Oath Keepers Turn Up at Michael Brown Protests in Ferguson, Missouri

a reply to: cavtrooper7

What is working?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: MOMof3

MORE than likely they are tired of the crap and THAT is what they decided to do about it...it IS working.

Which crap exactly? Specifically.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Violent activism for the support of a thug.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Ah. Okay. Well it isn't meant to be violent. But you can't control everyone. And when it gets out of hand...well that's what we have cops for.

And...days later I'm still not clear on why they were there. To watch the cops? The protesters? Anyone they have a problem with? It's not even their town. And it just seems odd to me to travel to where the trouble is and flex.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: cavtrooper7

What is working?

Maybe the presence made some people think twice.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Police aren't obligated to protect a thing and DON'T, they simply react to the incident at hand.THEY aren't stopping the looting all over town THAT is what the Oathkeepers are donig,obvious ,clear and public.
If they were indeed racists and violent, I assure you ,THERE would BE no riots ANYWHERE.

a reply to: spav5

How do you feel about THIS?www.facebook.com...
These people were killed to protect tigers do you feel bad for THEM?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Police aren't obligated to protect a thing and DON'T they simply react to the incident at hand.THEY aren't stopping the looting all over town THAT is what the Oathkeepers are donig,obvious ,clear and public.
If they were indeed racists and iolent I assure you THERE would BE no riots ANYWHERE.

They've protected me. And my son. They patrol here and protect people and property, so I dunno about that.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Are YOU a shop owner in a riot area?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Are YOU a shop owner in a riot area?

Are you in the habit of speaking in generalizations and then going non sequiter when someone responds to the generalization??

a reply to: ~Lucidity

THAT is all you.
Oathkeepers aren't gurding the country at all the time and we are speaking of how YOU would compare your situation to why they are doing this.
SEE?
www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: MOMof3twitter.com...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Nice. While they are there why dont they do some real good and get those gang members and turn them into men. Even if they are black and meaner than a rattlesnake. Give up on serial killers, not kids that are just poor.

a reply to: MOMof3

The Oath keepers are mostly vets or police.
THEY are already meaner and better trained.
PART of teaching includes the ability to want to learn ,somehow I think those you describe would see them as enemies against their skin only.
WHEN the highest value a person has is their epidermis I doubt they could make the reach.
I REALLY hope no one gests hurt and they NEED to stop this criminal behavioir in support of a criminal who happens to have had the same skin coloration.
THERE is no mitigating argument that would accept this violence.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5

It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).

The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.

Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.

But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.

I am not thinking about the law because I am not talking about the law. I think that anyone who would shoot another unarmed person for the sole purpose of protecting property..is a coward.

A coward is someone afraid to fight for whats theirs. SO i take it the patriots in the Revolutionary war fighting for freedom and their land were cowards huh? The Indians too apparently they were also cowards huh? What about the soldiers in WW2 fighting to protect their homelands? According to you they were all cowards too huh?

Sorry, I did not read all of what you wrote (as so far you have not been the least convincing) reading your reply will take more time than I am willing to give. Perhaps you need to become more familiar with the reasons for the revolutionary war.

I guess on this topic we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you are going to be insulting at least be up front about it. YOU said ANYONE FIGHTING OVER AND WILLING TO SHOOT SOMEONE OVER PROPERTY WERE COWARDS. Your words basically. Intellectual dishonesty is big apparently because you will not read anything contrarty to your views. You are showing fellow posters you are not willing to consider other possibilities when you do such actions. maybe your not reading it is not your fault but your educators fault?

I stated shooting unarmed people over property makes one a coward. The British were armed so no need to drag all of that information into a debate as it is irrelevant. I am not willing to consider it. Killing people who intend no harm other than to property makes one a coward. I cannot make my point any clearer. If you disagree, fine. You will not sway my pinon and I am not trying to sway yous.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: spav5

I don't have feelings for theives or criminals if they don't have the common sense NOT to attack an armed defender, screw them.
The world is better served by their absence.
IF YOU wish we will direct them to riot where YOU are ,so you can enjoy sacrificing YOUR possesions,livelyhood and property to them.

I did not say to defend one's self..I said to defend property. To kill someone who is unarmed becasue they have in tent to harm property makes you a coward, I do not care if you agree with me. I am not trying to convince you.

a reply to: spav5

Good because apparently NO ONE else does either.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Great response , agreed

Wannabees and Statists of a feather imo.

They claim to be about upholding the constitution yet have taken one side. If they were what they say they are they would be there to protect the protesters right to assemble equally as peace keepers. If the police cant protect themselves and our military at recruiting offices to the point groups like these play bodyguard/enforcer then they fail to see the bigger picture.


Cognitive dissonance runs rampant among the faketriots

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: spav5

Good because apparently NO ONE else does either.

I think there are others that agree with me..but this is not an invitation for you to try and convince me otherwise.

a reply to: spav5

AAAAAND Back to the approprite conversation that is not JUST about you.
Guys with guns on guard duty.
Very boring really ,I assure you.