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

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am not a hater of the Oath Keepers or militias in general, but I do agree with you in this case. Why are they there? If you are going to protect private businesses or "protestors from police" that is one thing, and I would support it.

But showing up without a lot of forewarning and just being present without your message being clear just adds to the tension in this case. Not saying they are doing anything illegal, but I think they planned poorly and don't realize that the protestors may not see things the same way (hence criticisms like - "well you're white and armed, why are you getting special non-attention from the police", etc.

With that being said, there are times where the police, etc. aren't doing their jobs (case in point, Ferguson last year when similar militia types protected private businesses and received gratitude from the local community).

WoW

from NPR -- note the headline and only 5 "oathkeepers" !!

The night also brought a new development to Ferguson: sometime after midnight, "a group of five white men who call themselves the Oath Keepers arrived on the scene," St. Louis Public Radio reports. "They carried assault weapons, which raised alarm from protesters."

More Than 20 Arrested In Ferguson; Armed 'Oath Keepers' Walk Streets

It's a Conpiracy !!

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Why can't those oath keepers exercise their pledge to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." and deal with the corrupt politicians and corporations destroying not only the US, but the entire planet for profit, deal with the corrupt organisations and agencies that enforce the corrupt laws?

If they were there to protect the rights of the protestors then no big deal. But seems like sending them to protect one man would be excessive.

But if they didn't cause any trouble then I guess it ended up fine.

The St. Louis County Police Chief doesn't seem to want them there.

In a statement, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar called their presence "both unnecessary and inflammatory." St. Louis County police and prosecutors told CBS News said they would consult about the legality of openly displaying the weapons during a state of emergency, which had been declared Monday after violence rocked Ferguson during protests the previous evening.

source CBS

So, in this instance, since they took payment for their "servces", I would say that makes them mercenaries, not Constitutionalists.

1mercenary
noun mer·ce·nary ˈmər-sə-ˌner-ē, -ne-rē
: a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army : a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him

source Merriam-Webster



ETA: If they were onsite as private security, wouldn't they need licensing for that?

originally posted by: spav5
Wonder why they can only help keep the peace when they are armed? They think they look like brave men but they all look like cowards to me.

Usually people who say such things are in fact too scared to do what it is they are calling cowardice. They were essentially bodyguards doing a job they were paid to do.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Its almost like doublespeak when you start questioning when, where, and why people choose to exercise their rights.

Would it be considered "inflammatory" for a woman to breast feed while in church? A right is a right.

a reply to: Olivine

You use the word "mercenaries'....it does not mean what you think it means.

A better, more appropriate term would be "private security". Given their background in LEO...they are the exact folks you'd look for to do private security. From a person who hires private security from time to time for my business.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am not a hater of the Oath Keepers or militias in general, but I do agree with you in this case. Why are they there? If you are going to protect private businesses or "protestors from police" that is one thing, and I would support it.

But showing up without a lot of forewarning and just being present without your message being clear just adds to the tension in this case. Not saying they are doing anything illegal, but I think they planned poorly and don't realize that the protestors may not see things the same way (hence criticisms like - "well you're white and armed, why are you getting special non-attention from the police", etc.

With that being said, there are times where the police, etc. aren't doing their jobs (case in point, Ferguson last year when similar militia types protected private businesses and received gratitude from the local community).

So if you were going to go to Ferguson, would you feel you needed to give "a lot of forewarning"? They have a right to travel freely...why do we need to infringe that right? You say yourself they aren't acting illegally....so why should it matter if they are acting within their rights?

a reply to: Olivine

Between laws protecting security firms and doing on the fly interpretations of emergency declarations it seems difficult if not impossible to protect oneself or property from injury or destruction from protestors or looters.

Police certainly have not shown they are able to protect people, business or property.

Of course let's just ignore "shall not be infringed" for the sake of expediency either.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Okay, private security if you prefer. But operating as armed private security requires licensing. I don't know if these Oathkeepers carry those credentials. If they hadn't been paid to be in Ferguson, it would sit better with me, but that's just my opinion. It was just another over-the-top stunt by Infowars...not helpful.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Did they shoot anyone, or even spontaneously fire their weapons into the air?

No?

How weird is that?

Or accidentally discharge their weapon in the parking lot?

Those guys are not only nuts, they're dangerous and nothing good can come from these "Bundy Ranch" style reactions.

I take that back, I guess senseless gun displays like this could help advance the cause of gun control legislation in the future. Go figure!

a reply to: ~Lucidity

These men have every right to be there. I wil not allow their rights to go where they please to be infringed apon. It doesn't matter why they are there. They are law abiding citizens exercising their right to assemble.

How many of our rights are we supposed to give up because someone doesn't agree?

Those of you opposed to these men exercising the rights granted them by the bill of rights have no idea what you are arguing against.

I don't own a gun, nor do I want one. But I promise you being a nation whith more guns than people is very scary to our enemies. And I for one am proud to live in a country that no other nation on earth would dare invade because of men like this.

I may not own a gun, but if someone tries to invade I would arm myself with one of their extra guns.

They are exercising the freedoms granted by our forefathers, freedoms that this country was founded on, freedoms that men have died for.

These men are not the problem. These men are not selling drugs to your children, they are not inciting violence by shooting at anyone. They are defending their rights and yours. May God bless these men for their courage to stand up for the rights of every American Citizen.

You don't like them, then move to a different country. I happen to enjoy the freedoms that these men represent.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Did they shoot anyone, or even spontaneously fire their weapons into the air?

No?

How weird is that?

Or accidentally discharge their weapon in the parking lot?

Those guys are not only nuts, they're dangerous and nothing good can come from these "Bundy Ranch" style reactions.

I take that back, I guess senseless gun displays like this could help advance the cause of gun control legislation in the future. Go figure!

Senseless gun displays? what exactly is senseless in exercising a right?

"I can't believe OJ and his senseless requesting of a trial by jury"

"Why won't he talk? What a senseless use of the right to remain silent"

"How dare you breastfeed your child!!! Why do you have to senselessly display yourself like that?"

See....it just loses its ring when you apply logic tests to it. A right is a right.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oh I agree with you.

A little clarification - I am saying in my opinion it would be a good idea to let folks know what you are doing, given that a lot of these protestors would assume things about the militia based on media bias and narrative. I just think there needs to be some PR or response to the media bashing of the Oathkeepers and militia movement in general, so people stop believing stereotypes they hear in the news.

I was going to try and research what kind of absurd legalities the local prosecutor may be researching, given that they mentioned to the press that they are looking up the legality of open carrying during a state of emergency. (Seems to me that is an extremely appropriate time to be open carrying)...

They certainly look more professional and restrained than the uniformed cops that typically show up at the protests. They didn't pepper spray, beat, arrest, or shoot anyone either but some of you have to find something to whine about whenever people exercise their rights.

It may be within their rights to be there but if Jones is looking to stoke up some action he might just get his wish. Somebody out there probably has a rifle too and will be sorely tempted to take some shots from a distance. White guys standing around with guns who are not the police will look just as much like an enemy to them as the police do. Shame on you Alex Jones. You are putting others lives in jeopardy just to up your ratings.

Shame!!

a reply to: Flatfish

Actually it did nothing to deter the passing of open carry laws (less gun regulation) here in Texas, so your argument is false. The open carry Texas movement was quite active and present and as such we have campus carry and open carry.

In your opinion, what makes them nuts / dangerous? I'm curious how rooted in Statism your opinions are.

A couple points / questions:
1) It is negligent discharge. No such thing as "accidental discharge" unless there is some kind of rare firearm malfunction.
2) Are you from Austin?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Did they shoot anyone, or even spontaneously fire their weapons into the air?

No?

How weird is that?

Or accidentally discharge their weapon in the parking lot?

Those guys are not only nuts, they're dangerous and nothing good can come from these "Bundy Ranch" style reactions.

I take that back, I guess senseless gun displays like this could help advance the cause of gun control legislation in the future. Go figure!

Senseless gun displays? what exactly is senseless in exercising a right?

"I can't believe OJ and his senseless requesting of a trial by jury"

"Why won't he talk? What a senseless use of the right to remain silent"

"How dare you breastfeed your child!!! Why do you have to senselessly display yourself like that?"

See....it just loses its ring when you apply logic tests to it. A right is a right.

What logic? You call that "logic?"

I'll tell you what's logical, if you go looking for trouble, eventually you'll find it.

It's also logical to expect that if they keep insisting on exercising their right to open carry at contentious events just to inflame tensions, that right they so cherish might be short lived.

Geez. Touchy subject.

If you don't see anything alarming or off about this, NOT to the exclusion of the other things going on, and you want this kind of cowboy country, you can state that but vstuff your hurled invectives where the sun don't shine. And it's my right to say that.