Oathkeepers goes operational

and you would roll those dice, ethereal?

 

I do not want a race war. The idiots behind the militia movement do. They have been planning it for years. The Murrah Building was just a skirmish.

 

Yet again you slander OK with your ignorance.

 

ummm. the republic is set up in that precise manner. so-called free people (please define) vote for politicians who then pack off to washington to make decisions. under the constitution, which btw, is a foundational document. it establishes the process by which the country is governed. just because someone doesn't like something spewed out of dc doesn't make it "unconstitutional." it merely makes it something that person disagrees with.

 

To whom are the whackadoodles accountable? Who can bring court-martial charges against them?

 

You keep changing the discussion......Do you have a really short attention span?

 

I really wish you knew how laughable and moronic your wild eyed accusations of treason are.

 

Wrong about what?

 

No, I am not changing the discussion. I am continuing to point out that OK are dangerous because they are only accountable to somebody's ear crickets.

 

Dunno where you're getting that, but it sure as Hell isn't from the Constitution.

Non sequitur, obviously. In a county that can't afford anything beyond a sheriff and a couple of jail beds, a half dozen armed citizens who organize themselves so as to fend off gang activity constitute a militia, but that implies no rivalry with any state sanctioned body.

You sound like someone who doesn't know the difference between sedition and secession - not that you can present any evidence (assuming the contents of your imagination do not qualify as such) that OK advocates or suborns either.

Get thee to a dictionary.

Right neighborly of you to admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Unless there is some reason to think it means anything different to the Oath Keepers than it does in the oath taken by all military personnel, I fail to see the point of the question.

What reason is there to believe they harbor any such ambition, seeing that would be in brazen contravention of the very oath they claim to be keeping?

How very amusing.

Beats me. Why is some college professor more fit than a hillbilly with a rifle to decide whether a state of tyranny exists?

 

yes, you miss the point of the question. so i will ask it again. what, exactly, does protect and defend the constitution mean? is the government created by that document and even more importantly the people who ordained and established that constitution worthy of defense? without we the people and without the military, among other things, established by said constitution the document exists in a vacuum.

as for oathkeepers, any group or individual is capable of interpreting the hell out of the constitution and thus capable of insurrection in the name of "defending the constitution" without a definition of what the verbiage means. since the military is subordinate to the civilian authority simple disagreement with policies of the civilian authority can be used as agitprop to rise to insurrection in "defense of the constitution." and once done i will ask again what is there to prevent the oathkeepers from establishing an authoritarian state? the constitution? not hardly. they abandoned that via their interpretation arising from disagreement. they would establish a state based upon their interpretation of that document which as we can see is open to obfuscation, charlatanism, all the way to the leni riefenstahl-ism of their views and belief system.

nothing exists in a vacuum. least of all politically motivated "defense of the constitution."

 

That will not clarify the point of the question...

...and neither does any of this.

Anyone is capable of doing that, definition or no definition, so I still don't see the point.

Sure it can, just as agreement with policies of the civilian authority can be used as agitprop to cast militia members as seditionists...so what's your point?

Seeing we already have an authoritarian state, I see no reason to find the relatively minuscule threat potential of the militia types worthy of consideration just now.

 

I'm more worried about rogue tin foil hatters and conspiracy quacks with a narcissistic complex who think they're George Washington - I'm glad I've got the military, police, drones, etc to spy on them and keep me safe from potential terrorists That's what the govt was intended to do (keep us safe from actual threats and potential threats, not from "ourselves") so I hope they've got this and other groups like this on their radar

And honestly Obama being a potential "Muslim" is the least of my concerns with him

 

there is always a Right to overthrow an out-of control government especially if the citizens have the means.
Congress has just exempted themselves from ObamaCare, they don't pay taxes, they are exempt from insider trading laws, and the yare getting paid while everyone else is getting laid off. They make deals with corporations for favors, they are hardly representative of the people, they are selling war machines to law enforcement............and you claim that it is the citizens should only be held accountable for activities YOU deem illegal or unlawful. I get it, you want to rule your own neighborhood with force and call it law......................that's what tyrants do, ya know.

 

They are accountable to the law just like you are......

 

since you lack either understanding or the ability to formulate what defending a document means we must assume that whatever the oathkeepers swore to do means either nothing or is an attempt to pursue a political agenda outside of the military in relationship to civilian leadership. if that does not worry you then I do not know what would. we see militaries around the world that are not subordinate to civilian authority engaging in power politics. the founders feared this. perhaps you do not.

and since it is their "oath" is useless and/or not binding in any sense then we must ask what they would bear arms for.

of course agitprop is used by many for a variety of political reasons. this does not excuse oathkeepers.

the claim of living in a totalitarian state is false on its face. and since this is the case we must wander back to the oathkeepers and again wonder what is their political agenda?

 

Even if this premise were not bogus...

...it doesn't justify this conclusion, obviously.

How about a possibility that has some basis in logic?

Huh?

AFAIK, we haven't been made aware of anything they need to be excused for.

What's that got to do with anything I said?

Actually I think we might to better to wonder about yours.

 

He's definitely got you there, bird. You laid out a premise that would in no way lead a rational person to the conclusion that you came up with. Just because you put, "we must assume," in between them doesn't mean that the "we must" do anything or that the second half of your sentence must logically follow from the first...because it didn't.

 

So, according to what I'm reading, the Ethnocentric Violent Street Gangs such as The Crips, The Bloods, MS-13, La eMe, The Mungiki and the NBBP are now, by the definitions given, non-government sanctioned militia, and Leftysergeant wants them all shot...

Interesting.

I am a bit surprised that such a committed Leftie wants so many of the Left's allies and enforcement squads exterminated?

But, perhaps we should just get it over with, and ask about the details later? http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Actually, no. First of all, you need to prove that there is no other remedy.

So get off your butt and help get some decent people elected...

No, I am saying that any fool not commissioned by a legal authority who takes up[ arms and tries to overthrow the government should be shot by the first person who gets a chance at him.

 

Should we add the members of La Raza and Mecha to the Extermination Lists?

Mecha has a blood dripping machete, Sticks of TNT, and an AK-47 as part of its Coat of Arms...and much of their rhetoric is about arming for a coming race war...

So are they "Unlawful Militia's" whose members are to be shot?

Or just are La Raza and MECHA just violent rhetoric, extremely Racist Political Groups? If so, does that make the Domestic Terrorists?

 

And what about OWS - Occupy Wall Street?

They are certainly organized. They state their goals as taking over real estate from the lawful owners. They opening admit to using violence and having the goal of ultimate destruction of a long list of financial institutions.

Given the Definition of an Unlawful Militia given by Leftysergeant earlier on this thread, they certainly would qualify to be "Shot"

See, this is the trouble with going down that path of shooting people based on your interpretation of their political cause, and the label you affix to it, without the benefit of a Court, Trial, Evidence, and Jury and Conviction of a Crime against an existing LAW.

We now either need to let Leftysergeant and his friends apply subjective, politically motivated double standards, and justify letting them "Shoot" who ever they don't like, or...

we have to rigidly apply the new definition, and allot of Leftie's Friends will also be lined up for the "New Treatment".

That darn "Due Process" and "Law and Order" stuff is such a bother!

-

 

out of all of these posts in this thread, you are the only one calling for extermination and bloodshed...I wonder why that is................

 

To whose saitisfaction?

So as far as you're concerned, sedition by those who are commissioned by a legal authority is no problem. I've got that about right, haven't I?

 

Eh then I'll side with them and overthrow you seditionists. Just call me a tory.

So put your taxes in an offshore bank account - no one with a life sits around fantasizing about terrorism just 'cause they don't like the current crop of politicians - if people didn't vote for your boy Ron Paul, that's not my or anyone else's problem.

I don't blame them after hearing wannabe terrorists ranting on the internet - hope they sell them M1A1 Abrams and F15s.

It's in the law books - don't like it, vote for politicians who'll change them - but contemplate terrorism and I'll gladly support your detainment under the PATRIOT act.

Don't like it get out - this is America - we don't cave to extortionists anarchists and terrorists. I'm not skeered of your little jackboot mafia

Edit/Don't make it personal