I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Equal treatment doubt

After some cheering by the right the gun toten' folks down in the southwest seem to have lost their luster with some remarks about race etc.  I wish I had been in a position to ask this question before that happened.

The question that I read somewhere was: "If the protestors at Wall Street a year or so ago had brought guns with them, would they have been treated as gently as the rancher?"

Some of us doubt it.

1 comment:

  1. Disclaimer – I think Mr. Bundy is in the wrong. He did not and has not paid his grazing fees for use of Federal land. I think the Federal government has every right to seize his assets (cattle) and prevent him from future use of Federal grazing land UNDER CURRENT LAWS.

    He and his supporters have taken a stand against the CURRENT LAW by conducting protests that border on civil unrest. A course of action they share with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement.

    The answer to Wayne’s question “treaded as gently” is NO. The anxiety level created by a Nevada rancher with a gun rack in his pickup is near zero, at least in Nevada. Compare that to the anxiety level created by an OWS participant with a .38 in his/her backpack in lower Manhattan.

    I love the question (If the protesters ….) because it is a simple juxtaposition of people, places, and causes that points out that we (all of us including the government and the press) react differently when people, places, and causes vary.

    The question here is whether a different reaction (if the OWS protesters had guns) is rational. I would argue that the people and place (but not the cause) in the two instances is valid cause for a different reaction by law enforcement, the press, and the rest of us.

    I have intentionally ignored the fact that laws regarding the owning and carrying of firearms are completely different in the two instances under discussion because the question is then reduced to theoretical principle based on juxtaposition and therefore more fun.

    P.S. Having stated that I think Mr. Bundy’s actions are wrong I will add that I feel the same about the OWS actions.