150 Armed Men occupies Malheur National Wildlife Refuge!

Yet when a single unarmed black protester is on the street he gets mobbed by police.

If these protesters were/are just peacefully protesting then what's the need to carry weapons..?

Oregon wildlife reserve means that they're not too far away from bears.I'd be going armed if I were in their position.

A burglar is simply there to steal your stuff. The militia are being quite peaceful other than the trespassing.

Much in the same way that a burglar means no harm to the homeowner unless they "provoke" them, I guess.

A burglar is simply there to steal your stuff. The militia are being quite peaceful other than the trespassing.

Oregon wildlife reserve means that they're not too far away from bears.

I'd be going armed if I were in their position.

Nice try but it's comical. The wildlife reserve in question is most famous for the bird watching and trekking, among other things.

It's certainly not a sanctuary overrun by bears to suggest one needs to carry arms because the bears have received a memo to strike down anyone everyone occupying the reserve.

And bringing all this when the thugs themselves have claimed they are willing to fight "the oppressors"? Talk about desperate clutching on loose straws....



Tbh I also wouldn't mind hearing your definition for "intimidation"

Have they committed any violent acts? No.

I feel they do have a point from what little information I have on the case. The 2 men in question have already been to prison and served their time, they were then let out only to be resentenced to be sent back in. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

They planned to occupy the building, it wasn't a spur of the moment thing. I highly doubt there would have planned to occupy an open building and risk harming innocent people.

Oregon wildlife reserve means that they're not too far away from bears.

I'd be going armed if I were in their position.

I'm sure all those who visit the wildlife reserve and the employees who work there don't carry AR-15s.

Nope. But go to those parts of America and Canada and you'll find an awful lot carry similar.

which still doesn't mean they have to take them everywhere

Idk personally if I wanted to have a peaceful protest I'd go unarmed, just as a gesture

Nope. But go to those parts of America and Canada and you'll find an awful lot carry similar.

Point taken. I myself support the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and I understand the point of these militias as a way to check federal encroachment on civil rights, both enemies domestic or foreign.

I just see that carrying firearms to a 'peaceful' protest to be contradictory that's all.

Canadian gun control is nearly as strict as the uk.
Automatic weapons are illegal although semi automatics are

The USA isn't like England, it's a republic. Taking arms against the government when the government is committing a perceived injustice is what you're supposed to do to check government power and maintain your republic.

Automatic weapons are also illegal in most US states. An AR15 is an automatic assault rifle, but they get modified to semi automatic status.

I thought the AR-15 was semi auto as standard which can be modified with a sear block to make full auto.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't see this ending well, but that might just be me being cynical.

Though its shocking how the American police will respond to black protesters not engaging in illegal actions vs white protesters armed and engage in illegal protests.

May be being armed is the only way to stop the American police using excessive force.