01-04-2016, 09:42 PM
(01-04-2016, 09:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ii What policy of Government are they influencing by intimidation or coercion?
Since it is an 'or' situation, we only need one. Are they not seeking a change in policy for the arson sentencing? Or possibly we could go with their overall issues with the policies of the BLM. Seems they fit the bill to me.
(01-04-2016, 09:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It appears they feel they have been treated unjustly by the government and have staged a non-violent sit-in.
Call it terrorism if you want, just don't expect the word to mean as much the next time you use it.
By bringing firearms to their sit-in they have thrown non-violence out the window. Non-violence would apply if Ryan Bundy said they are willing to be killed for their cause, without adding the willingness to kill.
But that's cool, you keep on denying the law. Non-violence is my thing as a pacifist, and what we are seeing here ain't non-violence because the threat of violence is ever present.
