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

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am not entirely sure who they were there to "protect"? Whose side are they on - were they there to defend the black protesters from alleged police misconduct?

I had never heard of this organization. Former military and police....

Things that make you go hmmm

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Flatfish

To be a vigilante requires you to actually do something.

If walking around, behaving in a legal manner is vigilantism.....

There really can't be a bad time to exercise ones rights.

And that's where you're wrong!

You have every right to stand up in front of a serial shooter and yell "Shoot Me!" But I doubt it would be a good time to exercise the right.

What you call "logic," my fifth grade grandson could reason through better.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I think they're hoping they can justifiably kill a black person.

a reply to: Flatfish

Ok.

All I have heard from you in response to legitimate questions that I have asked are diatribes against folks that identify with various militia movements or the Oathkeepers without any facts to back them up. This sight is supposed to be a place where we create dialogues to deny ignorance. Well, you are being pretty ignorant with the generalizations you are making. Not only that, you are getting to the point of insulting people.

If I was someplace where an active shooter was running amok I would exercise my 2nd amendment right and take them down with my concealed handgun.

What you call arguments are false generalizations, stereotypes, and ignorance.

So ... we've gone from agreeing to protect the People of the United States from unconstitutional commands from the Federal, State or local governments ... to acting as potential vigilantes while strutting around carrying firearms and wearing body armor in public.

Who else saw that coming from this group?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
This is perfect evidence of how police only discriminate, profile and harass particular people in society.

If it was a couple of black dudes walking the streets all armored up like that (or even young 'druggy' looking white people), they would have been shot at worse, or at best been slammed face down on to concrete and arrested. But because there a bunch of white red necks, the cops probably didn't even harass them by demand names & addresses, then make them justify there existence, by asking them where they've been, where there going and what they where doing there.

So much for equality for everyone!

You're wrong. There are several black groups that protest with open carry.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Black gun-rights activists in Texas protested police brutality Wednesday by exercising their rights to openly carry firearms through the streets of South Dallas.

Dozens of members of the newly-formed Huey P. Newton Gun Club, named after the co-founder of the Black Panther Party, marched with rifles, shotguns and AR-15s down MLK Boulevard. They wound up at a restaurant where police officers were eating lunch, Reason magazine reported.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... we've gone from agreeing to protect the People of the United States from unconstitutional commands from the Federal, State or local governments ... to acting as potential vigilantes while strutting around carrying firearms and wearing body armor in public.

Who else saw that coming from this group?

And they aren't breaking a single law in doing so.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... we've gone from agreeing to protect the People of the United States from unconstitutional commands from the Federal, State or local governments ... to acting as potential vigilantes while strutting around carrying firearms and wearing body armor in public.

Who else saw that coming from this group?

And they aren't breaking a single law in doing so.

And I didn't say they were.

Yet.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Flatfish

To be a vigilante requires you to actually do something.

If walking around, behaving in a legal manner is vigilantism.....

There really can't be a bad time to exercise ones rights.

And that's where you're wrong!

You have every right to stand up in front of a serial shooter and yell "Shoot Me!" But I doubt it would be a good time to exercise the right.

What you call "logic," my fifth grade grandson could reason through better.

Rather than insult me, try sticking to the subject. Once an insult is thrown, it only belittles your argument.

Freedom of speech is not distilled down to "shoot me". Freedom of speech includes the freedom to not speak.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Flatfish

What you call arguments are false generalizations, stereotypes, and ignorance.

As usual, you've got it ass backwards. But hey everyone's entitled to their opinion, regardless of how skewed it may be.

There's a reason these militia groups are on the fed's watch lists and it's not because the government is out to get them. It's because they're armed & dangerous.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Flatfish

What you call arguments are false generalizations, stereotypes, and ignorance.

As usual, you've got it ass backwards. But hey everyone's entitled to their opinion, regardless of how skewed it may be.

There's a reason these militia groups are on the fed's watch lists and it's not because the government is out to get them. It's because they're armed & dangerous.

This is called "Appeal to authority", and is a logical fallacy.

To carry firearms in public might be protected by the US constitution but to intervene in any riot or commotion with those weapons or even bare handed............without a request or approval from the government(s) at city, state or federal levels...........might be a crime.

It would be good to know what rights these OKs have regarding intervening in the public commotion when government has not asked for their help.

If a traffic stop situation of 3rd party goes physical and the cop is taking a beating..........then would a common civilian fall in trouble with law if he/she intervenes to help the cop, when the cop or any other official authority has not asked for it.

Is it possible that helping civilian can be charged with assault by the 3rd party who is fighting the cop?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Flatfish

To be a vigilante requires you to actually do something.

If walking around, behaving in a legal manner is vigilantism.....

There really can't be a bad time to exercise ones rights.

And that's where you're wrong!

You have every right to stand up in front of a serial shooter and yell "Shoot Me!" But I doubt it would be a good time to exercise the right.

What you call "logic," my fifth grade grandson could reason through better.

Rather than insult me, try sticking to the subject. Once an insult is thrown, it only belittles your argument.

Freedom of speech is not distilled down to "shoot me". Freedom of speech includes the freedom to not speak.

It's only an insult if the shoe fits.

The very same "logic" could be used to reinforce the fact that these Oath Keepers also have the right to NOT bear arms in situations like what's taking place in Ferguson.

Now that we've gone full circle, maybe you could admit that these Oath Keepers are just as "Nuts," (for choosing to bear arms as opposed to not) as someone in the middle of a theatre shooting choosing to speak up as opposed to remaining silent?

Rights are precious things, they should be exercised with care and respect and never for the sole purpose of instigating a negative response from others.

"Go armed, at all times, as free men and women, and be ready to do sudden battle, anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness. That IS the price of freedom."

Quote from Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers. Oathkeepers.org

Make up your mind people. Those Oathkeepers were there to protect the protesters from the police. Granted, a few protesters have been shot, regardless.

Stop attacking every single #ing thing in the #ing world. WE are under attack from the US oligarchy and its militias.

People of this country are allowing themselves to be spun in circles of hate- hate you hate this hate your mom hate your face.

As long as we all keep bickering amongst ourselves like a bunch of 7 year old siblings in need of a nap, we're going to continue down this shady path the US and other governments are on.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Then what is the issue here? That some dudes showed up? I mean, this WAS in the OP:

Imagine the carnage if the other protesters asserted their right to carry too. I swear it seems like some people actually want carnage.

Its actually the first sentence you wrote. Right underneath that image you have of guys carrying rifles.

But ok. Sure. This thread isn't about the right to bear arms. Its about some dudes going to Missouri. Has nothing to do with firearms at all.

oO

But hey...they have every right to be there too, right?

That was also in the OP. And in case you don't recognize it as such, it's rhetorical. They have every right. But why?

Maybe they are just mercs...private contractors hired by or in with AJ or someone else. I don't know. But I want to know why. And what for. And it isn't just because they have the "right."

originally posted by: Hushabye
Make up your mind people. Those Oathkeepers were there to protect the protesters from the police. Granted, a few protesters have been shot, regardless.

Stop attacking every single #ing thing in the #ing world. WE are under attack from the US oligarchy and its militias.

People of this country are allowing themselves to be spun in circles of hate- hate you hate this hate your mom hate your face.

As long as we all keep bickering amongst ourselves like a bunch of 7 year old siblings in need of a nap, we're going to continue down this shady path the US and other governments are on.

These mysterious folks in government that are attacking "us" ... are they not also Americans?

You're arguing against Americans being set against Americans ... by suggesting that we should be against other Americans?

/confused

originally posted by: corsair00
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am not entirely sure who they were there to "protect"? Whose side are they on - were they there to defend the black protesters from alleged police misconduct?

I had never heard of this organization. Former military and police....

Things that make you go hmmm

Apparently, reporters from InfoWars. But who knows. Again, are these the same Oath Keepers who kept their weapons trained on the police at the Bundy Ranch?

"Former military and law enforcement" aiming at law enforcement. Mkay.

a reply to: Flatfish

If someone has a negative response about something, that is their problem. It shouldn't be forced on me to concern myself with how others feel about me and my behavior when it is lawful behavior. I have the freedom to be an asshole if i choose....or not. That is what freedom is.

Yes, people are offended at the Oathkeepers choosing to bear arms within their rights. It is up to those people to get a grip on their offense, as they have no constitutional right to not be offended. Or flummoxed Or flustered. Or flabbergasted. Each of those issues are their problem to deal with. And are in no way justification for the imposition of tyranny by sequestering someones rights.

But if you are forced to not exercise your rights for fear of the slippery slope ending in those rights being sequestered or removed....then you are not really free. And you are, in the process, admitting that you really don't have a "right". Rights that can be taken away are actually called "privileges".

Im sure your 5th grader can tell you what the difference is.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So.

They're there to exercise their rights.

Why?