Manhunt for "Oathkeeper"

[Missourian]

you know it's not so much a matter of disagreement on issue as one on attitude.

there's no reason to 'reaffirm' any oath, or pledge to not follow orders like that. it's unnecessary.

what the pledge does do though is put you in an adversarial role with the government - one where not only do you think they could issue such orders but where you expect them too.

and it makes the 'oathkeepers' look as though they'd relish an opportunity to take up arms against their government.

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

It's already known to service members that they need not follow an unlawful order.

It is already known to Americans that the Constitution protects civil rights...yet there is an ACLU.

 

[Luissa]

you know it's not so much a matter of disagreement on issue as one on attitude.

there's no reason to 'reaffirm' any oath, or pledge to not follow orders like that. it's unnecessary.

what the pledge does do though is put you in an adversarial role with the government - one where not only do you think they could issue such orders but where you expect them too.

and it makes the 'oathkeepers' look as though they'd relish an opportunity to take up arms against their government.

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

It's already known to service members that they need not follow an unlawful order.

That is what I was thinking...


My problem is, they take these Oaths, start spreading bullshit, then all of sudden one of the more radical ones is trying to bomb someone...
I have a real problem with these types, they are all over in the area where I live.. I am ten times more afraid of some white ex military nutjob who lives up in the mountains and the groups they belong to, than any other group out there right now.

 

[Luissa]

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

It's already known to service members that they need not follow an unlawful order.

It is already known to Americans that the Constitution protects civil rights...yet there is an ACLU.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In the last few years has anyone been forced into concentration camps, or has martial law been imposed?

I'm sure a German pre-1937 made a statement very similar to this one.

Do we live in POst World I, Pre Hitler Germany?

With the way you spout off hate for anyone that tells the truth about obama dir fuhur yes their are some simularities.

 

[ogibillm]

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

i find your lack of faith disturbing.

our servicemen and women don't need a fringe group looking for a fight to know that they can't do any of the things the oathkeeprs pledge not to do - and that others will stand with them against any such order.

honestly ask yourself - if i pledged every day to punch you in the nose if you said an ill word about my mother -even though you've never had any inclination to- how many days do you think it would take before i found a reason to interpret a comment in such a way that it left you with a bloody nose?

the oathkeepers are a group looking for a fight - and everyone should have enough life experience to know that if you go around with a chip on your shoulder you'll find a way to get it knocked off.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Most innocent people would want to clear their name, not make it worse for themselves... Plus there is the whole fact he wants to have a gun battle with Cops..

What is you answer to that part?

You know what I love about Cop hating morons? They always call the Cops when a crime is committed against them, but the moment they commit a crime the Cops are evil.

When faced with that self inflicked hanging in a jail cell most people will run, wouldn't you? OH thats right you believe the gubermint is good and would never have a person killed to look like they did it to themself.

Wait just a darn minute! What are you doing talking about that when Obama has screwed up our country?

More regulation slowing the economy down why yes his failed EPA is killing the economy.

 

[Luissa]

I'm sure a German pre-1937 made a statement very similar to this one.

Do we live in POst World I, Pre Hitler Germany?

With the way you spout off hate for anyone that tells the truth about obama dir fuhur yes their are some simularities.

What are you even talking about???
And I work with a lady from the Czech Republic, lived there during the War. She thinks anyone who compares Obama to Hitler is a moron and disrespecting anyone who went through being occupied. Get a clue moron. She also thinks that anyone who compare liberals etc to Russian communism has no clue what Russian communism was about.

Tell me again how it is the Cops fault that this man might face a SELF INFLICTED hanging?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

i find your lack of faith disturbing.

our servicemen and women don't need a fringe group looking for a fight to know that they can't do any of the things the oathkeeprs pledge not to do - and that others will stand with them against any such order.

honestly ask yourself - if i pledged every day to punch you in the nose if you said an ill word about my mother -even though you've never had any inclination to- how many days do you think it would take before i found a reason to interpret a comment in such a way that it left you with a bloody nose?

the oathkeepers are a group looking for a fight - and everyone should have enough life experience to know that if you go around with a chip on your shoulder you'll find a way to get it knocked off.

I find your faith in the gubermint telling.

 

[Salt Jones]

My question is, why was this group formed? In the last few years has anyone been forced into concentration camps, or has martial law been imposed?

In my opinion, it is just a bunch of crazy white military men who believe all the hate spewed about Obama and how he is going to put us into concentration camps and turn us into communists. I think they should have taken oath to take anti psychotic drugs and called it good.

Because a black man was elected president.

 

[L.K.Eder]

In the last few years has anyone been forced into concentration camps, or has martial law been imposed?

I'm sure a German pre-1937 made a statement very similar to this one.

dachau concentration camp opened in march 1933.

oh, and fuck you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do we live in POst World I, Pre Hitler Germany?

With the way you spout off hate for anyone that tells the truth about obama dir fuhur yes their are some simularities.

What are you even talking about???
And I work with a lady from the Czech Republic, lived there during the War. She thinks anyone who compares Obama to Hitler is a moron and disrespecting anyone who went through being occupied. Get a clue moron. She also thinks that anyone who compare liberals etc to Russian communism has no clue what Russian communism was about.

Tell me again how it is the Cops fault that this man might face a SELF INFLICTED hanging?

It's not the post nazi take over of Germany were talikng aboiut. It when Hitlers Nazi's started that they bear a close resymblence Germany 1933. Was Germany in the Czech Republic in 1933? If they weren't the women doesn't know a damn thing.

 

[Missourian]

How about if they go AWOL if they think the President wasn't born here? Is that part of the oath?

Deflection from the point, but of course the answer is no.

Obama is the president.

By playing into the fear, and the delusions of nut cases you are only making the problem worse..

Nuremberg.

I also wonder if those same people would have helped the Japanese who were forced into camps?

I certainly hope not.

But that is the point exactly.

Understanding that this was a crime...it was an illegal order, no matter how logical it seemed at the time is exactly why this type of reinforcement is necessary.

 

[ogibillm]

I find your faith in the gubermint telling.

government is ultimately made of people - and right now i see no reason to believe that any city is about to be made into a giant concentration camp, or that guns will be confiscated, or that any of the other silly stuff in the list is about to happen.

what i do see as far more likely is a group of people - who perhaps mean well - have decided to take an agressive stance and try to wrap themselves in the constitution to justify it.

again, on it's face there's nothing wrong with the oathkeepers - but it's a matter of motivation and attitude that leads me to believe the group is fringe and possibly dangerous.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I find your faith in the gubermint telling.

government is ultimately made of people - and right now i see no reason to believe that any city is about to be made into a giant concentration camp, or that guns will be confiscated, or that any of the other silly stuff in the list is about to happen.

what i do see as far more likely is a group of people - who perhaps mean well - have decided to take an agressive stance and try to wrap themselves in the constitution to justify it.

again, on it's face there's nothing wrong with the oathkeepers - but it's a matter of motivation and attitude that leads me to believe the group is fringe and possibly dangerous.

Your faith is very reveling. How are the people in control of the gubermint when it does as it pleases?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I'm sure a German pre-1937 made a statement very similar to this one.

Do we live in POst World I, Pre Hitler Germany?

With the way you spout off hate for anyone that tells the truth about obama dir fuhur yes their are some simularities.

damn, my cat would type better posts.


if i had a cat.

 

[Missourian]

It's already known to service members that they need not follow an unlawful order.

It is already known to Americans that the Constitution protects civil rights...yet there is an ACLU.

I will assume that this means you could come up with no intelligent rebuttal.

 

[ogibillm]

Your faith is very reveling. How are the people in control of the gubermint when it does as it pleases?

what is "it"?

government is made of people. i have faith that people are ultimately good, and that with our system of government we have sufficient checks and balances to prevent any major oversteps of authority - certainly enough that any of the fantasy scenarios the oathkeepers purport to be diligent about would never occur - at least not in large enough numbers that they would need to be sorted out anywhere other than a court room.

again, to me the oathkeepers look like a bunch of anti-government loons looking for a fight - and some of them might just manage to find it.

 

[Luissa]

How about if they go AWOL if they think the President wasn't born here? Is that part of the oath?

Deflection from the point, but of course the answer is no.

Obama is the president.

By playing into the fear, and the delusions of nut cases you are only making the problem worse..

Nuremberg.

I also wonder if those same people would have helped the Japanese who were forced into camps?

I certainly hope not.

But that is the point exactly.

Understanding that this was a crime...it was an illegal order, no matter how logical it seemed at the time is exactly why this type of reinforcement is necessary.

What is the point of bringing up Nuremberg? Like I said fear mongering only makes things worse, spreads hates, and causes people to do stupid shit like bomb federal buildings.

 

[Luissa]

It is already known to Americans that the Constitution protects civil rights...yet there is an ACLU.

I will assume that this means you could come up with no intelligent rebuttal.

Actually you want an answer? The ACLU raises money and helps people fight when there civil rights have been compromised. Have we been forced into concentration camps lately? When that happens you might have a point.

I also want to know why these Oathkeepers are not helping minorities who have been accused of crimes they did not commit? They are defending the Dyer? What about black men who are framed for drugs crimes etc?

 

[Missourian]

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

i find your lack of faith disturbing.

our servicemen and women don't need a fringe group looking for a fight to know that they can't do any of the things the oathkeeprs pledge not to do - and that others will stand with them against any such order.

honestly ask yourself - if i pledged every day to punch you in the nose if you said an ill word about my mother -even though you've never had any inclination to- how many days do you think it would take before i found a reason to interpret a comment in such a way that it left you with a bloody nose?

the oathkeepers are a group looking for a fight - and everyone should have enough life experience to know that if you go around with a chip on your shoulder you'll find a way to get it knocked off.

I am a veteran.

No offense, but your analogy is ridiculous.

The Oathkeepers aren't looking for a fight...they only reinforce a duty to uphold the Constitution.

Don't think it can happen here?

I present exhibit A...Hurricane Katrina Response.

Confiscation of firearms

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, National Guard troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."



Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection.



A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.[73][74]



Even National Guard troops, armed with assault rifles, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave.[75]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#cite_note-74

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_firearms

​

I'm sure our leftist opposition won't argue, as this happened under Bush. <grim emoticon>
​