?  Yes, yes I do.  Incompetence would be him thinking that from the White House he could or should dictate tactics to the agents on the ground.  As I don't believe he would do that or is doing so, you don't need to defend him.  Is he likely getting sit reps beyond watching it unfold on the news?  Of course.   

And yes, I'll probably continue making this more and more absurd or Homerish.  Nobody is listening to each other anyway. 

Should we wait for AI to come in and confirm that he does NOT want an action movie blood bath to happen ASAP, preferably with live streamed cams broadcast to TWITCH or Youtube? 

Your persecution fetish has given you a blind spot.  That or your obsession with Obama.  I'm not sure which drives this particular bus.

The BEST thing he could do, is stay out of it.  I'll concede he does have the (awful) habit of commenting on unfolding events so I can't be sure he will "do nothing".

[D.W.]

And yes, I know declining to comment on unfolding events can be just as damning as saying the wrong thing, or to be even more cynical, failing to monopolize on an opportunity to push an agenda.

[AI Wessex]

Pull your head out, DW.  I am the one defending Obama here.  Al is the one attacking Obama's policy even though he doesn't admit it's Obama's policy.

I feel moved to speculate that you are doing two physically impossible things with your body at the same time.  You aren't actually defending Obama because he's not an actor, unless you think he runs around with a whistle and stopwatch directing every activity the Executive works on.  But, if you want to make that claim about yourself then allow me to make the same claim about myself.  I have no idea what that means, but that really doesn't matter in this kind of discussion.  Just call me a conservative, I guess, but a liberal one. Hope that clarifies. 

Isn't that more or less what Al is saying?

I haven't (as yet) raised their whiteness as an issue.  It's possible that the government is being overly cautious because these are religious Christian extremists rather than non-whites or non-Christian religious believers, and nobody in government wants more religious nuts to trek across the tundra to join these wingnuts in support of the JOP (Jesus Olde Party) they think they represent.

The BEST thing he could do, is stay out of it.  I'll concede he does have the (awful) habit of commenting on unfolding events so I can't be sure he will "do nothing".

Perhaps his greatest flaw, albeit yet another one driven by an impulse to give voice to his conscience.  Obama is an interesting example of a President with a strong moral sense who does not seem to rely on his religious feelings to find his compass.  That he doesn't wear them on his sleeve gives evidence (by absence) to religious conservatives to speculate that he is a Muslim or even the anti-Christ.  Like these wackos in Oregon, they think he should bow down to what they do.  What a country!

[Pete at Home]

(Snip a few off base and fortunate uncharacteristic motive inferences)

The BEST thing he could do, is stay out of it.  ".

Mostly agreed. The best he can do is to SEEM like he isn't involved be having the Pres respond gives too much attention to these guys.  But you can bet he's having someone he trusts monitor the situation.  This is good crisis leadership, and there's no reason to not credit him.

I don't blame him for Louisiana because there was state sovereignty that needed to be respected.  I don't blame him for Bengali because Mrs Clinton was an unavoidable political appointee. But here, this is a pure federal domestic issue with a relatively fresh unblooded Attorney General.  It's on federal land in a protest aimed at the fed, with federal agents on the scene.  The buck stops at the president on this. He might not be calling the shots, but you can bet that he's having it watched in case someone starts to call the wrong shots.  Anyway, I am quite pleased at his handling of this so far.  Go Obama.

[Pete at Home]

"Just call me a conservative, I guess, but a liberal one. Hope that clarifies"

It does, to me.  Some time when you aren't pissed at me or reading me sideways, let's chat about that and see if you mean what I think you mean.  (Question authority, contemplate every new thing and hold onto that which is good).

[Athelstan]

The difference is that the militia that cut up women and children with Sabers at Peterloo were operating under color of law and were not prosecuted.  (My masters Thesis was on William Hazlitt so my sources may be a tad biased against George IV and his toadies, so feel free to correct, Athelstan). A better analogy for the militia at Peterloo would be our weekend warriors, the National Guard. The US groups called "militia" today have no legal equivalent in Great Britain.  Private clubs with no color of law.  And no, they aren't popular.  The only disagreement here is between those who are willing to treat them as ordinary nonviolent criminals so long as they don't do anything violent, and those like Al, who talk as if not creating a butch/Sundance shootout situation constitutes some sort of special white "privilege" and "deference."

I’m sure you know that the Kent State Massacre was forty-six years ago and I also believe you know something good eventually came out of that tragic event.  I hold no brief for any 19th Century Government or Monarch.

My political persuasion is that in the English Civil War I would have been a Parliamentarian and would have approved, if anyone had asked me, of the execution of Charles I. The problem with that little episode is that no one had a clear idea of what was going to replace him. Not the last time that’ll happen. I believe some, probably Hamilton, accused Jefferson of wanting to become a Cromwell.

There is no doubt that political repression followed Peterloo just as it had followed the the Government’s insecurity after the American and French Revolutions. The person blamed by people at the time, including Shelley in his famous poem and I believe Hazlitt (of whom I know little), was Lord Castlereagh, although he does seem to have his fans both sides of the pond.

A person more of my ilk, although I’m not sure I’d like him if I met him, was Thomas Paine. He wrote concerning self-defence “a man has a natural right to redress himself whenever he is injured, but the full exercise of this, as a natural right, would be dangerous to society, because it admits him a judge in his own cause.” – Thomas Paine – A Political Life – John Keane.

[AI Wessex]

The "magnet effect" is now operating in Oregon.

One of the people who have joined the Bundy family on a federal wildlife sanctuary in an arid patch of Oregon is an avowed anti-Semite from Ohio. One is an anti-Islamic ideologue from Phoenix.

Another is an online radio host — also from Ohio — who uses terms like “Obamislamistan.”

Some are militant gun-rights activists, and one is a man who has declared himself to be a judge and plans to convene a “citizens’ grand jury” in order to put the government on trial.
...
Some are members of the so-called Patriot movement, an umbrella effort of antigovernment activists that includes groups like the Oath Keepers, an organization of law enforcement officers and military veterans, and the 3 Percent of Idaho, which focuses on the Second Amendment and derives its name from the supposed 3 percent of the colonial population that took up arms against the British.
...
The local authorities, as well as many local residents, have made it clear that they would like them all to leave.

At first, the logic behind the conflict seemed coherent: The Bundy brothers, sons of the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who made national news two years ago by facing down the government over cattle-grazing fees, wanted the federal government to turn its land holdings over to private citizens and local control. In recent days, however, the protest has metastasized and started drawing a motley cast of fellow travelers.

[Pete at Home]

do you suppose this motley group would not be there if the government had gone in blasting?

[AI Wessex]

do you suppose this motley group would not be there if the government had gone in blasting?

Nobody is stepping up to the plate, so the situation is festering and can only get worse.  At this point I don't understand why the feds aren't actively trying to resolve the situation.  The local police are completely overwhelmed and can't do anything more than direct traffic.

[Pete at Home]

do you suppose this motley group would not be there if the government had gone in blasting?

Nobody is stepping up to the plate, so the situation is festering and can only get worse.

I don't want to misinterpret you as you said I did before, so to be more precise,

1. What precisely would constitute "stepping up to the plate" in your view?

2. Whose responsibility do you think it is to "step up to the plate." ? Who is the ultimate responsible authority?

3. Why did you not actually answer the question in the post you cited in your last reply?

[Fenring]

I'd like to pose this question as well:

The thread topic began as a question about gun rights and whether people trust the government (or certain people in it) to not cross certain boundaries in the long term. This fear of government 'coming for your guns' is perhaps part of the larger issue of government encroachment into private life and whether it ought to be the place of the federal government to dictate how society 'should look' and how people in local communities should have to behave. Some view it as the state's role to do this, while others no doubt would prefer it to be even more local.

One of the chief complaints the Bundy's are issuing is about government encroachment in land ownership in the west and how, because it has assumed such a large jurisdiction over much of the land out West, the government is in a position to potentially bully people. The Bundy's in particular along with other ranchers have had trouble with the Feds in the past with what they see as bullying, in part the attempt to bully them off of their land (the 'land grab') for the purposes of using that space for larger projects or to add to the nature reserve the Feds maintain under the BLM. The Bundy's, despite doing so against the wishes of the Hammonds, are protesting what they see as the federal government bullying the Hammonds and using their massive power to push them around.

With the situation being what it is now, and some ranchers and militia people occupying a federal compound in order to protest government bullying, would it not play right into their claim for the Feds to go right in and bust heads? This question doesn't even presuppose that their claim is completely accurate, but if they're objecting to federal government pushing people around, would it not be quite ironic for the solution to this situation to be to bring power to bear and swiftly end it by pushing them around? I do not endorse illegal actions when I say this, but for those proposing the government must act swiftly to end this (whatever that means, which Pete has asked about a few times) does this strategy not bear the risk of making the ranchers' complaints look legitimate? In fact, does it not bear the risk of proving that their complaints actually are legitimate? The Oregon fire chief, who just resigned after decades on the job on account of how the government is handling the situation (he also alleges that he exposed FBI agents provocateurs among the militia there), has said that in that area the ranchers and local government all knew each other and were used to dealing with matters locally and without major problems. They could solve it amicably for the most part. He says he knew the Hammonds and the Bundys, and whatever problems they had with the government or the government had with them (it went both ways) was solved locally but people who knew each other. The idea of some overarching federal government coming in to dictate terms, prosecute people, and push its weight around was antithetical to how they wanted problems there to be solved.

It's hard to say for sure whether there's real merit to the arguments made by the Bundy's, and also by the ex-fire chief, but if the Feds did go in and end this fast, it certainly wouldn't go very far towards demonstrating that they were wrong. Sure, the federal government can use brute force easily, but does the fact that it can mean it should? In his response to my question of whether going in guns blazing was the best solution, Al insisted I wasn't listening to what he was saying and reiterated that a non-violent approach would be better. Maybe I did miss his point, but if non-violence is the best way then what would that entail, as an actual plan? I would assert that these people won't back down 'swiftly', even though in the long-term they might. If a swift solution is 'required' and if going in shooting isn't the plan, what is the plan? Pete's proposed solution would be non-violent but would be slower. If that's too slow for some, and if the ranchers won't back down anytime soon, does that mean going in shooting? How would such an action affect those Americans who do view the federal government as being a bully that tries to control everyone?

[AI Wessex]

1. What precisely would constitute "stepping up to the plate" in your view?

They're criminals, so this is a law enforcement problem.  Give them an order to leave the premises, with the implication that they will be held liable for damages and privacy violations they committed. 

2. Whose responsibility do you think it is to "step up to the plate." ? Who is the ultimate responsible authority?

It's federal land, so federal authorities.

3. Why did you not actually answer the question in the post you cited in your last reply?

I don't know what question you are referring to.

Fenring, I'm not really following the argument you're making.  These are federal lands, so the federal government has jurisdiction.  Do you think otherwise?  Why do you think the government managing the land is "bullying"? 

t's hard to say for sure whether there's real merit to the arguments made by the Bundy's, and also by the ex-fire chief, but if the Feds did go in and end this fast, it certainly wouldn't go very far towards demonstrating that they were wrong. Sure, the federal government can use brute force easily, but does the fact that it can mean it should? In his response to my question of whether going in guns blazing was the best solution, Al insisted I wasn't listening to what he was saying and reiterated that a non-violent approach would be better. Maybe I did miss his point, but if non-violence is the best way then what would that entail, as an actual plan? I would assert that these people won't back down 'swiftly', even though in the long-term they might. If a swift solution is 'required' and if going in shooting isn't the plan, what is the plan? Pete's proposed solution would be non-violent but would be slower. If that's too slow for some, and if the ranchers won't back down anytime soon, does that mean going in shooting? How would such an action affect those Americans who do view the federal government as being a bully that tries to control everyone?

Not my bailiwick how they should do it.