Oathkeepers goes operational

Obviously you disagree with the opinions expressed in that editorial. But where's the conspiracy theory? And where did I say I believed in any conspiracy theories? Your lack of support for your claims calls your integrity and intelligence into question, not mine.

 

I am sorry I didn't here him say that every government has a monopoly on violence.
Again proving the right wing noise machine right....he was talking about the role of private contractors as fighters. The the government alone should have the authority to prosecute wars not companies like Blackwater. Comparing dynamite and cream cheese again because of course you got caught supporting conspiracy nuts.

- - - Updated - - -

Again the entire piece is based on the conspiracy nonsense that the government attacked law abiding citizens at their compound and when they wouldn't comply they burned them out.

Show proof the government didn't have cause, started the fire and were intent on killing children or you are no better than the guy on Vessey street shouting about Building 7

 

??? He said that the monopoly on violence is what sets a nation-state apart...and he's correct. That's essentially what a state is, an organization that reserves for themselves the legal use of violence.

That isn't a conspiracy theory...it isn't even a theory at all...it is a basic fact. This is Civics 101 stuff.

 

Maybe you should start a thread about that. I'm not going to help you derail this one.

 

It does not give the states the responsibility to run clubs. It does give them the responsibility to maintain a useful militia.

Oath Keepers would be an obstruction to the sort of response it would take to put down and insurrection.

They are not legal, and need to be disbanded.

 

Quit making things up. The Oath Keepers are not an illegal organization under federal law.

Your terribly flawed version of things would make it illegal for civilians to own boats because the COTUS gives Congress the power to maintain a Navy and FedEx and UPS should be illegal because Congress has been given the responsibility to establish post offices.

Stop with the silliness.

 

Indeed it does, but that hardly implies the exclusion of private militias as long as they pose no threat to state or national security.

Sure they would, if the insurrection in question is legal, so what's the problem?

 

oh, sorry my bad, that was simply trolling................
"I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused" Declan Patrick MacManus....and neither one has worked, has it.

 

Actually, they do, because they are often organized by idiots and lunatics who want to create havoc and start an insurrection. That is why they are illegal in most states.
you simply cannot have an orderly society where some club or drooling maniacs decide that they need to be the ones to assume command when it hits the fan.

It is not up to some self-appointed turd to decide when an uprising is legal.

 

Not nearly good enough top justify a claim that they threaten state or national security ipso facto, obviously.

And neither is it up to government agents who are acting in violation of the Constitution to decide that an uprising is ILlegal - except, of course, from the perspective of those who believe might makes right; and if you are such a person, you don't belong in this country.

 

And you are still wrong.

 

Sounds like a radical Paultard or anarchist group to me - they're apparently honoring the traitor Snowden who leaked confidential information to our rivals as a 'hero'- no thanks

 

Yes current and former Military/LEO's are Anarchists ( sarcasm)... Ignorance at its finest.... Here is a clue when you start using 3rd grade insults like "Paultard" you already lost the debate and look completely foolish.

 

It sounds like a domestic terrorist organization.

 

McVeigh was in the military - I respect the troops but I don't immediately trust anyone simply because they're in the military - based on the fact that they're all about the Snowden train (on the front page of their website) automatically makes them look dubious

So what should I call them - Branch Paulinians?

 

McVeigh had nothing to do with Oathkeepers... Like i said complete ignorance.

 

so, if you're trying to justify attacking the poster, then why are you in this thread?
This thread is NOT about the Branch Davidians.........and you are merely trying to derail this thread.

 

And what are you basing that on, besides your uninformed opinion?

 

According to which statute or code?

So, in your opinion, if the US government hasn't "sanctioned" something, it's automatically illegal.

Which has nothing to do with the legality of the militia.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Militias are explicitly "sanctioned" by the Second Amendment, so even by your own twisted legal standard, it still passes muster.

And you probably think Hitler was a good leader.

 

The militia is to be mustered by the states. The states define what is and is not a militia.

OK is trying to put its own command structure in place. That constitutes "associating into a military company," and is illegal in most states under state codes.

RCW 38.40.120 clearly outlaws this crap here.

 

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.

The militia is under the command of the states, not some self-righteous dick who has the forethought to set up a chain of command.

 

The "militia" is just THE PEOPLE in their capacity as a native defense force and its existence predates both the federal government and the states. The militia is not a government program but an organic and populist defense force that can exist entirely independent of an established government.

Totally false, and even if that were true, there would be no way to make an accurate generalization about the militia's legality as it would vary from state to state.

And who has been prosecuted under that statute in your state?

 

If it's under the "command of the states", then where do you get off saying these people need to be arrested and shot? Do you represent all fifty state governments or something? How many of these individuals have been prosecuted under state law for illegal membership in a militia? Go on, back up your BS opinion.

 

In none of those states has the legislature authorized them to set up a command structure. That already exists. They are a rival.

This is close to what Somalia has today.

 

If they are engaged in illegal activity within their respective states, then why haven't the authorities arrested and charged them with a crime? Do you know something the local authorities don't?