@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
No, they "technically" have broken into a government building and have taken the building hostage so to speak. If they did not intent to harm anyone then why are they heavily armed?
By the way, your reasoning that gun ownership is primary there to defend oneself in case of an intrusion, home invasion, doesn't get better when your repeat it over and over like other gun nuts do. Statistics say that most home robberies occur when the occupants are away. 85 % of these break-ins are committed by non-professionals who are more desperate than dangerous.
Read the bureau of justice statistics.
Right wing militia is usually not the smartest bunch and before their cry for Cheetos gets any louder and before we're faced with hundreds of copycats, these folks need to get taught a lesson (they understand) rather quickly.
Another nice try, but no cigar.
Some of you folks seem to think I am defending these guys. I'm certainly not, and I have more than once indicated that I think they are being reckless and foolhardy, that they have unnecessarily created a situation which may result in violence and death, and that they should be prosecuted for whatever crimes they commit.
What I do not believe is that there is any reason what-so-ever for the Feds or the Sheriff or the Lone Ranger, if he is in the vicinity, to light the fuse on this bomb by storming the place and trying to force them out.
It really is amusing to see such a concern for law & order, and a desire for muscular police action from some of you. I wonder why there's such a change in attitude between now and the Occupy Wall Street days. Maybe those unruly days of wannabe anarchy pushed you over the top.
I see they did break in. I acknowledged that I might be wrong about that so no point scored.
That someone is armed doesn't necessarily imply that they intend to harm anyone. This is a simple fact. You may infer from their being armed that they intend to harm someone, and you may even be correct, but you may also be wrong so being armed doesn't mean intending harm.
Have a nice stroll down the gun control side track, but I won't be joining you - not least of all because you are nasty. You clearly don't know what my position is on the 2nd Amendment and gun control and yet you feel it appropriate to refer to me as a "gun nut." Considering that your definition of a "gun nut" is most likely extremely broad and inclusive, I'm probably among good company. Your insult is of little consequence for a number of reasons and particularly so since you obviously have no concept of what I have been posting and are fully prepared to assume what you prefer to believe.
Robbery statistics are utterly immaterial to what I wrote. Apparently you see the words "homeowner," "gun," and "intrusion," and take wild assumptive leaps as to what the topic under discussion is and what is meant by what was written.
Regardless of why homeowners have guns, I think it's safe to assume that should one of those oh so
rare occasions when a homicidal maniac breaks into an occupied house, a fair number of the gun owning homeowners will have
the readiness, will and ability to shed blood , and they will not be guilty of any crime for possessing such a state of mind. Does your aversion to gun ownership cause you to dispute this? This is what we were discussing, and not the reasoning for gun ownership, the probabilistic danger of home intrusion or any other totally unrelated aspects of an entirely different issue.
As for the tough talk about a lesson the right wing militia types need to be taught, what might that lesson be? Please be more specific. Should they be killed? That will surely learn 'em.
Have you thought about the danger faced by the federal agents who you want to teach that lesson to a group of heavily armed men who have announced they won't leave without a fight, or is that just the nature of the job and what they've signed up for?
Let's see, on the one hand you denigrate Bundy & Co for whining about their situation, but on the other you think that situation will inspire "hundreds" of copycats.
Let's assume for the sake of argument (I would have used "discussion" but you took it to argument right out of the blocks) that the Feds do what I would like to see which is wait these fools out. They can't stay in this station forever (and it appears they didn't come prepared to stay for very long at all -
but here again, I could be wrong) and since I assume the authorities are capable of preventing any outsiders from bringing them provisions and supplies, sooner or later they will grow hungry and will miss their families. Their vigil will begin to seem less and less heroic and they will eventually look to cut a deal with the Fed so they can go home. If this is the case, who do you think will appear to have "won?" Do you really think that such an ultimately deflated gesture will inspire anyone to repeat it?
Let's assume the Feds follow your admonition and they teach these fools a less they understand. Well, you haven't been specific about what the lesson should be, but considering you think of them as stupid, it will have to be rather blunt, and so I thinks it's safe to assume you mean some sort of violence, even if it's just treating them roughly as they are all handcuffed and walked out of the station. You acknowledge they are heavily harmed and believe this alone means they intend to harm someone so what do you think will happen when the Feds storm the place?
I hope you don't think the Feds are capable of some sort of ninja raid which allows them to take down all the right-wing nuts during the night, and without any injuries the Federal ninjas. There also isn't any secret government sleeping gas or sonic cannon that can incapacitate the nuts and allow for an easy round up. No, based on realistic expectations and past history, the Feds will go in prepared to open fire. There is certainly enough reason to believe the nuts aren't bluffing about "defending" themselves if "attacked," that the Feds will need to go in assuming they will be fired upon. The chances that shots will be fired and people will be injured or killed is greater than the chance that your home will be burglarized when you are not home.
If you don't think a bloodbath, wherein
heroic freedom fighters are slain by
the forces of the tyrannical government, will be inspiring to other anti-government nuts, you don't have a good grasp on the situation.
Two BTW's
BTW #1: My home has been broken into three times - twice while I and my family were at home, so the 15% rate you cite is of zero comfort to me, and even if it were "only" 15% I wouldn't find that anymore comforting than the notion that the person breaking in when we are home is "only"
desperate. And I don't own a gun.
BTW #2: The last time you jumped to a conclusion about me and launched a nasty post was when we were all being asked to contribute to Shewolf's Fund-me account. Perhaps you remember how that panned out.