Well THAT will end well...(Armed March On Washington)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

AgedGrunt:

I've my own disagreements (it's basically open-invitation, a huge no-no) but there is one underlying principle about people that open-carry: they intend to abide the law.

Well, if this march goes forth it's going to put a serious dent into all this perception of them being law-abiding people. Not only because of the "open carry in a no-carry zone" but also the "not bothering to abide by the law requiring you to register the march with the authorities and get a permit for it" part.

"Law-abiding" doesn't mean "following the law when it suits me and breaking the ones I don't like".

Vegosiux:

AgedGrunt:

I've my own disagreements (it's basically open-invitation, a huge no-no) but there is one underlying principle about people that open-carry: they intend to abide the law.

Well, if this march goes forth it's going to put a serious dent into all this perception of them being law-abiding people. Not only because of the "open carry in a no-carry zone" but also the "not bothering to abide by the law requiring you to register the march with the authorities and get a permit for it" part.

"Law-abiding" doesn't mean "following the law when it suits me and breaking the ones I don't like".

Somehow I don't think "We'll stop and turn around if they decide they don't want us to continue" will translate to "They are law breaking criminals" anymore than getting a speeding ticket would do it. Edit: I daresay they'd be made fun of for displaying the weakest of civil disobedience before being maligned as criminals.

I so rarely get to pull this one out.
image

Jayemsal:
I so rarely get to pull this one out.

image

Oh what's that? Sorry, can't hear you over kicking the US military's ass despite having largely outdated equipment that your civilians would laugh at!

AgedGrunt:

I've my own disagreements (it's basically open-invitation, a huge no-no) but there is one underlying principle about people that open-carry: they intend to abide the law. You can't say that about criminals, who break it and do all they can to avoid detection.

Yeah they're actually breaking the law.

So that stops this from being a point.

Templar_Gamer:

Jayemsal:
I so rarely get to pull this one out.

image

Oh what's that? Sorry, can't hear you over kicking the US military's ass despite having largely outdated equipment that your civilians would laugh at!

This is 2013, the US government has drones.

This argument was over before it began.

Templar_Gamer:

Jayemsal:
I so rarely get to pull this one out.

image

Oh what's that? Sorry, can't hear you over kicking the US military's ass despite having largely outdated equipment that your civilians would laugh at!

Umm, the reason Vietnam "won" the war, in so far as the US decided to leave, isn't because of Vietnam driving the superior US forces out of their country through military power, it's because the people back in the States were tired of the war and the Tet Offensive (an utter failure of a military operation) gave anti-war advocates "proof" that the war was a dead end.

And the two wars have several major differences between them, the biggest one being that one was a war with a foreign nation in that foreign nation, while the other is a war on your home soil defending it against rebels. Then there's the very likely lack of foreign aid the rebels would receive as opposed to China backing the communists. And finally there's the different setting where the US has an intimate understanding of the environment, the people, and all other aspects of the country.

Templar_Gamer:

Jayemsal:
I so rarely get to pull this one out.

image

Oh what's that? Sorry, can't hear you over kicking the US military's ass despite having largely outdated equipment that your civilians would laugh at!

Vietnam did not defeat the US military, it defeated the US political system. The distinction is incredibly important and to trot out the line that you have shows very little understanding of the war as anything other than a 'well the yanks lost here' card.

In addition, the NVA had fairly up to date equipment, in line with most of the Warsaw pact and while the VietCong did not, they were the ones that essentially ceased to exist in the later stages of the war due to the fact that they were utterly expended in conducting the Tet offensive.

Furthermore, the reason the US military withdrew from Vietnam was fatigue and a lack of political will to prosecute the war. What do you think is going happen in a hypothetical insurgency in the US, the US is going to pull out of the US?

Jayemsal:
I so rarely get to pull this one out.
image

Haven't you seen Freemans Mind? Planes can't hit shit, SMG's easily take down choppers and tanks.

Nikolaz72:

Haven't you seen Freemans Mind? Planes can't hit shit, SMG's easily take down choppers and tanks.

Plus the military will clearly resort to only using grunts for the most of it, and make sure to break them up from squads into small two/three man clusters with the same type of weapons whilst not giving them any sort of overwatch.

Shaoken:

Nikolaz72:

Haven't you seen Freemans Mind? Planes can't hit shit, SMG's easily take down choppers and tanks.

Plus the military will clearly resort to only using grunts for the most of it, and make sure to break them up from squads into small two/three man clusters with the same type of weapons whilst not giving them any sort of overwatch.

Don't forget handing them spare ammo of various sorts for the Civilians to use once they are killed. They need a source of supplies afterall. Also the military will spread medical supplies fairly around the country in safe area's and next to relatively foolish gruntsquads of one or two.

Realitycrash:

...You stepped down from modding? But why?

Nikolaz72:

Was wondering that aswell. What's gonna happend to us without protection? Flamewars might occur, people's feelings may get hurt....

Wonder if we will get a new one.

Classified. I could tell you but... ;)

Nah, I won't go that route. :D

I wasn't comfortable being a Mod, to be honest. Knowing the guidelines well enough to avoid getting Warnings (except for making a silly mistake and getting a Low Content Warning myself--but it wasn't that) was verrrrrry different from passing judgement on other poster's comments. I was the most soft hearted Mod in the bunch, believe it or not. I meant it when I said that I wanted to be a peace bringer rather than a hammer heavy jerk.

I'm continuing to learn about the job behind the scenes without Mod powers right now. At the risk of sounding prideful the more I learn the more I realize that while I was occasionally heavy handed early on I did a surprisingly good job. Who knew?

I'm really busy in RL, too. Work and family--the usual stuff. Also I'm doing research for a novel I'm placing in feudal Japan circa 1570-1630 and that's taking up a lot of my time. This novel is important to me but it's for all the right reasons: Fame, fortune, and floozies. ^_^

I'm still keeping an eye on R&P in my free time (Basement Cat is always watching) but things have been pretty calm, really. If things get bad Nasrin will appoint someone to ride this forum. There's no real need at this time, however.

I may come back after a while. Maybe. RL takes precedence. If I do I'll continue to be a partial Mod limited to this Forum until I've finished my probationary period.

Copper Zen:

Realitycrash:

...You stepped down from modding? But why?

Nikolaz72:

Was wondering that aswell. What's gonna happend to us without protection? Flamewars might occur, people's feelings may get hurt....

Wonder if we will get a new one.

Classified. I could tell you but... ;)

Nah, I won't go that route. :D

I wasn't comfortable being a Mod, to be honest. Knowing the guidelines well enough to avoid getting Warnings (except for making a silly mistake and getting a Low Content Warning myself--but it wasn't that) was verrrrrry different from passing judgement on other poster's comments. I was the most soft hearted Mod in the bunch, believe it or not. I meant it when I said that I wanted to be a peace bringer rather than a hammer heavy jerk.

I'm continuing to learn about the job behind the scenes without Mod powers right now. At the risk of sounding prideful the more I learn the more I realize that while I was occasionally heavy handed early on I did a surprisingly good job. Who knew?

I'm really busy in RL, too. Work and family--the usual stuff. Also I'm doing research for a novel I'm placing in feudal Japan circa 1570-1630 and that's taking up a lot of my time. This novel is important to me but it's for all the right reasons: Fame, fortune, and floozies. ^_^

I'm still keeping an eye on R&P in my free time (Basement Cat is always watching) but things have been pretty calm, really. If things get bad Nasrin will appoint someone to ride this forum. There's no real need at this time, however.

I may come back after a while. Maybe. RL takes precedence. If I do I'll continue to be a partial Mod limited to this Forum until I've finished my probationary period.

Tbh, not swinging the banhammer everywhere doesn't mean things went 'worse' than usual. The forums been relatively civil the last few months. Anyway, good luck to you and all, also I thought you went to sleep. Or wait, when was that posted...

Vegosiux:
"Law-abiding" doesn't mean "following the law when it suits me and breaking the ones I don't like".

Gold:
Yeah they're actually breaking the law. So that stops this from being a point.

It's called civil disobedience; they're demonstrating against a bad law. If you're prepared to demand disenfranchised citizens abide the discriminatory law being protested, I'm going to point out the Airbus A380 flying overhead that carries the point.

AgedGrunt:

It's called civil disobedience; they're demonstrating against a bad law. If you're prepared to demand disenfranchised citizens abide the discriminatory law being protested, I'm going to point out the Airbus A380 flying overhead that carries the point.

Okay, so that takes care of the "marching with guns into a no-gun zone", alright.

Now for the part of "not getting a permit for it, as required by law", that one is still up there - how's that law bad, why does need to be protested against, is it actually being protested against or merely broken "because we can, lol" etc.?

the clockmaker:

Furthermore, the reason the US military withdrew from Vietnam was fatigue and a lack of political will to prosecute the war. What do you think is going happen in a hypothetical insurgency in the US, the US is going to pull out of the US?

Considering how much support infrastructure is required for the high end hardware- infrastructure that would be one of the first things American Insurgents would go after, they actually would be better off doing just that, pulling out early on. Of course they would do no such thing, and with their support and specialized units, soft targets, spread across the entire country- they will find out very quickly that a lot of their toys will either be grounded, destroyed, or without fuel.

I live near the biggest contingent of KC-135Rs in the US, which provide mid-air refueling. It's not really a secret where this stuff is. Most of it is defended by the national guard, which I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them just said screw this and went home to protect their own families if the shit hit the fan.

Assuming American insurgents behave like any other, what are the Feds going to do with the hardware that is still operational? Use it to reduce American cities with insurgent activity to rubble? We don't do that now against our foreign enemies, why would we do such a thing at home?

The advantage America has had in all the wars is that there has never been much a threat to it's home turf, but in the event of American insurrection, everything is threatened- production, supply lines, air fields, everything. Insurgents will raid these facilities and then retreat to urban/suburban environments you can't simply just flatten without huge amounts of collateral damage. Not to mention that you would be facing more insurgents than ever faced before, numbering in the tens of millions.

There's also a good chance of a split in the military or amongst the states and a lot of the very same hardware will end up fighting against the federal government, and the DHS which is becoming a private domestic army.

The bottom line is there no easy way to deal with tens of millions of armed people defending themselves, whether or not they're going go to go on the offensive; you ultimately do not control them until they are disarmed, and you have them rounded up in prison camps. Good luck with that.

Vegosiux:
Okay, so that takes care of the "marching with guns into a no-gun zone", alright.

Now for the part of "not getting a permit for it, as required by law", that one is still up there - how's that law bad, why does need to be protested against, is it actually being protested against or merely broken "because we can, lol" etc.?

Just arguing principles. Not going to defend a sloppy organizer and pretend other laws aren't important, either. Kind of wondering if one would even be issued to this group.

Copper Zen:

the clockmaker:
snip

thaluikhain:

Yeah, I'm going to second that, it was quite a surprise reading xDarc saying he'd not quite completed training after he'd described himself as a veteran in several other threads.

Eh, I've heard the same from others including one guy who was discharged just after finishing basic because of some previously unknown medical problem--a heart Fibrillation or something, I can't recall off the top of my head without calling someone up for the details.

Over half my friends from high school joined one service or another (especially the marines--very proud) and they told me lots of stories about trainees or soldiers whose service was cut short for one reason or another. It happens. They still joined up and earned the right to call themselves soldiers, even if their service was cut short for one reason or another.

Sorry, I didn't see this until now,

I am not trying to shame him over this, the life is not for everybody. In my time at Kapooka, one-in-four trainees dropped out for various reasons and I think that of those, only one or two are people who I genuinely think are shit people. There is no shame in not making it in the defence force, no shame at all. I do not have the personality type to be a doctor, and I know after doing some time working in a family court, that I could not live that life.

My issue here is how he represented himself. I know, you know and he bloody well knows the perception that he is trying to create by calling himself a veteran. He was intentionally trying to give an inaccurate picture to lend unearned weight to his opinion in something that is so offensive to me personally, were I a moderator it would have earned him a ban (which is just one reason that I am not and should not ever be a moderator). At no point was he actually a usable soldier who could actually defend his nation or its interests, at no point did the defence force actually get anything out of him. He was a money hole, who sucked up training, food, water, equipment and all the rest, all the other costs asscociated with putting a man or woman in uniform and did nothing, not a solitary thing that actually furthered the defence force. That he say he was a soldier is something that I will grudgingly accept, that he calls himself a veteran in order to inflate others opinions of him disgusts me.

I would not dare call myself a veteran, and I have friends who have served in non-warlike deployments who will only take the title grudgingly, always downplaying their own service.

*Puts on Devil's Advocate's hat*

the clockmaker:

I am not trying to shame him over this, the life is not for everybody. There is no shame in not making it in the defence force, no shame at all. I do not have the personality type to be a doctor, and I know after doing some time working in a family court, that I could not live that life.

You remember this thread. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.408260.17057741

He readily acknowledged that the military wasn't right for him. He also didn't pull any punches concerning his own comportment.

the clockmaker:

My issue here is how he represented himself. I know, you know and he bloody well knows the perception that he is trying to create by calling himself a veteran. He was intentionally trying to give an inaccurate picture to lend unearned weight to his opinion in something that is so offensive to me personally, were I a moderator it would have earned him a ban (which is just one reason that I am not and should not ever be a moderator).

I never joined up and that lack of life experience will hang with me for the rest of my life. xDarc did and thus has experience that I and well over 85% of the US population lack about the military. That alone is enough for me to pay more attention to his opinions than to the opinions of civilians who never joined up--especially ones who slander the military and its people.

I'm certain you remember that guy from the thread I linked above who jumped in bad mouthing the military, etc?

The reason I lend ex-military people my ear (and take whatever they say with a grain of salt, of course) is because they have experience that I lack. His minimal experience doesn't mitigate that he has personal experience I don't.

And there are still those grains of salt... :)

the clockmaker:

At no point was he actually a usable soldier who could actually defend his nation or its interests, at no point did the defence force actually get anything out of him.

The same can be said about the kid who received a medical discharge after Basic.

the clockmaker:

He was a money hole, who sucked up training, food, water, equipment and all the rest, all the other costs asscociated with putting a man or woman in uniform and did nothing, not a solitary thing that actually furthered the defence force.

I understand you POV.

the clockmaker:

That he say he was a soldier is something that I will grudgingly accept, that he calls himself a veteran in order to inflate others opinions of him disgusts me.

He also stepped back when you and thaluikhain commented about his experience.

Until I read his post in imahobbit4062's thread above I, too, thought that he had more experience than he actually did. The fact that he stepped up and related his less than stellar personal experience in the military for someone looking for guidance speaks well of his courage--he publicly admitted to personal fallibility and regrets (disappointing the Ranger sergeant). Even on the Escapist people aren't normally given to admitting weaknesses and failures like that for fear of suffering the scorn of others.

But imahobbit4062 may benefit from reading his personal tale. It was unique among those related by you and others and it should certainly help imahobbit4062 in dealing with certain kinds of situations that arise during training.

Give xDarc credit where credit's due for that.

the clockmaker:

I would not dare call myself a veteran, and I have friends who have served in non-warlike deployments who will only take the title grudgingly, always downplaying their own service.

Again, I understand your perspective and that of your friends'. The term means something special to many people. I know that many US military personnel would be displeased by his use of the term.

But I also know many others who would support his use of the term if only because he at least toed the line and made it through Basic at a time when most Americans can't be bothered to know that there are wars going on beyond our borders. Time Magazine referred to the Iraqui and Afghanistan wars as "the forgotten wars" for all the attention most US civilians pay to what our uniformed men and women are facing over seas. And the vast majority of those serving over seas are in support positions--they never see actual combat. But no one would refrain from calling them veterans.

Any civilian who joins up must earn the right to call themselves 'soldier'. They earn that right by completing Basic. After that they'll always be ex-military. Most Americans simply refer to ex-military collectively as 'veterans'. In the US we simply differentiate people who saw combat as 'combat veterans'.

It's partly a matter of semantics and partly a matter of different traditions. Please let this drop.

xDarc:
I was kicked out during the last week AIT, advanced infantry training. Basic is a lot more simple, about 8 weeks. I did 5 months which includes weapons and battle systems.

AIT doesn't stand for advanced infantry training. It's advanced individual training. Infantry goes through OSUT.

See, while a lot of Americans are happy with calling ex-military as veterans, this is also a board with a lot of Europeans and some Australians/New Zealanders who don't share the same definition of what makes a vet.

Anyway, considering the perspective of America having an unhealthy military-worship status to former military personnel, xDarc claiming to be a Vet without clarifying could be seen as attempting to drown out oppossing opinions by claiming to be a Subject Matter Expert in the field.

It's a moot point anyway; even if Darc was a full combat veteran that doesn't make him an expert on how insurgency's work or how the American populace would react to pure hypotheticals, so really pulling out the "I'm a soldier" doesn't contribute anything of value beyond comparing training and equipment.

Copper Zen:

Please let this drop.

I'm going to leave it here so long as he makes no more representations along those line in the future. I still feel a great deal of personal anger at his comportment, and the initial actions that he took. I can say with absolute confidence that 5 months total service as an unqualified trainee does not leave one in a position to simply claim their service as their supporting claim and I still feel that he intended to mislead with the phrasing that he used.

That being said, I also feel that I have said everything that I need to say, that he has also said everything that he can and the full position of both sides has been fully illuminated to any people reading the thread. I feel that as my intent was to counteract any misleading statements, the purpose of this derailing discussion has been fulfilled and the only reason for me to continue would be my personal distaste for the initial action, as this thread and indeed this forum is not my personal soapbox, I will make no more comment on this, provided that I do not see people misleading people as to the nature of military service, in a general or personal manner. I am, to put it simply, going to let this drop.

Well done CZ, you may no longer be a moderator, but you seem to be doing fairly well as a mediator.

We're at risk of derailing this thread discussing xDarc's personal military history, folks.

Shaoken:

It's a moot point anyway; even if Darc was a full combat veteran that doesn't make him an expert on how insurgency's work or how the American populace would react to pure hypotheticals, so really pulling out the "I'm a soldier" doesn't contribute anything of value beyond comparing training and equipment.

This is pertinent to the topic.

I agree that xDarc is...reaching, shall we say, when he talks about a US insurgency. I'm reading old Moderation Team posts as a part of my ongoing Mod studies so I don't have time to get into the why's and wherefore's but I agree with others here that he's wrong.

Nonetheless his opinion on the matter is influenced by his own military experience. Dissecting his military experience is purposeless in gauging what he learned while he was in. Just take what he says into consideration and comment/refute as you would anyone else.

But the Mods are becoming concerned about a tendency throughout the forums for people ganging up on individuals with dissenting opinions and POV's. I'm no longer a Mod but I'm keeping an eye on R&P for some who aren't familiar or...comfortable(?)...down in our little nook of the Escapist.

Focus on the subject and just roll with xDarc's references to his own military experience. I don't want to see anyone whacked because mob mentality led someone to overstepping.

EDIT:

the clockmaker:

Well done CZ, you may no longer be a moderator, but you seem to be doing fairly well as a mediator.

Thanx! :)

Copper Zen:
We're at risk of derailing this thread discussing xDarc's personal military history, folks.

It was derailed at the first page, I think we've had longer debates on about seven different topic not related to the thread. Despite there not being anything more to discuss it's being kept alive until the 4th since.. It'd be a waste to start a new thread by then.

Nikolaz72:

Copper Zen:
We're at risk of derailing this thread discussing xDarc's personal military history, folks.

It was derailed at the first page, I think we've had longer debates on about seven different topic not related to the thread. Despite there not being anything more to discuss it's being kept alive until the 4th since.. It'd be a waste to start a new thread by then.

Oh yeah, there was an armed march on DC by some guy. Did that end up happening or did it get shut down and the guy is crying oppression?

Shaoken:

Nikolaz72:

Copper Zen:
We're at risk of derailing this thread discussing xDarc's personal military history, folks.

It was derailed at the first page, I think we've had longer debates on about seven different topic not related to the thread. Despite there not being anything more to discuss it's being kept alive until the 4th since.. It'd be a waste to start a new thread by then.

Oh yeah, there was an armed march on DC by some guy. Did that end up happening or did it get shut down and the guy is crying oppression?

He was arrested and is crying oppression, although I think his arrest was for violently resisting arrest at a pot-rally and nothing to do with this.

I think he was released and the march is still on though. I think.

Realitycrash:

Copper Zen:

the clockmaker:
snip

thaluikhain:

Yeah, I'm going to second that, it was quite a surprise reading xDarc saying he'd not quite completed training after he'd described himself as a veteran in several other threads.

Eh, I've heard the same from others including one guy who was discharged just after finishing basic because of some previously unknown medical problem--a heart Fibrillation or something, I can't recall off the top of my head without calling someone up for the details.

Over half my friends from high school joined one service or another (especially the marines--very proud) and they told me lots of stories about trainees or soldiers whose service was cut short for one reason or another. It happens. They still joined up and earned the right to call themselves soldiers, even if their service was cut short for one reason or another.

...You stepped down from modding? But why?

OT: Veterans need to actually have served in an active conflict area. Anything else is misleading and misuse of a very loaded word.
..And we are very off-topic. Any actual updates on the 4th-July protest?

Don't really mean to derail this further but...

My friend Mike went through Marine Basic, Security Training, and spent all 4 years of his service in San Diego as Security. Would you call him a veteran, just because the military decided protecting a naval base in San Diego was more important than sending him to the suck?

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Realitycrash:

Copper Zen:

Eh, I've heard the same from others including one guy who was discharged just after finishing basic because of some previously unknown medical problem--a heart Fibrillation or something, I can't recall off the top of my head without calling someone up for the details.

Over half my friends from high school joined one service or another (especially the marines--very proud) and they told me lots of stories about trainees or soldiers whose service was cut short for one reason or another. It happens. They still joined up and earned the right to call themselves soldiers, even if their service was cut short for one reason or another.

...You stepped down from modding? But why?

OT: Veterans need to actually have served in an active conflict area. Anything else is misleading and misuse of a very loaded word.
..And we are very off-topic. Any actual updates on the 4th-July protest?

Don't really mean to derail this further but...

My friend Mike went through Marine Basic, Security Training, and spent all 4 years of his service in San Diego as Security. Would you call him a veteran, just because the military decided protecting a naval base in San Diego was more important than sending him to the suck?

I'd call him a man with a career in the military. I know a few of them as well. Yet the only one I'd call a veteran is the old sniper involved in Desert Storm. The rest I honestly wouldn't, because they haven't seen combat.

Kopikatsu:
Adam Kokesh is calling for an armed revolution against the government.

So, this'll turn out well, I'm sure.

Deserves its own thread. Making it. Also; Holy shit he even named his radio show 'Adam Vs The Man'. Words fail me.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Don't really mean to derail this further but...

My friend Mike went through Marine Basic, Security Training, and spent all 4 years of his service in San Diego as Security. Would you call him a veteran, just because the military decided protecting a naval base in San Diego was more important than sending him to the suck?

The problem is different countries have totally different names/titles for servicemen and women. For example in the UK I've never (to my recollection) heard the word veteran used when discussing troops that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (though it is sometimes used when talking about those that served in WW1/2) - instead we just say "they served" or "they saw active service".

Veteran to some (me included) conjures up an image of grizzled old soldiers that have had multiple tours or an old man looking back over decades. But of course 'veteran' is just a word, it means something different to everyone.

So to me, no your friend's not a veteran, but he has served his country and there is no loss of honour because he didn't see combat.

Realitycrash:

Kopikatsu:
Adam Kokesh is calling for an armed revolution against the government.

So, this'll turn out well, I'm sure.

Deserves its own thread. Making it. Also; Holy shit he even named his radio show 'Adam Vs The Man'. Words fail me.

All you did was create another bad biased liberal socialist threads about the guy, he is a law abiding American just like anyone else with guns. The Muslim President and his Socialist government is just out to make him look bad by using the Liberal Media to cause slander, giving this god-fearing rebel a bad name.

Going there now.

McMullen:

ravenshrike:
Yes, because of course you were supposed to infer from my post that all conspiracy theories are true. That is, of course, absurd.

Did he say that? I don't think he said that. I'm pretty sure he's saying there will always be people who say that event x was the government's fault, and interpret the impossibility of proving a negative as evidence.

However, between the shots of a pistol prior to the rifle fire on the Kent State tapes and the staging of the Waco Raid by the dumbfucks in the BATFE as a funding stunt, as well as the disappearing door and evidence tapes from the FBI on the day of the assault on the compound after they took over from the BATFE, the idea that the government was not wholly responsible for the deaths that occurred in those two incidents is absurd.

I don't know much about Waco, but this shots of a pistol prior to the rifle thing has me confused. Why does a pistol being fired implicate the government?

And why are you so angry? Your language and attitude here have been rather hostile considering nothing has even happened yet. Who do you think is going to find your words persuasive or even sensible when they're so clearly generated from this sort of unrestrained spitefulness?

The person at Kent State who fired the pistol in question was a FBI photographer planted within the crowd. He was the only person in the crowd with a gun on him. It was not until after his four pistol shots that the Nat. Guard fired into the crowd. Whether it was a genuine response to the initial gunfire or merely used as a pretext can be debated by those who care, but it doesn't change the fact that it was the actions of the feds and their hirelings which caused the problems.

As for being angry, I merely refer to the agencies in question with the scorn they deserve given their past actions. I'm not angry at all.

Gold:

AgedGrunt:

I've my own disagreements (it's basically open-invitation, a huge no-no) but there is one underlying principle about people that open-carry: they intend to abide the law. You can't say that about criminals, who break it and do all they can to avoid detection.

Yeah they're actually breaking the law.

So that stops this from being a point.

They are breaking malum prohibitum laws, not anything that is malum in se. Given the fact that no one can quantify the number of laws currently active in the federal government, let alone the states, the idea of illegality being bad in and of itself becomes a pretty big fucking joke. Transporting a short lobster across state lines is a felony. Are you sure every lobster you've eaten didn't fall under that category?

Nikolaz72:
He was arrested and is crying oppression, although I think his arrest was for violently resisting arrest at a pot-rally and nothing to do with this.

His arrest was for resisting arrest. What were they arresting him on initially? After all, they didn't charge him with anything else, and last time I checked being an asshole in public wasn't actually illegal.

ravenshrike:
His arrest was for resisting arrest. What were they arresting him on initially? After all, they didn't charge him with anything else, and last time I checked being an asshole in public wasn't actually illegal.

No he wasn't. The actual documents state that he was arrested for having "forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded and interfered with officers and employees of the United States, that is, uniformed National Park Service Rangers, while they were engaged in, and on account of, the performance of official duties", which is closer to obstruction of justice than resisting arrest. That he was 'arrested for resisting arrest' is - as best I can figure - a misinterpretation of what he was actually accused of.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked