By now, you've probably heard that a group of armed white militia-nuts have seized some government property in Oregon -- and they say they are willing to kill to keep it. They claim they did it to "defend" the Constitution. That's ridiculous. You don't defend the Constitution with an armed rebellion against it.
What they have done is to break federal law. They are traitors, and they have seized property that belongs to all citizens of this country. Most conspicuous is the complete absence of any kind of law enforcement officials. Some talking heads on TV have said the government doesn't want to provoke any violence. Evidently they think these nuts will just go away if they ignore them. I disagree. It will just encourage the right-wing extremists to do the same thing in other places.
When did ignoring lawbreakers become the optimum way to deal with criminals? Is it because they are right-wingers, white, and christian? Is this just another example of how some in our society have more privileges than other citizens have? It sure seems that way. Do you really think a group of armed muslims, or black activists, or immigrants (or any other minority group) would be ignored by law enforcement if they illegally seized a government facility and threatened to kill to defend it? Of course not -- and the public would be demanding action.
These men are criminals -- and traitors to their country. It is the job of law enforcement to deal with criminals and traitors. Law enforcement should surround that facility and starve the fools out. And when they do come out, they should be tried and given long prison sentences (and denied the right to own a firearm once they finish that sentence). And if any of them are stupid enough to actually shoot at law enforcement, they should be dealt with even more harshly.
That's my opinion. What do you think?
