Ammon Bundy and 3 other arrested near Oregon refuge; shots fired - Polidicks

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49621924]You weren't so much endorsing non-confrontation as you were agreeing with most people that it was unlikely for this to become another full on shootout/siege like waco. That was from your first post in the thread[/QUOTE] But I made several other posts outright stating that the federal government shouldn't do anything. That you can't or won't find and quote those doesn't mean they aren't around. My post history will show quite clearly that I don't endorse the National Guard literally killing these people. [QUOTE=soulharvester;49621924]and it came off more as you desiring to see people whom you politically disagree with slaughtered by the government even if it was unlikely, than a "joke".[/QUOTE] Kind of falsifiable hypothesis but the problem with these guys isn't that I politically disagree with them, it's that they are armed insurrectionists endangering the public health through entirely selfish and illegal means. [QUOTE=soulharvester;49621924]Along with sobotnik's constant dehumanizing of the protesters it seemed extremely hypocritical to see posters who typically claim to be progressive wanting to see a group of protesters who hadn't yet been violent get slaughtered by the government. It's exactly that kind of sentiment that makes people afraid of rapidly expanding authoritarian control from our government. [/QUOTE] Well it's a good thing I'm not a progressive and even if I was I've made it clear that things should be as non-confrontational and peaceful as possible. Shit, if you absolutely want to take my snide remark seriously it doesn't even assume that any LEO/military action against these insurrectionists would be necessarily unwarranted. I completely left open the possibility that they start the violence. [QUOTE=soulharvester;49621924]And yes, I am aware of that feature, and I don't feel like I took your comment out of context whatsoever.[/QUOTE] A whole lot of feelings in this thread! [QUOTE=soulharvester;49621924]You said it would be cool to watch them get fucking slaughtered, I'd probably be banned if I said anything similar to that about a minority group of nonviolent protesters regardless of context.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should try and find out!

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622000]I don't get how something being an old law makes it infallible, should we abide by Hammurabi's Code? Some laws are more important than others, if we had a law that told you to throw your third born child off of a bridge, would you do it? Would you think it would be acceptable in a modern country?[/QUOTE] No, but please go pick apart the first 10 Amendments in detail explaining why most of them are wrong and fucked up laws. Please. Please please please, just so your baby throwing example can make sense and not be ridiculous. [editline]27th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49622005]If you want to argue about the First Amendment you must first demonstrate how the cops are infringing on the Oregon militia's right to free speech. Otherwise you're distracting away from the point that you appear to have said that the 2nd Amendment enables militias to resist the government with weapons without fear of prosecution. You can just admit that that statement is insane and we can move on, if you want.[/QUOTE] actually I challenge you to explain why Amendments 2-10 are bad and backwards because they were written long ago. Not the 1st, you couldnt touch the 1st lol.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622019]Not to spark a gun debate, but The Second Amendment isn't a pillar of law in any other country yet we have places like the entirety of Western Europe doing fine without militias or an overabundance of firearms. In fact, they're doing more than fine, they're doing better. Here's a cool one for you, this one did some good shit homie: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/URL][/QUOTE] Why would you try and start that fucking debate in this thread. As if you dont realize America isnt the same as a island like Australia lol. [editline]27th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;49622019]Not to spark a gun debate, but The Second Amendment isn't a pillar of law in any other country yet we have places like the entirety of Western Europe doing fine without militias or an overabundance of firearms. In fact, they're doing more than fine, they're doing better. Here's a cool one for you, this one did some good shit homie: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url][/QUOTE] Thats the 18th, not one of the 10 by the old ass backwards grandpas. So please, keep trying man.

They're live again.

One of the guys is saying he's "rich as the fucking sky" and is a porn star. But he wants to be with God. "fuck this life." Fascinating.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622047]So you're saying we do need a militia separate from the US army to keep the government in line? Because the US army is somehow composed entirely of robots with no affiliation to their friends, families, and generally fellow countrymen? Or how about the fact that we have a system of checks and balances in the govt that heavily outnumbers those found in the days when the constitution was written? What about the effect of social media and the information age in general on the populace, where if the government does something bad, literally everyone in the civilized world will know and respond to it?[/QUOTE] Happened to Germany didn't it?

"This revolution we're in now"

The 2nd amendment was written so militias could defend America from invaders because America had no standing army It was not made so that armed rednecks could seize government buildings with ridiculous demands and get off scott free.

converstation went from the size of dicks to about god. what.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622047]So you're saying we do need a militia separate from the US army to keep the government in line? Because the US army is somehow composed entirely of robots with no affiliation to their friends, families, and generally fellow countrymen? Or how about the fact that we have a system of checks and balances in the govt that heavily outnumbers those found in the days when the constitution was written? What about the effect of social media and the information age in general on the populace, where if the government does something bad, literally everyone in the civilized world will know and respond to it? We don't need a bunch of unregulated dudes with guns to protect our freedoms, the government itself does that for us. Physical violence will only ever help us in the most dire of times and now is not one of those times. If it got to that point, the law wouldn't matter anyway.[/QUOTE] Id say the actual military would have a way harder time breaking off. What if one of your best friends in the military ended up not on your side. That would happen. What about highly equipped military teams against the people going against the military who were in the military? What then? They arent protecting your freedoms dude, they are protecting someone elses, I think they made that clear. If yours were in jeopardy then maybe they would held you out.

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49621935]How could you fix any corrupt government agency without fuckloads of money+lawyers and connections? Please realize that sometimes something like this is the only way[/QUOTE] Corrupt can be a very broad description so without actually knowing how the BLM is corrupt (seriously no one has explained this to me yet) I can just say that there are a myriad of ways to fix the problem in a democracy without resorting to firearms, presumably the same ways people in any Western and some Eastern nations tackle corruption: activism. Inform the public about how the government is overstepping their bounds so when it comes to election season they can use their vote to bring the change they desire. "It's really hard to affect change so armed insurrection is really the only way" is a massive logical leap. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49621935]And how are they short of actively murdering people? [/QUOTE] I was talking about you, not them. You said that until they resort to violence you back them, meaning that they can do or endorse any amount of stupid bullshit as long as they don't start squeezing triggers at cops. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49621935]Seriously, fuck off with your retarded fucking bullshit[/QUOTE] This is completely unnecessary. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49621935]Seriously, how the fuck can you even shit on people like that when someone like you would probably shit your pants with guns pointed at you and getting shot at?[/QUOTE] Because they are selfish, self-righteous, paranoid assholes who think might makes right and as long as they are holding guns it gives them the right to do anything they want. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49621935]The 2nd amendment allows the people to form a militia against the government numbnuts and avoid straight up legal prosecution because of it(lol as if), this is ignoring the rights to bare arms. Thats pretty much what it boils down to. So the average American citizen can defend themselves from Government with firearms. [/QUOTE] Piers Morgan has a more solid grasp on the second amendment than you do if you think it codifies the right for people to form militias and avoid legal persecution when they do stupid shit like thees guys are doing. [QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49621935]No, because thats 1 fucking retard so thanks for proving my fucking point on you focusing on singular retards. Seriously, thank you lol.[/QUOTE] "No one is calling for violence!" *someone calls for violence* "Well my entire plan was for you to point out that I'm wrong!"

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;49622053]The 2nd amendment was written so militias could defend America from invaders because America had no standing army It was not made so that armed rednecks could seize government buildings with ridiculous demands and get off scott free.[/QUOTE] It was actually made against states and for individuals, I think it makes that pretty clear in english. The actual arguments against it are whether or not it was talking specifically about an individuals right to form a militia in a state with others with firearms, OR, be a state formed, which was individual federall. It really never had anything at all to do with invaders.

"fighting for our faith." They're holy warriors now?

are they smoking weed now

it died again

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622057]Did Germany have the internet? Was every move the chancellor make posted on social media to be scrutinized by columnists around the world? In the 1940's was the world more aware of social issues of far away lands as we are now? If Hitler's mad ramblings about the Jews were posted on some sort of time travelling 1930s internet, and the world had already been used to the benefits of an information age, WW2 may not have even happened. If it did, it probably would have been much more manageable to end. Simply put, the instantaneous spread of information in the modern age has made humanity as a whole more caring about others' plights regardless of their age/sex/nationality/culture/memes which has put us in a position of much higher stability than we otherwise were without the internet/sattelites/thattypeofshithomie. Unless America was some oil state ran by a despot with a die-hard fanbase of devoted militaristic followers of around 50% of the population, there isn't any need for an armed revolution or militia.[/QUOTE] These are all things available to ISIS and other terrorist organisations as well. That hasn't seemed to slow them down one bit. Look at trump and the shit he spews, and look at the amount of people who agree with him. To believe that the Government could not marginalize a minority once more is immature to say the least. If people took facts and concrete evidence as proof we wouldn't have fundamental extremists and ultra conservative Christians. All you need is a charismatic leader and a scapegoat to blame and you have yourself the catalyst for oppression.

[QUOTE=timothy80;49622105]it died again[/QUOTE] God forbid the world hear us good Christians talk about our cocks and weed.

anyone else notice the helicopter in the background?

The second amendment is the last defense of the citizens of the United States to resist a government that becomes tyrannical, end of. To say that we don't need it anymore is irrelevant because it is a prerequisite to ensure that we can protect every other freedom we are granted. Without the means of citizens to protect their freedoms, there is no guarantee of maintaining those freedoms. Without the means to protect our rights, they become mere privileges. Anyone who claims that we have the second amendment for hunting or fighting invasions is misrepresenting the amendment in a methodology similar to strawmanning. Having the rights to guns makes both of those much easier, but that's not why we have those rights in the first place. /endrant

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622135]Until Trump wins and does what he says, I'm not buying it. In the 30s/40s people hated the fuck out of Jews, more than they did today, almost universally. It wasn't until soldiers saw the pits full of bodies and the skeleton-like living Jews in the camps that we got any sympathy for them. The fact that Trump is so vehemently opposed by Independents and Democrats shows how much things have changed.[/QUOTE] And you think thinks like racism and religious prejudice don't exist? Do you think it has to be Trump to be the one to push it all over? Have you looked at the world and seen the atrocities committed by other countries and just said to yourself "We're the United States, something like that could never happen here because we are morally superior"? On the outside as a whole we may appear to be more tolerant and accepting, it is what the zeitgeist of the day calls for. Deep down however prejudices still run strong, if not to blacks to Arabs. Arabs will give way to another group, and so on and so fourth. As long as people can dehumanize other people, there will be people who will take advantage of that. You are looking too closely at this on an individual level when you should be looking at is in a sociological level. The lone man may not kill because he sees it as unethical, but the group as a whole is much easier to sway. All it takes is for that group to get strong enough to successfully marginalize a minority on a national level.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622194]They still exist sure, but not nearly as prevalent as they were to put a developed country into chaos. It's hard to find a lot of horrible atrocities committed by developed countries in the late 20th to 21st century. There are some, but it's not as prevalent as shit happening in the Congo Republic or in Syria.[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean it still won't happen. 1st world countries are policed by each other, hence why the 3rd world countries have been forgotten and fallen into chaos. Keep your eyes on Russia and see what they do here. God knows they love repressing minorities.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622239]It's not totally impossible, but the militias doing what they do is completely unreasonable given the current state of affairs. Yeah Russia is looking like they're at the edge, they're a pretty unpredictable country in any case.[/QUOTE] That is why they are necessary. It goes back to the old adage its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. As soon as its gone it will probably never come back, and that opens the doors to making it easier to do something drastic.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622264]The problem is when things like this happen, it really makes you not want to have it and only get it when you need it. We don't need to have militias on standby 24/7, they would be formed the instant the government did something egregious enough to require them being formed.[/QUOTE] This is hardly a militia. You're confusing the militia with "the militia". The ability to form militias is what's important. The bubba fud "milita" is just a collection of idiots with guns. You can find those anywhere, and as I've described in earlier posts this is mostly an act of civil disobedience. You take away the guns and this is just a protest, and they could be doing what the are doing without guns just fine.

three people who gave up have been arrested coming out of the refuge. only a very few remain now.

i firmly believe that a militia can be a force of good even in times without tyranny, were it properly set up. could basically be a service club with a focus on firearm training, disaster response and preparedness, and, yes, tactical training. could do everything from picking up garbage by the road to assisting in search and rescue efforts. maybe coordination with local, state, and federal governmental agencies in response to disasters, natural or otherwise. i could see classes provided to the public for survival and self-defense as well as emergency first-aid and self-sustainability. members would probably also engage in combat training but that is to be expected considering it would still be a military force. in the off chance that they are needed for their military capabilities, they would have the training and teamwork built up to the levels necessary to be an effective fighting force. fuckers like these just shit all over that entire idea with their angry free men on the land shit and makes people think militias can only be about shouting "fuck the fed" and shooting guns at random shit

5 people still in refuge including the bloodbath moron. There was a livestream of them talking around a truck and moron screaming about how they needed more bodies for "defending this place" this morning. The five are apparently afraid of leaving because they believe they will be arrested as they leave.

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49621935] The 2nd amendment allows the people to form a militia against the government numbnuts and avoid straight up legal prosecution because of it(lol as if), this is ignoring the rights to bare arms. Thats pretty much what it boils down to. So the average American citizen can defend themselves from Government.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't.

it's just four people now. One of them up and left around 9:30ish this morning. The rest are just staying because bloodbath moron has a felony warrent out on him now.

[QUOTE=Omali;49625475]No it doesn't.[/QUOTE] Yeah it does. In fact, under the Militia Act of 1903(and subsequent National Defense Acts up till 1920), any able bodied male from the ages of 17 to 45 is a part of the unorganized militia. The 2nd Amendment as it was made for, was to act as not only a defense for the constitution against foreign invaders, but as a matter of dealing with domestic issues as well. Many of the founding fathers had made it clear that they hoped that US citizens would fight against the government they created, if it were to become out of line.

Thus the great rebellion ends gloriously, with grand sacrifices made in the name of freedom.