Tuesday, January 05, 2016

Have You Noticed What the Oregon Ranchers Have NOT Done?

Has anybody noticed something special about the Oregon ranchers' revolt against the Absurdly Harsh Penalties That Sparked Their Protest?

They occupied a building. An empty building. A public building. A building that was directly linked tot he issue of their concern.

Now notice something else.

Notice what the Oregon ranchers did not do.

• The Oregon ranchers did not turn themselves into a mob
• and they did not march, armed or otherwise, to the private homes of the officials involved in the subject of their despondency
• and threaten the officials' physical residence
• and/or terrorize the officials' family members.

If various posts that I have read on Instapundit are to be believed, the Oregon ranchers have made no threats of violence, i.e., they have not threatened once to use those weapons they (happen to be—legally—) carry(ing). What they have said is that, yes, they might use said weapons, but only in the (hypothetical) course of being attacked, or, in other words, if threats of violence against them are carried out. The Second Amendment is supposed to guarantee the natural right that a person is allowed to protect himself if he is, and/or his loved ones are, attacked.

Does this rule/right disappear if state agents, such as the feds, are doing the attacking?

Does this rule/right disappear if there seems to exist a law giving the authorities the right to attack (and one banning people from defending themselves)?

Furthermore, regarding the difference or lack of difference between (allegedly) peaceful civil disobedience and armed occupation:

The issue lies elsewhere. For the left, civil disobedience works only for their constituents, white or otherwise — the victims or alleged victims of society, white or otherwise. Witness Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and the Wisconsin State Capitol takeover — which, additionally, might have been weapons-less, but were filled with scorn, hatred, and — yes — very definitely an atmosphere of threats and violence or the likelihood thereof!

A conservative (white or other) — not least because of the fact that he or she is accused of being the (accursed) cause of the above-mentioned victims in the first place — has a lot less chance of being listened to and respected and of escaping unscathed.

Let's end this with an article from the National Review's David French:
So far, no one has been hurt, the “occupation” is occurring in a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders. It would be absurd for the federal government to treat the protesters like it treated the men and women at Waco or Ruby Ridge, and it would be absurd for the protesters to shoot police officers who are ordered to reasonably and properly enforce the law. The occupation is far less intrusive and disruptive than the Occupy Movement’s dirty and violent seizure of urban public parks, and authorities permitted that to go on for weeks. Now is the time for calm, not escalation.
(Somewhat) Related: Good-Bye to 2015, the year of lies, hoaxes, and outright fakeries