01-05-2016, 02:18 PM
(01-05-2016, 01:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously this is the part I am missing.
All I have read is they do not want to hurt anybody, but would not rule out violence.
Perhaps if someone can provide me with the link/quote the stated they we hurt people if their demands were not met then we can revisit this as terror.
I have not seen anywhere where they have threatened violence to achieve what they desire. They are sitting in an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere. No one is currently in danger
It is what I have said all along.
Why do they need the guns if they are not threatening violence? The civil disobedience of the civil rights movement did not require guns because they were no threatening violence. These people in Oregon are different. they intend to use violence if their demands are not met.
If a group of armed men took over your house and said they would not leave unless their demands are met you would not consider that an act of violence? Seriously?
