America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by HockeyDad. 194 replies replies.
4 Pages1234>
Oath Keepers in Ferguson MO.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Speyside Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 8:38 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
4 white men armed with assault rifles and side arms patrolled Ferguson MO yesterday attempting to keep a journalist safe. They said they were Oath Keepers. I fail to see how this fits their stated manifesto or helps the existing situation.

Shame on you
DrafterX Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 8:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Did they shoot at any cops..?? Huh
Speyside Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 9:18 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Doubt it, do you think paramilitary patrolling Ferguson is a good idea?
SmokeMonkey Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 9:25 AM EST
Joined: 04-05-2015
Posts: 5,688
I'm sure someone will show up on the thread to defend this.
DrafterX Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 9:28 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Speyside wrote:
Doubt it, do you think paramilitary patrolling Ferguson is a good idea?



prolly not.... but if they're escorting a reporter they're basically bodyguards.. and since reporters have been beat up and stuff recently there I'm ok with it I guess... (Except for Geraldo who I think wanted to get beat up for ratings) Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 9:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
What 'Oath' did these guys take..?? Huh
TMCTLT Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 9:47 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Speyside wrote:
Doubt it, do you think paramilitary patrolling Ferguson is a good idea?




Perhaps not but I also do not think that the "oath " that others have obviously taken to keep the hate and rioting going on the anniversary of this event help either.
TMCTLT Offline
#8 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 9:48 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
SmokeMonkey wrote:
I'm sure someone will show up on the thread to defend this.




Reporters lives matter too fog
Speyside Offline
#9 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 10:00 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Paul, I agree that the violent protests need to end. I think paramilitary visibility makes the job harder for the police, not easier. Also from what I know of the Oath Keepers, I question if this is really them.
TMCTLT Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 10:05 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Speyside wrote:
Paul, I agree that the violent protests need to end. I think paramilitary visibility makes the job harder for the police, not easier. Also from what I know of the Oath Keepers, I question if this is really them.



As long as the this kind of tone is set each time a Black life is taken by a White LEO this problem will only permeate and as long as we have a racist in the White House who uses these tragedies to further divide us...this will never end. It's almost as if they enjoy being given the opportunity to riot and lute and sadly that message is only being reaffirmed by Blacks in places of power in Some of our nations biggest cities. Fortunately not all cities are governed in this manner, many GOOD ones deal with it in a wait and see the facts first before jumping to hateful conclusions.
gummy jones Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 11:47 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Speyside wrote:
Doubt it, do you think paramilitary patrolling Ferguson is a good idea?


wouldnt want to upset the strangle hold the gangs and rioters have on the scared noncombatants...
victor809 Offline
#12 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 11:56 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
This seems... dumb on a lot of levels.

First you've got existing clashes between the police and the protesters. Who would think it's smart to add a third, heavily armed, group? What procedures are they intending to follow? At what point exactly are they planning on shooting the civilians? (Don't tell me they aren't. You don't bring a gun, in the open, to a tense situation without having an exact idea in your head at what point this weapon will be used.)

Second, this just rubs in the fact that weapons policing in the US is different depending on the color of your skin. Currently in the country, a black man can get shot for carrying an air rifle, a kid can be shot for carrying a toy... and these guys are going to carry real weaponry into a potentially violent situation... it shows poor taste in a lot of ways.
DrafterX Offline
#13 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 11:56 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
gummy jones wrote:
wouldnt want to upset the strangle hold the gangs and rioters have on the scared noncombatants...



true... true... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#14 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
victor809 wrote:
This seems... dumb on a lot of levels.

First you've got existing clashes between the police and the protesters. Who would think it's smart to add a third, heavily armed, group? What procedures are they intending to follow? At what point exactly are they planning on shooting the civilians? (Don't tell me they aren't. You don't bring a gun, in the open, to a tense situation without having an exact idea in your head at what point this weapon will be used.)

Second, this just rubs in the fact that weapons policing in the US is different depending on the color of your skin. Currently in the country, a black man can get shot for carrying an air rifle, a kid can be shot for carrying a toy... and these guys are going to carry real weaponry into a potentially violent situation... it shows poor taste in a lot of ways.




Do Oath Keepers have to be white..?? Huh
TMCTLT Offline
#15 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:11 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
victor809 wrote:
This seems... dumb on a lot of levels.

First you've got existing clashes between the police and the protesters. Who would think it's smart to add a third, heavily armed, group? What procedures are they intending to follow? At what point exactly are they planning on shooting the civilians? (Don't tell me they aren't. You don't bring a gun, in the open, to a tense situation without having an exact idea in your head at what point this weapon will be used.)

Second, this just rubs in the fact that weapons policing in the US is different depending on the color of your skin. Currently in the country, a black man can get shot for carrying an air rifle, a kid can be shot for carrying a toy... and these guys are going to carry real weaponry into a potentially violent situation... it shows poor taste in a lot of ways.




Why don't you instead tell us how Dumb it is for these people to keep the hate and rioting and looting going? How many years do you think they'll celebrate? this anniversary of the Gentle Giant d'oh! loosing his life? Victor I wouldn't try to tell you anything, after all you already Know It.What procedures will they follow?? Um the LAW....why don't you tell us which prodedures the rioters are gonna follow??? And your lame assumption that weapons policing is different depending on skin color is Laughable, that kid was asked and then TOLD to drop the gun (toy or not ) he should have complied. These kids / punks are dying of their own choice as they think they CAN challenge law enforcement when ever they choose BECAUSE they have folks like you to back their otherwise stupid choices.
victor809 Offline
#16 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
Do Oath Keepers have to be white..?? Huh


Nope. Do you think these aren't white?

Are you willing to bet your dog on it?
DrafterX Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
well, the OP mentions they're white.... so no.. Not talking
victor809 Offline
#18 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:23 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
TMCTLT wrote:
Why don't you instead tell us how Dumb it is for these people to keep the hate and rioting and looting going? How many years do you think they'll celebrate? this anniversary of the Gentle Giant d'oh! loosing his life? Victor I wouldn't try to tell you anything, after all you already Know It.What procedures will they follow?? Um the LAW....why don't you tell us which prodedures the rioters are gonna follow??? And your lame assumption that weapons policing is different depending on skin color is Laughable, that kid was asked and then TOLD to drop the gun (toy or not ) he should have complied. These kids / punks are dying of their own choice as they think they CAN challenge law enforcement when ever they choose BECAUSE they have folks like you to back their otherwise stupid choices.


And what about the dude shot in walmart, while carrying a walmart sold airgun (you know, to purchase)...? Have you seen the video of him being shot while on his cellphone? That wasn't "disobeying the police" that was not even knowing they were there.

Of course rioting is dumb (and illegal). Of course looting is dumb (and illegal). Protesting in this instance is not dumb (nor should it be illegal). They want to be heard, and that is their right. There are protesters who are following the law, and there are protesters who aren't. That's not hard to understand. However, the protesters are not openly standing around with rifles and vests. What do you think would happen if even the most law-abiding protesters there showed up as heavily armed as these "oath keepers"?

If these "oath keepers" are only planning on following the "law" then why are they showing up heavily armed? Do you ever stop to think what sort of message this is trying to send? You do realize it's an attempt to intimidate, to escalate not de-escalate. That's only going to put both cops and protesters lives at risk. It's dumb.
victor809 Offline
#19 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
well, the OP mentions they're white.... so no.. Not talking


Damn... thought I'd eat well tonight for a second there.
gummy jones Offline
#20 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
victor809 wrote:

If these "oath keepers" are only planning on following the "law" then why are they showing up heavily armed? Do you ever stop to think what sort of message this is trying to send? You do realize it's an attempt to intimidate, to escalate not de-escalate. That's only going to put both cops and protesters lives at risk. It's dumb.


they are breaking no laws to the best of my knowledge and if we want to talk about who is putting the most lives at risk i would have to lean slightly to the side of the people burning down buildings, firing shots down city streets and causing general mayhem. or maybe the gangs who have no problem killing for a nickel and the people who keep their street cred by not snitchin.

as to why they brought guns, i think it is because ferguson is now somalia and tons of people cant wait to spew excuses for why it is someone else's fault.
victor809 Offline
#21 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:01 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
gummy jones wrote:
they are breaking no laws to the best of my knowledge and if we want to talk about who is putting the most lives at risk i would have to lean slightly to the side of the people burning down buildings, firing shots down city streets and causing general mayhem. or maybe the gangs who have no problem killing for a nickel and the people who keep their street cred by not snitchin.

as to why they brought guns, i think it is because ferguson is now somalia and tons of people cant wait to spew excuses for why it is someone else's fault.


Dude... You do realize a few protests, a couple shots fired is not "somalia" right? I hope you're exaggerating for effect.

Anyway, why are they there, is the pertinent question. It's their right to be as armed as they want. But why would a smart person show up at situation which is already tense, already prone to break out in violence? Any why would a smart person do that clearly prepared as if a conflict is a foregone conclusion?

I see two options. 1- they want the media attention for their organization or 2- they want the conflict to escalate.

Because I believe in the good of people, I'll assume they're doing it for attention. They're just willing to risk escalation to get the attention.
gummy jones Offline
#22 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:08 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
victor809 wrote:
Dude... You do realize a few protests, a couple shots fired is not "somalia" right? I hope you're exaggerating for effect.

Anyway, why are they there, is the pertinent question. It's their right to be as armed as they want. But why would a smart person show up at situation which is already tense, already prone to break out in violence? Any why would a smart person do that clearly prepared as if a conflict is a foregone conclusion?

I see two options. 1- they want the media attention for their organization or 2- they want the conflict to escalate.

Because I believe in the good of people, I'll assume they're doing it for attention. They're just willing to risk escalation to get the attention.


probably similar reasons people are being bused/flown in from around the usa

it is just hilarious to me that tons of people are rioting and/or inciting and we demonize 4 white dudes with semi auto rifles.

prone to break out in violence? i hope youre kidding - that horse left the barn decades ago when the families broke down and the gov and gangs became the new daddies.
Speyside Offline
#23 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:26 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Wow! Could you point out where they were demonized in this thread?

BTW, the local LEO'S have stated they should not be there.
DrafterX Offline
#24 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:52 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
then the local LEOs should be protecting the reporters... except for Geraldo of course... let him get what he really wants... horse
victor809 Offline
#25 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:57 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
then the local LEOs should be protecting the reporters... except for Geraldo of course... let him get what he really wants... horse


I'm pretty sure the reporters are going unmolested. Except maybe when they get arrested by the police.
DrafterX Offline
#26 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
maybe not this year... last year several of them got messed up.... which is prolly why they're being protected now.. Mellow
SmokeMonkey Offline
#27 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 04-05-2015
Posts: 5,688
Serious question - what sort of open carry license does one obtain to patrol the streets with an assault rifle as a civilian?
Abrignac Offline
#28 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
SmokeMonkey wrote:
Serious question - what sort of open carry license does one obtain to patrol the streets with an assault rifle as a civilian?


I may be wrong, but I'm not sure any license is needed. Unless specifically required in a particular jurisdiction, open carry falls under the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
MACS Offline
#29 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
victor809 wrote:
And what about the dude shot in walmart, while carrying a walmart sold airgun (you know, to purchase)...? Have you seen the video of him being shot while on his cellphone? That wasn't "disobeying the police" that was not even knowing they were there.

Of course rioting is dumb (and illegal). Of course looting is dumb (and illegal). Protesting in this instance is not dumb (nor should it be illegal). They want to be heard, and that is their right. There are protesters who are following the law, and there are protesters who aren't. That's not hard to understand. However, the protesters are not openly standing around with rifles and vests. What do you think would happen if even the most law-abiding protesters there showed up as heavily armed as these "oath keepers"?

If these "oath keepers" are only planning on following the "law" then why are they showing up heavily armed? Do you ever stop to think what sort of message this is trying to send? You do realize it's an attempt to intimidate, to escalate not de-escalate. That's only going to put both cops and protesters lives at risk. It's dumb.


Martin Luther King Jr. protested. The people in Ferguson are rioting and looting. There is a difference.

MLK's peaceful protests brought about good, needed change, albeit slowly.
DrafterX Offline
#30 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:11 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
We were watching TV
In Tiananmen Square
Lost my baby there
My yellow rose
In her bloodstained clothes.... Whistle
SmokeMonkey Offline
#31 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:27 PM EST
Joined: 04-05-2015
Posts: 5,688
Abrignac wrote:
I may be wrong, but I'm not sure any license is needed. Unless specifically required in a particular jurisdiction, open carry falls under the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.


I guess I've never really thought about it. It would probably be quite startling to me to run into someone in a public area with even a handgun, hunting rifle or shotgun visible, much less an assault rifle.

Interesting.
DrafterX Offline
#32 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:38 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
I don't know the specifics but most of the licensing is for 'concealed carry'... or being able to carry a loaded weapon in your car.. anyone can carry a gun in the car as long as it's not loaded.. unless you're or a felon or somethin.. Mellow
TMCTLT Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:44 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
victor809 wrote:
And what about the dude shot in walmart, while carrying a walmart sold airgun (you know, to purchase)...? Have you seen the video of him being shot while on his cellphone? That wasn't "disobeying the police" that was not even knowing they were there.

Of course rioting is dumb (and illegal). Of course looting is dumb (and illegal). Protesting in this instance is not dumb (nor should it be illegal). They want to be heard, and that is their right. There are protesters who are following the law, and there are protesters who aren't. That's not hard to understand. However, the protesters are not openly standing around with rifles and vests. What do you think would happen if even the most law-abiding protesters there showed up as heavily armed as these "oath keepers"?

If these "oath keepers" are only planning on following the "law" then why are they showing up heavily armed? Do you ever stop to think what sort of message this is trying to send? You do realize it's an attempt to intimidate, to escalate not de-escalate. That's only going to put both cops and protesters lives at risk. It's dumb.




Better to have protection (in this case against large numbers possibly ) and not need it than need it and not have it. Let's see if your correct in that these Oath keepers DO shoot someone unprovoked. I'll bet they don't....I'll bet they're not covering their faces as so many of the protestors have been known to do either!!
victor809 Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS wrote:
Martin Luther King Jr. protested. The people in Ferguson are rioting and looting. There is a difference.

MLK's peaceful protests brought about good, needed change, albeit slowly.


You know that's not true MACS.
There is protesting, in the vein of MLK, going on as well in Ferguson. There are people peacefully protesting in front of the courthouse, there are people peacefully (albeit illegally I believe) blocking traffic during rush-hour.

To claim all of this fits under "rioting and looting" is to sort of prove the point they are trying to make. That they are all painted with the same broad brush.
victor809 Offline
#35 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:50 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
TMCTLT wrote:
Better to have protection (in this case against large numbers possibly ) and not need it than need it and not have it. Let's see if your correct in that these Oath keepers DO shoot someone unprovoked. I'll bet they don't....I'll bet they're not covering their faces as so many of the protestors have been known to do either!!


Better to simply not interject themselves in a tense situation where they aren't needed. Police didn't request their assistance. Protesters didn't request their assistance. They just decided to show up to get attention.
TMCTLT Offline
#36 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:52 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
SmokeMonkey wrote:
I guess I've never really thought about it. It would probably be quite startling to me to run into someone in a public area with even a handgun, hunting rifle or shotgun visible, much less an assault rifle.

Interesting.




WHY???? what is SO scary? Are you also startled when you see LEO's with their sidearm? Do you also find it startling to cross the street where 2 ton automobiles " could " run you over? I guess I don't understand the fear that law abiding open carry folks create...
victor809 Offline
#37 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:01 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
... Everyone is "law abiding" up until the point when they aren't.
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:05 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
I was born a rebel... Mellow
TMCTLT Offline
#39 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:09 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
victor809 wrote:
... Everyone is "law abiding" up until the point when they aren't.




Like when you chased down and beat the snot out of that homeless guy? Like that? :-"
DrafterX Offline
#40 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
the homeless guy did stomp a puppy-dog... I woulda prolly done the same thing... or just shot him... Mellow
Abrignac Offline
#41 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:21 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
DrafterX wrote:
I don't know the specifics but most of the licensing is for 'concealed carry'... or being able to carry a loaded weapon in your car.. anyone can carry a gun in the car as long as it's not loaded.. unless you're or a felon or somethin.. Mellow


Only in certain jurisdictions. The SCOTUS has ruled that your car is an extension of your home. In many states, Louisiana included it perfectly legeal to have a loaded firearm in ones car.
gummy jones Offline
#42 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:22 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Abrignac wrote:
I may be wrong, but I'm not sure any license is needed. Unless specifically required in a particular jurisdiction, open carry falls under the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.


Incorrect
It varies from state to state
gummy jones Offline
#43 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:24 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
SmokeMonkey wrote:
I guess I've never really thought about it. It would probably be quite startling to me to run into someone in a public area with even a handgun, hunting rifle or shotgun visible, much less an assault rifle.

Interesting.


I'm sure you have run into many more people who are carrying than you think. It's crazy to think that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding with such demons attached to their hips or slung over their shoulders.
Abrignac Offline
#44 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:24 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
victor809 wrote:
You know that's not true MACS.
There is protesting, in the vein of MLK, going on as well in Ferguson. There are people peacefully protesting in front of the courthouse, there are people peacefully (albeit illegally I believe) blocking traffic during rush-hour.

To claim all of this fits under "rioting and looting" is to sort of prove the point they are trying to make. That they are all painted with the same broad brush.



Sorry Victor, but in this instance you are probably wrong. Most states have laws pertaining to blocking roadways and impeding the lawful flow of traffic.
Abrignac Offline
#45 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:27 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
TMCTLT wrote:
WHY???? what is SO scary? Are you also startled when you see LEO's with their sidearm? Do you also find it startling to cross the street where 2 ton automobiles " could " run you over? I guess I don't understand the fear that law abiding open carry folks create...


That shouldn't come as no surprise. There's nothing strange at all regarding one's apprehension as it relates to things which they are unfamiliar with.
Abrignac Offline
#46 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:30 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
gummy jones wrote:
Incorrect
It varies from state to state


You do realize you stated I was incorrect then said the exact same thing that I said though you worded it differently.
Gene363 Offline
#47 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
If I was a Ferguson store owner or a customer of a Ferguson store, I'd be glad to see them. In spite of the DOJ action(s) against their police and the state, I don't think you can count on anyone in the government to do squat to protect your business or the places you may want to shop.
gummy jones Offline
#48 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Abrignac wrote:
You do realize you stated I was incorrect then said the exact same thing that I said though you worded it differently.


Sorry dude but I don't usually call states "jurisdictions" so I thought you were talking about something else. In fact, some states have laws preventing jurisdictions (townships, cities, etc) from making any of their own firearms laws.
victor809 Offline
#49 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Anthony, note I did say "albeit illegally". I agree that the blocking of a road is illegal, but im pretty sure (could be wrong) in the same vein as mlk
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 5:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
TMCTLT wrote:
Like when you chased down and beat the snot out of that homeless guy? Like that? Whistle


What's your point? That you like stomping on small dogs or that you wish I had a gun to shoot him with?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages1234>
Back to Top