Oath Keepers in Ferguson

[Save Us]

...and trust me, this country ever reaches a place with a partial or complete breakdown of order, the OATHKEEPERS will be the first folks taking guns from those THEY DONT BELIEVE should have them.



b.b.

A buddy of mine with an FFL sells to LE local and federal. They have told him if there was a SHTF moment they would be with their families. What would you do? I would imagine the Oathkeepers would do the same thing. I would.

[BorderBob]

I'm

WRONG !

- And why should anyone trust you ?

- your in the first group that would stand up and take guns from ordinary citizens
- mainly because you have sworn a oath to the Government not its citizens.
- You are part of the system - a retired part none the less !

You have no right to judge those who would actually stand by us
- instead of those like you who would blindly following orders
- while feeling superior to those you disarm !

Why should anyone "trust you"

I will address you, but this is for the whole peanut gallery. People crave organization and leadership. Which brings law and order. Sure, there are those who will thrive in anarchy, but most will look for civil order to return. Your government and your OATHKEEPERS among other armed groups will fill that void and the first thing they will do is disarm the citizens. Troll the Internet, you have folks in gun groups looking to kill Liberals because of their politics. Study a bit, killing your opposition is a stop along the successful revolution trail.

'Murica...!



b.b.

[Save Us]

I'm

I will address you, but this is for the whole peanut gallery. People crave organization and leadership. Which brings law and order. Sure, there are those who will thrive in anarchy, but most will look for civil order to return. Your government and your OATHKEEPERS among other armed groups will fill that void and the first thing they will do is disarm the citizens. Troll the Internet, you have folks in gun groups looking to kill Liberals because of their politics. Study a bit, killing your opposition is a stop along the successful revolution trail.

'Murica...!



b.b.

Would you give up your firearm? What would you do in a worst case scenario?. serious question.

[BorderBob]

Would you give up your firearm? What would you do in a worst case scenario?. serious question.

No. Nor would I participate in confiscation. Surprised? I can say in the 28 years I worked in Customs I never arrested anyone on the 265.01 charge for having a handgun in NYS except in very narrow circumstances. Drugs and felons. In all other cases I found a way to bring them into compliance with U.S. FEDERAL LAWS and sent them on their way. Or used the immunity provision, I think it is in 265.20 to surrender their firearm and have it shipped back to their home.

My colleagues, judging from media and other reporting, are not so forgiving.

I did arrest a sheriff deputy with a gun, but he also had weed and his was a "political" badge anyway. His Sheriff asked that we take that from him when he went to jail. I did take a rifle from a guy once on an importation charge, but he was crazy.

I know people that would follow that confiscation order. Military people too.


b.b.

[Save Us]

No. Nor would I participate in confiscation. Surprised? I can say in the 28 years I worked in Customs I never arrested anyone on the 265.01 charge for having a handgun in NYS except in very narrow circumstances. Drugs and felons. In all other cases I found a way to bring them into compliance with U.S. FEDERAL LAWS and sent them on their way. Or used the immunity provision, I think it is in 265.20 to surrender their firearm and have it shipped back to their home.

My colleagues, judging from media and other reporting, are not so forgiving.


I know people that would follow that confiscation order. Military people too.


b.b.

That is truly frightening. I agree most would follow orders as they have done since there were orders to be followed. Guns of law abiding citizens were confiscated in New Orleans during Katrina. As much as the NRA is vilified they serve an important function.

[4248]

BB Stated, "No. Nor would I participate in confiscation" - so are you saying youd refuse to obey your Government ?


BB stated: "Your government and your OATHKEEPERS among other armed groups will fill that void and the first thing they will do is disarm the citizens"

I see you believe "Oathkeepers" would help disarm citizens - they have already proven by their past and present actions that they would not.

I believe you misspoke on that point ! Unlike Nogods who will out right lie to force his point !

BB also stated, "People crave organization and leadership. Which brings law and order."

Agree - yet no one likes to be herded around and treated like cattle. Many times the imposed "organization" is nothing more than disguised Marshal Law.

The whole sale disarming of ordinary citizens during a disturbance is unwarranted. It grows out of Governments fear of its citizens and need to "Control" not stabilize.

Then BB closes with, "Study a bit, killing your opposition is a stop along the successful revolution trail. 'Murica...!"

Not every group or organization wants to over throw our present Government. For many it quite the opposite - they want the Government our fore fathers envisioned. They want less intrusion - less life style stifling taxation -

But the Government fears citizens who stand and express their frustrations - they fear armed citizens . So they over vilify every group - they invent reasons for uninformed people to fear them. There has always been free Americans who express discontent with Government - yes, some have people/leaders who are more like recognition seeking Politicians.

This fear is used to justify over training/arming boarder patrol agents - police - and street level enforcers.

[4248]

Truth In Media’s Joshua Cook followed up with Oath Keepers president Stewart Rhodes to provide an update on the Oath Keepers’ presence in Ferguson.

Cook asked Rhodes, “what is the media getting wrong about your group?”

“One of the first things they said was that our presence was inflammatory,” answered Rhodes. “And it’s quite the opposite. There were actually no shots fired and interesting enough, no arrests made while our guys were on the streets. And we protected several black owned businesses again like we did last year.”

“The point of us being there is, (a), lead by example and show the people of Ferguson this is how you prevent arson, this is how you protect against looting, etc. And (b), protect your community so that you don’t have this false choice that’s being presented to the American people- that the only way to stop arson and looters is to trample on the First Amendment Rights of the protesters or to have a hyper-militarized police state. The American people are being given a false choice,” said Rhodes.

“The American people are being given a false choice.” – Stewart Rhodes, President of Oath Keepers

Rhodes said that there have been increased instances of business owners more actively protecting their property during the unrest. “There’s a growing number of businesses doing exactly what we did, stand up and do what the police can’t do. The police cannot or will not protect the people’s actual businesses from the looters and arsonists. The best answer is for the folks in Ferguson to do it themselves, it takes away that false choice,” said Rhodes.

Cook asked Rhodes about his thoughts on St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar’s comments about his group’s presence being “unnecessary” and “inflammatory.” Rhodes responded that their presence has actually had a “calming” effect and many of the protesters realized who the Oath Keepers were and that their presence was meant for protection.

“I think Chief Belmar, like all too many police officers, have this idea that only the police should have firearms.
It’s a threat to their turf.
It’s a turf battle.
He’s kind of a small minded man and looks at it like that,” said Rhodes.

“What we are doing is leading by example. And we want to see the people of Ferguson to stand up for themselves and take care of their own security so they won’t need a heavy police presence.” said Rhodes.

“Frankly they need a new chief of police there,” said Rhodes. “I think a lot of the problems go away with better leadership.”

Cook asked about the criticism Oath Keepers have received for offering to protect independent journalists while major media outlets have provided themselves with security teams. “If you’re a mainstream media journalist with a professional security team, that’s okay. But if you’re alternative media like Alex Jones or some other small group who has us along to help protect them, then it’s somehow extreme. So it’s a double standard, it is,” said Rhodes.

Rhodes advised that “the people themselves need to step up and take care of their own neighborhoods and suppress the thugs. The few thugs who are causing the problems, it’s up to the experienced veterans in Ferguson to step up.”

www.oathkeepers.org

[BorderBob]

or to have a hyper-militarized police state.

Someone better tell Tackleberry...

Attachment 4481




b.b.

[FMD]

The truth is the government owns the media. The Govt asked the media to stop reporting ebola cases - it did.

The Government veiws the populace as dumb ignorant back woods retards who are easily distracted by 'propaganda' hence the reality shows, the on going hollywood movie stars 'screw ups' ect.

If the media actually would report on what the govt is doing and how they are acquiring billions of rounds of ammo not legal for 'war' how the Govt is stock piling food like crazy, building underground cities, arming local cops with military grade stuff, ect ect, maybe people will wake up.. but since the media is owned by 6 corporations, in bed with the govt... HAHAHAHA

People live week to week. 97% of american households have less than 2 weeks of food on hand. Get hurt? game over.

Point is, 95% of the populace is willfully unprepared for Civil War 2.0 and the govt knows this, and has targetted the 5% by saying if you have more than 1 week of food on hand your a terrorist. If you dont have a credit card, your a terrorist, if you pay cash for everything your a terrorist, if u respect personal provacy, your a terrorist, ect ect...

Dark days are ahead for sure... and while those reading this think I am full of crap, a simple web search will prove I am not. The US Government has declared all out WAR on the American people.... No one cares.

Human cattle cars are in our future.

[FMD]

Someone better tell Tackleberry...

Attachment 4481




b.b.

Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

[nogods]

The truth is the government owns the media. The Govt asked the media to stop reporting ebola cases - it did.
.

Right. And the government kept everyone who ever had actual knowledge of the roswell space aliens from every spilling the beans along with getting everyone involved in fake moon landing video to remain silence.

And the government was able to filter out from twitter and all other social media all mention by medical personal treating the mass number of ebola cases in the US.

Couldn't the government eliminate people like you who keep revealing these government secrets just by taking all the tinfoil off the shelves?

[BorderBob]

I don't know, he might have a point. I posted a picture of the OATHKEEPERS walking around Ferguson in their battle rattle. And now it's GONE!!



b.b.

[Eat My Gun]

Here is their BS:



They think THEY are the ones who decide whether an order is constitutional - perhaps they need to read the rest of the constitution and they will learn that it is not THEM who determine what laws are constitutional.

when they were kids, did they tell their parents or team coaches "I'll follow your rules, but only as long as I'm the one who decides if your rules are worthy of following"?

Idiots swallow anything, did you swallow their BS?

So we should have police arresting people who refuse to confine their first amendment activities to government prescribed "free speech zones" until such time as someone can finance the long and arduous appeals process to get a ruling on the constitutionality of such zones?

Or arresting people for assembling without a permit? Or for filming?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Only the most mindless, subservient, and cowardly sheep among us would accept the idea of free speech zones and the like, shrug their shoulders, and rationalize their blind obedience by saying to themselves, "There's been no court ruling on that so I guess I'll just comply."

Some things are obviously unconstitutional and thinking men don't need a court to tell them that. The historical examples are numerous: anti sodomy laws, segregation laws, interment camps, slavery, assembly permits, poll taxes, etc etc… Anyone who will argue that those things were okay and we wouldn't be better off if they went unenforced is a fool.

I'll take an oath keepers refusal to enforce or abide by a law to our politicians' refusal to make laws that pass constitutional muster any day.

I gotta applaud the Oathkeepers and the LEO's among them who refuse to be complicit in politicians systematic violation of the Constitution.

[nogods]

So we should have police arresting people who refuse to confine their first amendment activities to government prescribed "free speech zones" until such time as someone can finance the long and arduous appeals process to get a ruling on the constitutionality of such zones?

Or arresting people for assembling without a permit? Or for filming?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Only the most mindless, subservient, and cowardly sheep among us would accept the idea of free speech zones and the like, shrug their shoulders, and rationalize their blind obedience by saying to themselves, "There's been no court ruling on that so I guess I'll just comply."

Some things are obviously unconstitutional and thinking men don't need a court to tell them that. The historical examples are numerous: anti sodomy laws, segregation laws, interment camps, slavery, assembly permits, poll taxes, etc etc… Anyone who will argue that those things were okay and we wouldn't be better off if they went unenforced is a fool.

I'll take an oath keepers refusal to enforce or abide by a law to our politicians' refusal to make laws that pass constitutional muster any day.

I gotta applaud the Oathkeepers and the LEO's among them who refuse to be complicit in politicians systematic violation of the Constitution.

Nope, you and your doomsday bunker buddies don't get to determine what the constitution says. We the People do that. And WE the People get to do that because that is exactly our founders envisioned....not a bunch of self-proclaimed "constitutional unscholars" running around foaming at the mouth because they have dis-enfranchised themselves from the system our founders created.

[Eat My Gun]

Nope, you and your doomsday bunker buddies don't get to determine what the constitution says. We the People do that. And WE the People get to do that because that is exactly our founders envisioned....not a bunch of self-proclaimed "constitutional unscholars" running around foaming at the mouth because they have dis-enfranchised themselves from the system our founders created.

"Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's need to think." - Adolf Eichmann

You're in good company.

But despite what you and your goose-stepping buddies think, you don't get to hide behind the legal process by which people's rights are violated. That concept was resoundingly rejected at Nuremberg.

We the people absolutely do not get to determine what the constitution says. It's already written down.

The fact is there are unconstitutional laws and just because they made their way through the legislative process doesn't make them any less unjust. Anyone who enforces or abides by them is complicit in the injustice.

I'm thankful that in this country's proud history we've had people who took it upon themselves to sit at the front of the bus in the absence of a constitutional ruling. We'd be in a far worse place if everyone copped out and prescribed to the world view that you and Eichmann seem to share.