How is this any different than when the BLM protests shut down interstate highways? When they rioted and destroyed millions of dollars of personal property? When they threatened people with violence who didn't agree with there message?

 

First off, were the BLM protesters armed?

 

I said during the protest in Cincinnati about 14 months ago when they walked onto I-75 that the police chief was weak for allowing it. I also said that I would not blame anyone one bit who was in a vehicle if they just drove straight ahead and went through them, as you have a bunch of idiots stupid enough to walk on a busy interstate, where is there frame of mind? What are their intentions? The people in the vehicles have the right to protect themselves and those in their vehicles, if it means run people over to get out of there, so be it.

The Bundy's to the ranchers in the west are like Al Sharpton to black people in Baltimore. They like some of the stuff they stand for, but common sense tells them its the wrong voice to follow. The Bundys are hijacking any rancher isssue to grind their ax with uncle sam.

 

This is why the local people and the imprisoned ranchers are telling them to leave.

 

I agree. I don't like Al or Jesse, when there are situations where they see that that can attach themselves to, with a large percentage of the reasons being self promotion and $$$.

 

Every black person that I know disagrees with Al and Jesse a lot more than they agree with them, and they have always said that those two do not speak for them.

 

The Bundy's are not there for the ranchers cause, just like Al and Jesse are usually not there other people when they show up. Even though all may have some points, they are few and far between and they may end up hurt the cause.

First off, were the BLM protesters armed?

 

I said during the protest in Cincinnati about 14 months ago when they walked onto I-75 that the police chief was weak for allowing it. I also said that I would not blame anyone one bit who was in a vehicle if they just drove straight ahead and went through them, as you have a bunch of idiots stupid enough to walk on a busy interstate, where is there frame of mind? What are their intentions? The people in the vehicles have the right to protect themselves and those in their vehicles, if it means run people over to get out of there, so be it.

 

 

I believe there were a few occasions where police officers were shot or shot at. I remember one distinctly that took place at a protest in front of a police station. Also, I distinctly remember watching the circus event that was the Baltimore riots, and watching protesters hurling rocks, bricks and bottles at cops. IMO, yes they were armed.

 

I know your next line will be an attempt to distance the BLM movement from those protesters, who were violent, but the reality of it is that many of those who were in the protests were simultaneously supporting the BLM and getting their "fuel" from ridiculous BLM rhetoric.

 

So you answer your question, yes members of the BLM were armed during their protests.

^ Ok, some idiots were armed, and yes they tarnished anyone else who may have been civil. Just as the Bundys and their group will tarnish the efforts of the ranchers.

 

The difference between the two is with the BLM you have some idiots who were armed Vs everyone being armed. Both should be dealt with, and if you throw objects at LEO, game over, the tear gas and bean bags should fly. Of course they are VERY patient, one big reason being they know it's a select few idiots.

I agree. I don't like Al or Jesse, when there are situations where they see that that can attach themselves to, with a large percentage of the reasons being self promotion and $$$.

 

Every black person that I know disagrees with Al and Jesse a lot more than they agree with them, and they have always said that those two do not speak for them.

 

The Bundy's are not there for the ranchers cause, just like Al and Jesse are usually not there other people when they show up. Even though all may have some points, they are few and far between and they may end up hurt the cause.

 

I'll agree with you on this one.

First off, were the BLM protesters armed?

 

I said during the protest in Cincinnati about 14 months ago when they walked onto I-75 that the police chief was weak for allowing it. I also said that I would not blame anyone one bit who was in a vehicle if they just drove straight ahead and went through them, as you have a bunch of idiots stupid enough to walk on a busy interstate, where is there frame of mind? What are their intentions? The people in the vehicles have the right to protect themselves and those in their vehicles, if it means run people over to get out of there, so be it.

 

To answer you first question, who knows whether they were armed or not, but I would imagine some were.

 

As for the I75 shutdown, I don't disagree that they are idiots. But running them over because you feel threatened by people doing nothing more than blocking traffic? C'mon now, you sound more dangerous by owning a vehicle than us crazy gun owners do for arming ourselves.

To answer you first question, who knows whether they were armed or not, but I would imagine some were.

 

As for the I75 shutdown, I don't disagree that they are idiots. But running them over because you feel threatened by people doing nothing more than blocking traffic? C'mon now, you sound more dangerous by owning a vehicle than us crazy gun owners do for arming ourselves.

 

 

I just wished they had decided to take their protests onto the train tracks.

The moment they carried firearms into a federal building they became criminals, right?

The moment they carried firearms into a federal building they became criminals, right?

 

I would assume that would be the proper term. Unfortunately, criminals never seem to read those "gun free zone" signs posted everywhere. Gonna have to take away their guns.

As for the I75 shutdown, I don't disagree that they are idiots. But running them over because you feel threatened by people doing nothing more than blocking traffic? C'mon now, you sound more dangerous by owning a vehicle than us crazy gun owners do for arming ourselves.

 

First, and you should know this by now, I have multiple guns, I am sure there may be only a couple on here who might have more than I do.

 

Bit I stand by that statement. Anyone if a vehicle has no clue at the intentions of idiots who are in a group walking on an interstate. They are crazy enough to be walking across the interstate, you have no idea what they will do. IF, and I say IF a driver feels that his safety is at risk, especially if he has kids in the vehicle, his first obligation is to protect his family. Now did I say put the pedal to the floor? No! But you insinuated that I did, I stated that the driver has the right to protect themselves and those in his car and I would not blame them if they just drove forward. If those people don't get out of the way, that is on them. But again, I didn't say to floor the vehicle and aim towards them. I really should have to dissect a very simple and common sense post.

The moment they carried firearms into a federal building they became criminals, right?

 

Not necessarily. While it is illegal to carry a firearm into a federal facility(this would be designated by signage on entry door) not all buildings are designated as federal facilities. It would then depend on state of Oregon and/or local municipality laws. Many parks allow some form of carry, even into some buildings.

I am hearing that other milita's are either upset or angry at the Bundy's and they way that they went at this? I'll check on this when I get home if it isn't posted by then.

First, and you should know this by now, I have multiple guns, I am sure there may be only a couple on here who might have more than I do.

 

Bit I stand by that statement. Anyone if a vehicle has no clue at the intentions of idiots who are in a group walking on an interstate. They are crazy enough to be walking across the interstate, you have no idea what they will do. IF, and I say IF a driver feels that his safety is at risk, especially if he has kids in the vehicle, his first obligation is to protect his family. Now did I say put the pedal to the floor? No! But you insinuated that I did, I stated that the driver has the right to protect themselves and those in his car and I would not blame them if they just drove forward. If those people don't get out of the way, that is on them. But again, I didn't say to floor the vehicle and aim towards them. I really should have to dissect a very simple and common sense post.

 

Dude, you can't just run over people without repercussions. Like a $500 deductible.

Dude, you can't just run over people without repercussions. Like a $500 deductible.

 

Go forward, if you feel threatened you have the right, go slow and if needed speed up but only if necessary.

 

Thing is, a buddy on CPD and I had this conversation later that night, that is what they were worried about, that people in cars will feel threatened and want to get the hell out of there, and it was the reason that the chief told them to block the N-bound lanes, figuring they wouldn't jump over the wall in the middle. There were more than just a couple of officers that night that were not happy with the chiefs decision of allowing them to get onto the ramp.

 

This happen at a couple of locations about 14 months ago. I don't recall the details but in Minnesota a driver claimed that he panicked and ran over a few protesters in the street to get away. Again, in that situation I do not recall if he was trying to run them over or was in fact just trying to get away for his safety.

Go forward, if you feel threatened you have the right, go slow and if needed speed up but only if necessary.

 

Thing is, a buddy on CPD and I had this conversation later that night, that is what they were worried about, that people in cars will feel threatened and want to get the hell out of there, and it was the reason that the chief told them to block the N-bound lanes, figuring they wouldn't jump over the wall in the middle. There were more than just a couple of officers that night that were not happy with the chiefs decision of allowing them to get onto the ramp.

I agree with you 100% on this. You have every right to protect youself!