You don’t get to defend yourself if you think you are being falsely arrested at the time of the arrest-you defend yourself in court. You bring a gun to a legal apprehension with the intent of stooping said legal apprehension, and you are resisting arrest.
Yep. Those kids throwing bricks at Kent State got what was coming to them, using deadly missiles against armed members of the US government doing their job.
The armed people in Nevada were not being arrested, as far as I know, they were protesting the first amendment zone, the previous violence against the protesters, and the presence of government snipers.
Simply carrying a weapon, as opposed to brandishing or pointing it, is not considered a threat by many people in the Midwest and the West, especially in rural areas. And as noted above state legislatures have been enacting legislation to specify that peoples’ right to bear arms is not waived under circumstances determined by law enforcement or by municipalities. Under those terms a person that has a right to protest has a right to protest with a rifle slung on their shoulder.
Nobody is saying that, as you damn well know. Do you have any intention of responding to anything anyone actually says in this thread, or are you just going to play with your strawman dolls?
They brought weapons to intimidate law enforcement personnel, and some in that mob illegally took up sniper positions. Once again, since you don’t seem to get the point: The time to defend yourself is in a court of law, NOT DURING THE ARREST. There is no right to meet force with force when it comes to matters like these.
What, exactly, is your point supposed to be? In this case (at least so far) the government hasn’t done anything - at least not as far as any REASONABLE person can tell - that it hasn’t been authorized to do. The gun-totin’ rednecks, on the other hand, escalated matters by coming ARMED to what should have been a routine confiscation of property. I really don’t see the parallel between what’s gone on in Nevada so far and what happened at Kent State, where at least one young person was killed when a National Guardsman - withOUT permission - opened fire.
:rolleyes: There is no equivalency here between guns and bricks.
Under Kansas law, if a business owner sees someone carrying in his store, and that someone won’t leave upon request, the owner can remove him, or have the cops come remove him, or simply deny him service until he leaves voluntarily. Only the first would require any great amount of daring.
The customer’s attempt to force service at gunpoint, meanwhile, would constitute a felony.
They were not being arrested, they were protesting. In some states at least, and in all of the US under some interpretations of the 2nd amendment, you do not automatically lose your right to bear arms when protesting, just because the bearing of arms makes law enforcement personnel uncomfortable.
I am referring to the people simply carrying, not the guy brandishing, or the one pointing his rifle, that was an obvious threat.
By their actions it was clear that they were there to interfere with the proper application of the law.
The government needed to back off, and they did the right thing. This was well run, and well executed, and they did the right thing by NOT attacking the cowboy militia, etc.
Now BobLibDem had his straw man: “There should be a warrant for his arrest. He has stolen from the government to the tune of millions of dollars. Now if he was a welfare mom getting a loaf of bread with welfare money, the right wingers would be up in arms. But if one of their own rips off the government for millions- time to bear arms against the government!”
And, of course, Levdrakon “Not that I want all the dumbass yahoos shot, but I wouldn’t shed a tear if they were. Live by the gun and all that. Shoot 'em in the legs.”
And I was first responding to Levdrakon saying this:
“I can’t help but wonder whose side these armed rebels would take if a crowd of armed Native Americans started stopping vehicles to “ask questions” about their ancestral rights. I’ll go so far as to say they’d show up with their own guns ready to blaze down some drakes.”
Then, of course, you added this:
“Playing the “I’m Not Touching You! I’m Not Touching You!” game with the government is fucking dangerous, and anybody that plays this game deserves whatever they get.”
Going back to my undergraduate days studying force, and just wars, etc. I was taught that once you decide on principles, it is good to evaluate them against actual past situations to see how you would respond. Kent State is not a straw man - it happened. Students through rocks and bricks, soldiers opened fire, people died. Armed Native Americans is not a straw man. We can check out Alcatraz island, for example.
SOME posters seemed eager to see the armed Federal agents take on the Cowboys (or whatever shorthand we are using). I was wonder if their zeal was one of law and order, or tainted by their lack of empathy for a conservative, white, male, rancher (or whatever other descriptions might apply).
It’s the same basic projectile tech, just different levels of advancement. I don’t know why one should be forgiven for brandishing or using deadly weapons simply because more effective versions are available.
Bricks were actually thrown at Kent state, no shots were fired here.
While I would agree that this seems to be true for many of the armed protesters, these sorts of subjective determinations, especially when made by law enforcement, are what the laws clarifying people’s right to carry without restriction are reacting to. That is why the line of where one is allowed to carry has been drawn, in some cases, to be where ever a person is legally allowed to be, instead of wherever a person can manage to carry without other people being intimidated.
I have a lack of empathy for riot-inciting lawbreaking assholes that think that it’s o.k. to steal if enough of your buddies are armed.
NOBODY here said they were opposed to his being white.
NOBODY here said they were opposed to his being male.
NOBODY here said they were opposed to his being a rancher.
NOBODY here said they were opposed to his being conservative.
Why do you support a lying, thieving scofflaw?
Show me where I supported a lying, thieving scofflaw.
Cliven Bundy is that, and your posts can be read as implying support.
In my case it’s my “lack of empathy” for gun-totin’ hypocrites who have come to the “aid” of a LAWBREAKER when, in all likelihood, if the lawbreaker(s) in question was/were illegal immigrants or dark-skinned folk accused of drug possession, say, they would be the first ones wanting something to be done about it by either a local police force or a national unit. But when it’s one of “their” guys being targeted, it’s: “Hands off, Feds - you have no right to take that guy’s cattle (even if they do).” THAT’s my big beef with those ya-hoos - that and the fact that they brought their firearms as if preparing for battle even when there shouldn’t have been even the merest inkling of a battle.
Not to mention a comPLETEly different “level” of “potential to kill.” Something you conveniently omitted (not that it takes a rocket scientist to figure THAT out).
And law enforcement officers have the right to secure an area if need be in order to do their sworn duty. It was the protesters that marched hand-in-hand with armed “militia” that turned what was supposed to be a simple legal procedure into a out of control circus.