Militia Cleanup: Did you say take away their kids?

[Washington Resistance Army]

There is practically nothing these morons and Daesh have in common.

Not even being misguided armed eejits?

That's really about it honestly. Either way, hopefully this nonsense blows over soon.

There is practically nothing these morons and Daesh have in common.

Would you prefer 'Y'all Qaeda', then?

Both are pretty stupid.

[Teemant]

Eventhough what they are doing is not legal I don't think you can compare them with ISIS.

But I have to say that this forum is very consistent and care about following laws only according to their political positions. When it comes to drugs nobody even cares here that they are illegal, when anarchists and lefties throw stones and molotovs at police officers then it is a peaceful protest, whistleblowers showed as some kind of heroes. Go figure.

I'll take this as an admission that you do recognize that carrying the guns had a purpose, and further acknowledge your attempt to win the gold medal in the 500m backpedal.

What am I backpedaling here? Care to explain more.
I'm just saying that when they simply carry guns this isn't same as using them. They could've occupied empty house even without carrying guns to be fair.

[Salus Maior]

There is practically nothing these morons and Daesh have in common.

Would you prefer 'Y'all Qaeda', then?

Considering this isn't anything close to terrorism, any kind of comparison to terrorist group would be incredibly over-dramatic.

[Imperializt Russia]

Gross misrepresentation and generalisation of a wide variety of people and political positions and outright lies. Top criticism.

The generalisation is based on my own experiences using this forum for almost 1.5 years.

Misremembering those experiences, apparently.

[Teemant]

The generalisation is based on my own experiences using this forum for almost 1.5 years.

Misremembering those experiences, apparently.

Well people who I was talking about most likely would disagree with me.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'll take this as an admission that you do recognize that carrying the guns had a purpose, and further acknowledge your attempt to win the gold medal in the 500m backpedal.

What am I backpedaling here? Care to explain more.
I'm just saying that when they simply carry guns this isn't same as using them. They could've occupied empty house even without carrying guns to be fair.

They could've. And no-one would've cared.

Because that way, they wouldn't have occupied federal buildings with the sole purpose of daring the federal government to evict them, and carrying firearms with the sole purpose of dissuading the federal government from doing that.

They have definitely "used" their firearms in the pursuit of their goals.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

What am I backpedaling here? Care to explain more.

You attemped to change the subject the moment you didn't have a good answer.

I'm just saying that when they simply carry guns this isn't same as using them. They could've occupied empty house even without carrying guns to be fair.

So why didn't they?

Would you prefer 'Y'all Qaeda', then?

Considering this isn't anything close to terrorism, any kind of comparison to terrorist group would be incredibly over-dramatic.

Is it possible that calling them that wasn't a direct, serious comparison on my half, and was instead something else?

[Neutraligon]

I'll take this as an admission that you do recognize that carrying the guns had a purpose, and further acknowledge your attempt to win the gold medal in the 500m backpedal.

What am I backpedaling here? Care to explain more.
I'm just saying that when they simply carry guns this isn't same as using them. They could've occupied empty house even without carrying guns to be fair.

Correct simply carrying guns does not mean one is "using them." Displaying ones guns and then occupying a building, and insinuating you will use those guns should someone attempt to remove you from said building is using a gun however.

[Teemant]

What am I backpedaling here? Care to explain more.

You attemped to change the subject the moment you didn't have a good answer.

I'm just saying that when they simply carry guns this isn't same as using them. They could've occupied empty house even without carrying guns to be fair.

So why didn't they?

Considering this isn't anything close to terrorism, any kind of comparison to terrorist group would be incredibly over-dramatic.

Is it possible that calling them that wasn't a direct, serious comparison on my half, and was instead something else?

What subject I tried to change? What position did I backpedal?
Please tell me.

[Ifreann]

Gross misrepresentation and generalisation of a wide variety of people and political positions and outright lies. Top criticism.

The generalisation is based on my own experiences using this forum for almost 1.5 years.

That's nice. You're still conflating the views of everyone who disagrees with you as though we're all one homogeneous hivemind. You might want to try being more specific than accusing the entire forum of being inconsistent. You won't be able to run the thread off on a tangent as easily, but you might stumble upon a criticism of actual value.

[Agritum]

I'll take this as an admission that you do recognize that carrying the guns had a purpose, and further acknowledge your attempt to win the gold medal in the 500m backpedal.

What am I backpedaling here? Care to explain more.
I'm just saying that when they simply carry guns this isn't same as using them. They could've occupied empty house even without guns to be fair.

Ever since the dawn of civilization, bringing around weapons, even as a purely ceremonial object, has always signified that the carrier of said weapon was a person of power: afterall, they could kill someone with it. You can see this in the European Middle Ages' unwritten rule about only noblemen being permitted to wield swords (one of the most lethal weapons of the age, capable of cutting through leather armor and piercing plate one). See, it's all about power through the threat of violence, which is the same reason why some countries (oh, America) issue handguns to all patrol cops.

So yes, Bundy and his ilk are using guns as a threat, a way to amp up their potential for violent retaliation. Why would they bring them out, afterall?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

You attemped to change the subject the moment you didn't have a good answer.



So why didn't they?



Is it possible that calling them that wasn't a direct, serious comparison on my half, and was instead something else?

What subject I tried to change? What position did I backpedal?
Please tell me.

There you go again. Why don't you answer the question I asked you instead?

[Teemant]

What subject I tried to change? What position did I backpedal?
Please tell me.

There you go again. Why don't you answer the question I asked you instead?

I am asking what position I changed?

[Ifreann]

Would you prefer 'Y'all Qaeda', then?

Considering this isn't anything close to terrorism, any kind of comparison to terrorist group would be incredibly over-dramatic.

Well Al Qaeda just wanted the US to change its policies wrt the Middle East when they attacked the US government. Yall Qaeda here are trying to get the government to actually cede land to them. "Terrorist" might be an understatement.

[Alvecia]

I'll take this as an admission that you do recognize that carrying the guns had a purpose, and further acknowledge your attempt to win the gold medal in the 500m backpedal.

What am I backpedaling here? Care to explain more.
I'm just saying that when they simply carry guns this isn't same as using them. They could've occupied empty house even without carrying guns to be fair.

Logic dictates that if you take guns to a hostile federal building takeover, you have every intention of using them. Either by firing, or has been mentioned several times already, by threatening to use them. They would not have brought guns if they did not intend to use them, or they would not have brought them.
Hell, even carrying a gun implies intent to use.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

There you go again. Why don't you answer the question I asked you instead?

I am asking what position I changed?

And also repeatedly dodging the question I asked. So I'll ask it again - why didn't the country bumpkins occupy the building unarmed?

[Valaran]

But I have to say that this forum is very consistent and care about following laws only according to their political positions.

I'm not sure that this is so widely true. We are at liberty to criticise laws, and we often take this liberty, but that doesn't mean that we don't accept that these aren't laws (we just might believe said laws are idiotic and shouldn't be laws)

When it comes to drugs nobody even cares here that they are illegal,

Well, it depends on what nation you're in.

when anarchists and lefties throw stones and molotovs at police officers then it is a peaceful protest

I don't believe that this is a universally recognised definition on this forum; furthermore, one shouldn't always conflate anarchists with other 'lefties'.

whistleblowers showed as some kind of heroes.

Often, corporate whislteblowers highlight illegal operations in companies. That's why they get afforded legal protection.

I mean, I know you were thinking of Snowden and his ilk when you said this, but whistleblower is a very broad term, and yes a lot of them are upstanding citizens, so take care when bandying the term around.

[Teemant]

What am I backpedaling here? Care to explain more.
I'm just saying that when they simply carry guns this isn't same as using them. They could've occupied empty house even without carrying guns to be fair.

Logic dictates that if you take guns to a hostile federal building takeover, you have every intention of using them. Either by firing, or has been mentioned several times already, by threatening to use them. They would not have brought guns if they did not intend to use them, or they would not have brought them.
Hell, even carrying a gun implies intent to use.

Some people carry guns everyday and that is the reason why I don't think carrying = using. But I think that when police would show up and surround the building and they would point guns at police or something like that, then it would be using guns.

[Tekeristan]

Logic dictates that if you take guns to a hostile federal building takeover, you have every intention of using them. Either by firing, or has been mentioned several times already, by threatening to use them. They would not have brought guns if they did not intend to use them, or they would not have brought them.
Hell, even carrying a gun implies intent to use.

Some people carry guns everyday and that is the reason why I don't think carrying = using. But I think that when police would show up and surround the building and they would point guns at police or something like that, then it would be using guns.

"Brave patriots use lethal force to repel police after liberating public building"

[Ifreann]

There you go again. Why don't you answer the question I asked you instead?

I am asking what position I changed?

You are backpedalling away from the issue of the Bundy Bunch using their firearms or not. Several people have made relevant responses to questions you've asked on that issue, and you've ignored them. Instead responding to other posts makes it look like you don't have any answer and are trying to change the subject so we don't notice.

[Teemant]

I am asking what position I changed?

You are backpedalling away from the issue of the Bundy Bunch using their firearms or not. Several people have made relevant responses to questions you've asked on that issue, and you've ignored them. Instead responding to other posts makes it look like you don't have any answer and are trying to change the subject so we don't notice.

I explained why I think like that 2 posts above.

[Asherahan]

Logic dictates that if you take guns to a hostile federal building takeover, you have every intention of using them. Either by firing, or has been mentioned several times already, by threatening to use them. They would not have brought guns if they did not intend to use them, or they would not have brought them.
Hell, even carrying a gun implies intent to use.

Some people carry guns everyday and that is the reason why I don't think carrying = using. But I think that when police would show up and surround the building and they would point guns at police or something like that, then it would be using guns.

I read this and I think.

At least when I do doublethink I at least accept I am doing it and not delude myself.

[Alvecia]

Logic dictates that if you take guns to a hostile federal building takeover, you have every intention of using them. Either by firing, or has been mentioned several times already, by threatening to use them. They would not have brought guns if they did not intend to use them, or they would not have brought them.
Hell, even carrying a gun implies intent to use.

Some people carry guns everyday and that is the reason why I don't think carrying = using. But I think that when police would show up and surround the building and they would point guns at police or something like that, then it would be using guns.

If the government has to take into account that the people occupying the building have guns when planning their strategy, then their guns have already been used.

[The Black Forrest]

Misremembering those experiences, apparently.

Well people who I was talking about most likely would disagree with me.

Indeed. We tend to disagree with those who generalize and misremember the past.

[Haktiva]

that's a good idea in theory, but when it comes to the power of political parties effectively running each branch of government, suddenly I'm not so optimistic.

Political parties in the judicial system? Where?

well for one the justices are appointed by the President and approved by the Congress(senate)