Who and What are the 'OATH KEEPERS'?

Delusional a-holes who have dreams of being John Wayne in a post-apocalyptic world ... in other words, prepubescent teens.

 

The Brady bill originated under Reagan but I don’t know if any rollback. I do know the republicans started it though. The bill was named after some staff member of Reagan’s that was injured during the Reagan assassination attempt


However, Bush Sr refused to push it and it was revived under Clinton

 

The current democrat regime in DC!

 

Thank you for this reply. It is a discussion more about military structure than about patriotism. I get your point about democratic decision making would not work in the military in times of stress. However those in the forces are expected to follow orders, sometimes very dubious orders given out by bad people who will have you shot at dawn for refusing and by association not doing their ‘patriotic duty’.
Are you aware of the massacre (My Lai?) in Vietnam? Refusing to participate would lead the ordinary fighter into trouble, it would surely be better to have trouble by refusing the oath in the first place, rather than providing a person who declares authority over you with a blank cheque that can ruin your life at their whim.

 

What we all comprehend is how the left loves to make up their own definitions when it suits them
Like when the left kills Americans, burns businesses, attacks cops, Those are what the left calls protest
When the right fights with cops in a two hour riot at the Capital its an insurrection to take control of the country by a couple hundred unarmed people
Yeah, We get it

 

As I pointed out- nothing is perfect. Of course I'm familiar with the My lai incident. A Lt. Calley was convicted as one result.

Refusing to take the oath in the first place would be taking a position based on a very remote possibility and ignoring the option to reject such orders or not act on them at the time such thing did occur. Refusing them at the time might get you court-martialed, but not shot by your own commander- unless he was totally disconnected from his duty, as that would be murder.

I'm sure you understand that hostility and violence change the rules in the minds of people. When someone starts shooting at police- they don't threaten a citation, they shoot back. I had a close friend drafted and sent to Vietnam; he was working for me at the time I had just started my first business. Thus I had some fairly close perspective on the situation coming from someone who was physically present and involved. The Vietcong had no limits on their conduct at all; they controlled civilians with intimidation- and if that didn't produce total cooperation, with extreme brutality. Part of their strategy was to do things so shockingly violent as to terrify both the resisting civilians, and their enemy. Such things can cause otherwise normal people to discard normal values, and counter with equal or greater violence. The same thing happened in America during indian wars; we had some people so outraged that the concept of wiping all indians out became fairly popular. You have probably heard of the Sand Creek massacre in 1864, where nearly 700 soldiers wiped out a village of around 300 Cheyenne/Arapaho indians- mostly women and children, and they killed them all. All the victims, including the children were scalped, and many bodies mutilated. People must have a great deal of hostility inside to do things like that- things which any normal mind would find horrific and revulsive. At the same time, the civil war was raging, so everyone was already dealing with the emotions of the violence and death there. I think it would be reasonable to assume that element contributed to the mindset where the massacre of indians seemed more rational than it might have been otherwise.

Of course, wars aren't usually events you decide to go to, like a party- at least at the soldier's level. Sometimes leaders choose to help a nation under attack as S. Vietnam was. France decided to help us during the American revolution, and very likely it would have failed without that aid. The French not only gave us arms, ammunition and supplies, but provided troops and naval support. over 2100 French soldiers died fighting for us, quite significant when you consider that the American death toll was but 6800.

I could see a dividing point in such things as being rational, by a single rule:
IF the United States is being directly attacked, anyone may be called up and sent to battle. IF our leaders elect to aid and become involved in some other nations war- only volunteers go.
I don't think that is unreasonable, and would give an individual a choice in arbitrary situations. Probably won't happen.

Right now, the boiling pot is the Ukraine- and the US has already provided a lot of support, and has been sending aid there for some years. Biden is said to be pondering sending troops, and I hope that does not happen. Nato on the other hand should be the primary defense aid mechanism, along with diplomatic pressures. You and I have little to say about it.

I understand your motivations, the desire to have some control over the limits imposed on you as a soldier. One option today is to elect non-combatant status, or conscientious objection. While that position would likely make you a medical assistant, supply clerk, etc- the choice also carries a stigma, more of a social than legal one, but detrimental none the less. Nothing's perfect.

 

At the time of the ARW slavery was an institution that a had a long history and was deeply embedded in almost all societies. The value of Washington's slaves was quite possibly the major asset of his entire estate. Despite this, Washington freed all of them when he died, no doubt a real economic factor to his heirs

 

I think that's an astute observation; true from my research as well. People need to look at history from the perspective and values of the times rather than those of today. The changes we have made alter those values; we improve and progress. But this is never fast. There are millions of minds and established values in every period of history, and the actions of the times are measured by the values of the times. What is seen as evil today was not seen that way at all 300 years ago- and what we see as righteous today may well be seen as evil 300 years from now.

 

They're nothing but a gang of scoundrels.

 

Who are?

 

While the truth is that most of them are devoted altar boys.

 

The year is 2022. There's no going back to the days of 1776.
No more slavery and women having no rights.
Not even sure why you want a return to those days.

 

And No admin since has rolled it back.
But the Brady bill, as my link showed, had no new laws. Just made it easier to enforce existing laws.

Main point is the left and right both put restrictions on arms ownership. Always have. There are limits to arms citizens can own.

 

Very well said! And what was not accepted as morally right 300 years ago might be less unacceptable today, as society has changed a lot during those 300 years. The abortion law is a typical example.
I can understand people can be uneasy with some aspects of society's evolution; it's true for me as well; but fighting rearguard battles has its limitations in time.

 

The congressional house Jan 6 committee

 

I have explained this to you people with sources numerous times. The rioters upon being interviewed were mostly apolitical. They did not support either political party and do not typically vote. AntiFa supports destruction of the government and support neither party. No flags with Obama’s name on them. Or Biden’s. Or Clinton’s. Or AOC. Or Pelosi. Or whoever y’all are making up news stories about or whining about this week.

The insurrection attempt was done by people flying the flag of their cult leader in the name of installing a political party that had just been removed by the people of this nation.

Use blacks law Dictionary as that is the most used legal dictionary available if you are struggling so intently to decipher the difference between a protest, a riot and an insurrection.

If you need me to post the definitions for you I will happily do so. Words are not this difficult unless you are trying to purposely obfuscate them for a political narrative — Yeh, we get it.

 

No one is falling for your BS spin bud..

 

You mean basic definitions? Impervious to facts should be the party tag line.

 

Yeah we know.... The Nationwide riots all summer long we're not really leftist.... Just every sign they carried was a leftist cause.
Like the leftist elected morons kept making excuses and bailing them out.

But we should not believe our eyes and common sense but you're b******* deflection on the internet...

You see antifa and BLM are not really leftist ....

My white cracker ass....

 

AntiFa carried leftist signs? Feel free to post up a few images. Surely you are not pulling lies out of your ”white cracker ass”, no?

 

Anyone with a half a brain knows a leftist anarchist group when they see them I'm not going to sit here and play her little game and Chase your lies around in circles.

Is that what CNN's telling you to say now that none of these leftist riots all summer were actually leftist riots?

Go blow that smoke up someone else's cracker ass

 

So in other words, you have nothing and are just making up “facts” as you go. Carry on.

 

Here, maybe this will help you know the difference



GOT IT?

 

Only a complete moron denies that antifa and BLM are inspired by leftist ideology.

 

The Oaf Keepers are wanna be soldiers and traitors.