Idaho Constitution Party Cans Gay Gubernatorial Candidate »« Yes, Lee Duigon, I Am Your Enemy

Bundy Ranch vs Ferguson, MO

With the town of Ferguson, Missouri exploding in entirely justified rage and the heavily militarized police crack down like a bunch of tin pot dictators, Bob Cesca at the Daily Banter compares the reaction to that situation to the one in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch.

1) The Bundy Ranch: On one hand, a large group of armed white men marched in a line of battle while at least one civilian rifleman in a sniper’s perch trained his weapon at Bureau of Land Management officials. In reaction, the government didn’t fire a single round or canister of tear gas, and eventually retreated, conceding the disputed ground to the Bundy militias. It’s important to note that the protesters turned out in support of a man who refused to pay his taxes and grazed his cattle without paying the accompanying fees. This man, Cliven Bundy, and his supporters threatened secession and armed revolt against the United States government.

2) Ferguson, Missouri: On the other hand, unarmed African American protesters in Ferguson, enraged and grieving from the death of an (again) unarmed black man named Michael Brown who was shot in the back by a police officer, have been confronted for several days now by police in full military regalia. This time, the rifleman in the sniper’s perch is a police officer — his scope trained on the protesters.

And have you noticed the silence of the NRA and Gun Owners of America on the situation in Ferguson? Why aren’t they using what is going on there as evidence of the need for everyone to own guns to stand up to a tyrannical government? Gee, what could the difference between the two situations be? See, if the government tries to enforce a completely valid court order to stop a rich white guy from using public land if they aren’t going to pay the same grazing fees everyone else has to pay, it’s incredibly important for hundreds of heavily armed white people to show up to take a stand against tyrrany; if the government shoots and kills an unarmed black man, as they do far too often, and unleashes a military-style assault, arrests journalists and shoots tear gas into crowds of peaceful protesters, that’s just fine. Not tyranny at all.

Comments

  1. doublereed says

    And if those protesters were carrying assault weapons (like patriotic americans), you better believe those cops would slaughter them. The fact is that we give huge deference to right-wing nutjobs, and if the left-wing did the same thing, the police and media would fully embrace the violence against them. Like it’s definitely a racial thing, but I think the same principles apply to other left-wing protests like Occupy Wall Street.

  2. D. C. Sessions says

  3. Chiroptera says

    And have you noticed the silence of the NRA and Gun Owners of America on the situation in Ferguson?

    Why, it’s almost as if gun owners aren’t really concerned about protecting liberty from a powerful and abusive government but about something else entirely.

  4. Al Dente says

    jws1 @4

    Lemme guess: now the narrative will shift to Brown – “he was a thug who had it coming!”

    It’s already started:

    The website of Pat Dollard—the genocide-encouraging conservative filmmaker and former cocaine-snorting Hollywood agent—published a story under the headline “EXPOSED: Michael Brown Was A Member Of The Ultraviolent ‘Bloods’ Street Gang.”

  5. laurentweppe says

    Why, it’s almost as if gun owners aren’t really concerned about protecting liberty from a powerful and abusive government but about something else entirely.

    I’d say that it’s almost as if gun fetichists want an abusive government, so long as said government exist to enforce their privileges.

  6. sabrekgb says

    I say this as a gun owner, carrier, and supporter of the second amendment. The shooting of Michael Brown, which very much seems to be a “bad shoot” in police parlance and the obvious cover-up associated with it (in a long line of similar) is a much greater injustice and example of tyranny than the little Cliven Bundy thing (which seems to not actually be an example of tyranny, based on my only cursory knowledge of it).

    Protests are good. Armed protests are fine (assuming they comport with MO law). The police really should be afraid of randomly killing people. They really should be afraid that the community could rise up against them, violently, if they do. The law does not seem to provide a sufficient check on the murder of innocent people by police.

  7. says

    Lemme guess: now the narrative will shift to Brown – “he was a thug who had it coming!”

    Already seen many comments saying he got what he deserved.

    Funny how those who are the loudest in objecting to the possibility of Sharia Law coming to America are the most vocal in supporting the type of grossly punitive actions mandated as punishments under the most extreme versions of Sharia Law. At least, under Sharia Law, shoplifters might only lose a hand, not their life.

  8. matty1 says

    @1

    What’s the problem. Isn’t that how the 2nd amendment is supposed to work?

    Given that a number of your founders owned slaves I’d say keeping African Americans from revolting may well be exactly how the second amendment was supposed to work.

    Just because a meaning is original doesn’t mean it’s nice.

  9. sharonb says

    To be totally honest, it’s not a clean comparison because of the rioting. But, the general observations of how authoritarians view the two situations are spot on. Maybe in Ferguson, they should have brought out some yellow flags.

  10. jws1 says

    @#14: Yes let’s be totally honest: Treating an entire crowd like they’re all rioters creates more violence.

  11. Al Dente says

    chilidog99 @16

    I do not believe that Michael Brown was shot in the back.

    Until the autopsy report is released we won’t know.

  12. Ichthyic says

    I do not believe that Michael Brown was shot in the back.

    that’s nice. not based on anything but what you just pulled out of your ass though.

    what do we have to go on so far?

    6 eyewitness accounts that all agree he was shot in the back, twice, and MANY more times after he stopped, turned around, and fell to his knees, hands up.

  13. David C Brayton says

    Mark Steyn made an excellent point when he wrote this:

    Why? Because the Ferguson cruiser did not have a camera recording the incident. That’s simply not credible. “Law” “enforcement” in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns …but not a dashcam. That’s ridiculous. I remember a few years ago when my one-man police department in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser. It’s about as cheap and basic a police expense as there is. . . . In 2014, when a police cruiser doesn’t have a camera, it’s a conscious choice. And it should be regarded as such.

    And, if we have to have federal subsidy programs for municipal police departments, we should scrap the one that gives them the second-hand military hardware from Tikrit and Kandahar and replace it with one that ensures every patrol car has a camera.

  14. sabrekgb says

    @17 blf

    No, i don’t think all armed protests qualify as revolts. That’s something specific and different.

  15. says

    The police really should be afraid of randomly killing people. They really should be afraid that the community could rise up against them, violently, if they do.

    Actually, the fear of violent uprising tends to make cops MORE brutal toward their people, not less. It also gives their supporters more excuses to go on supporting their “unnecessary” brutality — by giving them more reason to question whether this or that shooting really is “unnecessary.” Your inability to grasp this lesson of experience just shows how simpleminded, clueless and uncaring you, and your stupid-assed NRA ad-campaign, really are.

  16. sabrekgb says

    @23 Raging Bee

    Well, it seems that the lack of fear of the community acting against them when they randomly kill people isn’t preventing it, so… What’s your solution?

    I said “The police really should be afraid of randomly killing people.” You seem to disagree. The inverse of that is that the police should not be afraid of randomly killing people. That seems like a ridiculous position to take (even for you), so why don’t you, if you are able, actually articulate what your position is.

  17. says

    What’s the solution? Concerted collective political action, augmented by large-scale PEACEFUL protests, that’s what. That’s what worked for the original civil rights movement, and the gains they made are being rolled back because of a lack of such concerted action — NOT because of a lack of guns, and NOT because not enough cops are being killed by angry people.

    And what makes you think the cops aren’t scared of the people? Most bullies are motivated by fear, as are most racists.

    I said “The police really should be afraid of randomly killing people.” You seem to disagree. The inverse of that is that the police should not be afraid of randomly killing people. That seems like a ridiculous position to take (even for you), so why don’t you, if you are able, actually articulate what your position is.

    I just did — and you ignored it.

  18. dingojack says

    So the police should be unafraid to deliberately plan and execute the targeting and shooting of members of the public?!?
    Dingo

  19. says

    What I’m saying, dingo, is that the best way to deter police misconduct, is to make them afraid of ACCOUNTABILITY, not of random retaliatory violence.

    Fear of violence and terrorism is what police EXIST for; so using such violence against them only plays to their strengths. Concerted peaceful action attacks their weaknesses.

  20. dingojack says

    Raging Bee – early onset Alzheimer’s?

    Nope, you quoted (#23) what sabrekgb said (#11). It was he/she I was asking.

    Dingo

Leave a Reply