It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Ryan Bundy Just a Mormon Extremist?

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



To point out how low it is. To those who don't seem to be able to see it in themselves.


Well, good luck with that then my friend.

Personally, I think it's just an exercise in futility.





posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
so has anything new happened? not your religious debate. new news dealing with whats going on in Burns OR



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

"rooted in the belief" does not translate into "his prophet tells him too" .

Perhaps you should learn a bit about Captain Moroni and Joseph Smith.


states they will leave peacefully if the community asks, not the sheriff, a single man.
The community has made its wishes clear from the beginning. It was not until he realized that his call to arms failed that he backed down. He is a coward, actually.


edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm not Mormon so maybe I shouldn't speak, but that being said if he really believes what he said then he's not much different than Warren Jeffs. Sure he may not be conducting himself in such a gross fashion as Jeffs, but he is distorting his religious beliefs all the same. Most Mormons I know disagree with this situation, and kind of think it's a stupid cause to rally around.

I see where you're going with this though, and to that point I must say; "not yet". His calling for people to join his cause is failing and when that happens he'll just go back home. The group you're referring to would just get more extreme with their behavior until death from one side or the other happens. Luckily Bundy hasn't gone "THAT" route.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday



The group you're referring to would just get more extreme with their behavior until death from one side or the other happens. Luckily Bundy hasn't gone "THAT" route.
Give the Mormons time. No telling what they're up to. Better keep a close eye on 'em.



edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Are the Mormons dangerous? Would they like, attack large groups of people, rape the women kill the men and slaughter the rest? If so i'd hate them too, but i must know are they to be Feared?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phageunless you can read minds through a screen, do not put words in his mouth. Simple as that.

You call him a coward, id say he has more cojones than most American men, many who have become girly men. Me? I am more pro establishment than against. We should absolutely mine that uranium, gold, and whatever else to this economies content. I just want to do it honestly. If the feds just up and stated exactly why it does the things it does, both domestic and abroad, less people would actually protest once they develop and understanding as to how our empire gives us the resources we need for the way we live here.

The other choice is to fight and die, or give up our technology and live like those in the world a tier beneath us in luxury. I enjoy my luxury, and I like profits. Endangered animals and foreign nationals be damned.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

unless you can read minds through a screen, do not put words in his mouth.
The words are his. Do you know who Moroni is?


You call him a coward, id say he has more cojones than most American men, many who have become girly men.
Sure, like any bully. Until he turns around and sees no one is backing him up.



edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

None of this applies?



Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

Wikipeidia

Seems to me he's (A) breaking the law and (ii) trying to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion...

So, under federal law he's a domestic terrorist?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I believe people aren't backing them up because they're afraid to. People fear the Govt' that should never have happened. Apparently when that occurs 'Tyranny'. What about the gov't making people who Own their owns homes and land pay land tax to the Gov't for it? That isn't very fair is it. Why is no one addressing the fact that the Gov't is taking everything and giving peanuts back to their own employers? I don't understand that, can someone fill me in?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Hmmmm, according to those rules, there's no legal way for we the people to stand up against our corrupt government. This can be twisted to allow the government to turn any resistance into terrorists.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove



Hmmmm, according to those rules, there's no legal way for we the people to stand up against our corrupt government.

False. The government would have to prove that an act which was a danger to human life was performed.

Bundy has not done that. As I stated in the OP.

edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Here's an idea, how about we prove the Govt is a danger to the People? How's that for a plan?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: awareness10
What's this "we" stuff? You already told us you're "them" and not "we."



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."


This part here makes it impossible for we the people to take advantage of the whole purpose of the second amendment and take up arms as militia to take back our government from corruption without being labelled as domestic terrorists. Then again, I guess the government would defend itself regardless. I just disagree that terrorist is a proper term for the people standing against the government. Our constitution, the 2nd amendment was built with the knowledge there may be a day we need to revolt and take back our government.

I'm not saying it's the case here with them, just pointing out there's some pretty anti-american verbiage in the Patriot Act.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why, WE the PEOPLE who else? Phage i know you hate mormons, i know you hate bundy but please, tell me how could you possibly hate People standing against what they 'The People' feel is Tyranny within Gov't. I don't think anyone has truly stood against the Gov't successfully large scale since the last war. By war i mean, the Colonies. North against South. I don't even think anyone know's how to anymore. They just bend over nowadays and do as they're told so they don't have to fear big GOV taking their toys away.

The thought of people actually defending their rights nowadays is by holding posters up in front of the White House that say 'I'm angry stop destroying America right now or else'. That's not going to do a damn thing. If we could go back in a time machine to say... 1886 ... they'd all freak out, panic and wonder why the men had no balls. Honestly they would. My G. Grandparents would be in Shock, traumatized if they could see the world right now. Sometimes it almost traumatizes me. hah.


edit on 1/5/2016 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
There is no "or", it is an "and". All of the points (A, B, and C) must be covered in order to be convicted as a domestic terrorist. Including the first one.

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;



edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thanks for clearing that up Phage!



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

A revolution by it's vary nature is a threat to human life.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Vector99

uh yeah i know


I'm english what do i know right?

They reached England 7 years later

1837: First Mormon missionaries reach England

source


Wow, the cult is strong in this one.




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join