Where are the militia groups, when tyranny and oppression are crushing the people?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: NavyDoc

From his scarred face looks to me like he earned the right to where the uniform

My 12 year old has a scar on her face. One cannot judge anything by that.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: NavyDoc

Were you/Are you an FMF HM?

While there are many phoneys display false valor I am not so quick to believe this is one. Most phoneys like to put on some rank and a bunch of medals.

Let's say for the sake of the discussion the person is a real Marine, he still has the right to risk his career to make a statement.

I started out as a USMC 0311 and then was FMF doc.

He has a right to make a statement but he does not have the right to wear his uniform to do that. All Marines know this.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: NavyDoc

From his scarred face looks to me like he earned the right to where the uniform

Where uniform? Where? Over there? A scar does not give someone the right to wear any uniform. Scars come from many places other than combat. He does not have the right, Marine or not, to wear a uniform in a political protest. If he is a Marine, he is in violation of the UCMJ.

I laugh at leftists who deride the military until they see one useful idiot in uniform doing what they agree with, then it's "respect the uniform!!! OMG WTF BBQ!" All Marines know it is not proper to wear (not where) a uniform at a political protest, especially blues.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer
What are the chances that if a militia did show up, would they become victims of the knock-out game?

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
What are the chances that if a militia did show up, would they become victims of the knock-out game?

People who have never been in the military will not understand all these comments about the video posted..which has very little to do with the OP. Anyway, to clear it up for civilians here it is. Any member of the active military is not allowed to wear their military uniform at a protest or anything of the sort. The reason being that the uniform represents the entire branch/country. Any no brained Soldier can get up there talking nonsense in uniform and to those who don't know better it will seem like 'oh the NavyMarines/Whoever endorse all of this. Negative. We are not to wear the uniform to events like protests or even political campaigns.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: NavyDoc

From his scarred face looks to me like he earned the right to where the uniform

Where uniform? Where? Over there? A scar does not give someone the right to wear any uniform. Scars come from many places other than combat. He does not have the right, Marine or not, to wear a uniform in a political protest. If he is a Marine, he is in violation of the UCMJ.

I laugh at leftists who deride the military until they see one useful idiot in uniform doing what they agree with, then it's "respect the uniform!!! OMG WTF BBQ!" All Marines know it is not proper to wear (not where) a uniform at a political protest, especially blues.

originally posted by: 2wheelvet
People who have never been in the military will not understand all these comments about the video posted..which has very little to do with the OP. Anyway, to clear it up for civilians here it is. Any member of the active military is not allowed to wear their military uniform at a protest or anything of the sort. The reason being that the uniform represents the entire branch/country. Any no brained Soldier can get up there talking nonsense in uniform and to those who don't know better it will seem like 'oh the NavyMarines/Whoever endorse all of this. Negative. We are not to wear the uniform to events like protests or even political campaigns.

My guess is that he is a Veteran. Notice his hair was not high and tight either.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
To all that are calling militias cowards, I would say that you are no better, perhaps even worse for openly asking for people to die for people who are openly being violent by rioting. You are the cowards.

Pitiful, sniveling cowards that only want others to bleed for them, while not risking their own oh, so, precious blood.

Of course if the militias did do so, and even were sucessful in helping to restore peace, then these same righteuos hypocrites would be demanding that all firearms be confiscated.

It's like it's right out of some playbook.

Oh, wait...it is.

Maybe the militias are smarter than you by picking their battles, rather than just flailing about.

yes, besides ferguson is a local LE problem.

not a state or fed battle like bundy.

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
What are the chances that if a militia did show up, would they become victims of the knock-out game?

Har har. I guess what you are saying is that since the Ferguson protesters are black they are violent thugs right? Shouldn't you be making your little jokes on Stormfront or Chimpout?

a reply to: NavyDoc
I do agree he wore the wrong uniform, charlies or alphas would be more appropriate but what article would you say he is violating?
Besides 134 of course since that is just the catch all.
More then likely he would get a page 11 for what he did.

Two Americas: Ferguson, Missouri Versus the Bundy Ranch, Nevada

Two Americas: Ferguson, Missouri Versus the Bundy Ranch, Nevada

Bob Cesca
August 14, 2014

As we noted yesterday, we can’t help but to contrast law enforcement’s reaction to protesters in Ferguson, Missouri versus law enforcement’s reaction during the Bundy Ranch fiasco.

1) The Bundy Ranch: On one hand, a large group of armed white men marched in a line of battle while at least one civilian rifleman in a sniper’s perch trained his weapon at Bureau of Land Management officials. In reaction, the government didn’t fire a single round or canister of tear gas, and eventually retreated, conceding the disputed ground to the Bundy militias. It’s important to note that the protesters turned out in support of a man who refused to pay his taxes and grazed his cattle without paying the accompanying fees. This man, Cliven Bundy, and his supporters threatened secession and armed revolt against the United States government.

2) Ferguson, Missouri: On the other hand, unarmed African American protesters in Ferguson, enraged and grieving from the death of an (again) unarmed black man named Michael Brown who was shot in the back by a police officer, have been confronted for several days now by police in full military regalia. This time, the rifleman in the sniper’s perch is a police officer — his scope trained on the protesters.

In Ferguson, law enforcement is vastly overreacting in the face of peaceful protesters, while at the Bundy Ranch, law enforcement vastly underreacted in the face of armed secessionists and scofflaws.

What’s wrong with this picture? Better yet, what’s wrong with the following pictures?

I see the conservatives are actively deriding the Ferguson protesters, making little jokes about knock-out games, the usual "thug" derision. A black protester threw a rock - thug. A black protester pointed a gun at a cop - arrested, or shot. And all the right wing and white power sites are having a field day collectively labeling them all felons and thugs.

We saw "militia" protesters at the Bundy ranch, there not to protest the trampling of civil rights, but over the fact that a lawless rancher has been using public lands for 20 years without paying fees or taxes. These same protesters pointed rifles at the heads of cops. None of them were arrested.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

if the militia showed up, ALL those people would've been shot by the police, and not just the militia, but it would've escalated into a slaughter and then blamed on the militia.

use your common sense.

p.s. look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself this question: is my personal desire for change, so important, that i'm actually looking forward to the deaths of innocent protestors so my agenda can be furthered? if the answer is yes, you have a problem. a serious problem.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Maybe the most pertinent thread besides SO's.
Thanks and F/S! The militia was already hashed out to
at least my feeble agreement when it got explained by
several posters they were the town's stakeholders...
the questions remained to me at length; and reading
everybody's response only a few were touched off.

They need solid answers at least to me; otherwise this
whole thing sounds like another giant setup fictiona-
lized around a single, but relatively small tragedy. It's
not at all the first time everybody's relatives are piling
onto one unjustifiable homicide.

--First.. who put the info clamps on the original incident
and how it went down? Investigation is great, but even
the nonessential specifics came out initially as pure noise.
NO statement from the Ferguson PD at all until the whole
town looked like it was emptying out... and things kicked.

-- Justification for the paramil escalation was made AFTER
the situation was allowed to degenerate, instead of a more
reasonable and increased police presence without the
appearance of 'We will Bury You" like some Soviet normalizing.

-- There being no logical reasons for rioting and looting,
yet a lot of it going on: not only undermining the idea of
a peaceful protest, but justifying the use of the big gear...

I wonder if somebody just thought a new flat screen and
some foot bling would make the world cool again? And then
a few hours later it looks like a strip mall apocalypse because
Looter Number One didn't get punctured? Please.

-- With all the rest of this trouble coming from out of almost
nowhere, and some of us here actually asking for more of it..
how much of the trouble was, and still is being imported??

-- Towing the float with the old papier mache' on top of
Qui Bono, who ordered the extra condiments? It's pretty
common knowledge the Black Panthers got in from God
knows where, and a few Chicagoans bussed as well. I mean,
forget Pal Sharpton or any other suit unless he hasn't gone
home yet. It looks like a significant portion of the secondary
and worse trouble got imported: so who cut the check?
Because whoever did wants to start the war.

-- If I'm asking too may questions just try only this one...
What did everybody want to see happen from Zimmerman
/Martin? Sure looks familiar.

originally posted by: undo
p.s. look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself this question: is my personal desire for change, so important, that i'm actually looking forward to the deaths of innocent protestors so my agenda can be furthered? if the answer is yes, you have a problem. a serious problem.

Thanks for the last post; because you've just described
why it's in the government's best interests to fire off as
many of these events as possible without getting caught.
And yes-- I'll agree that as a collective personality our
rapidly centralizing government has a serious problem.

EDIT:: and when the agenda is genociding your own people
it's not even a government anymore--- much less ours.

originally posted by: derfreebie
EDIT:: and when the agenda is genociding your own people
it's not even a government anymore--- much less ours.

Where is this genocide agenda taking place?

originally posted by: Klassified
Any genuine militia crazy enough to walk into a situation like the one in Ferguson, will pay a very high price for their patriotism. The media will turn each militia members life inside out, and make them out to be terrorists and anti-American. And the public will believe every word of it. It's a no-win situation.

When the American people decide they want their country back, the militia will have a leg to stand on, and supporters at every turn. Until then, they have no hope of winning a battle. Let alone the war.

Then they are cowards. Period. The Bundy Ranch tax dodge fiasco is worth the threat of media scrutiny but the madhouse in Ferguson isn't?

Yeah . . . right.

Screw those fat old men anyway. All they'd do is get themselves roughed up . . . finally. Then, it'd be back home to soak their aching feet and brag about how fearless and lawless they were in the face of government jackboot thuggery. And about their 24 hours of jail time before being let loose without charges.

By the way - the local police are just the bottom rung of the same ladder that the FBI, DEA, ATS and Obama are part of. It's called The Executive Branch of our US government. There's no actual separation between the seemingly disparate law enforcement entities. Obama is the boss of your own Sheriff and that's the bottom line regardless of what that guy wants to suggest.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Boom!

originally posted by: TDawgRex
The only way any militia (to include OathKeepers) would have a positive effect would be for them to show up in numbers several times over than at Bundy's ranch, unarmed, dressed normally and form a human shield around the protesters.

Who, I bet, would not be pleased about that at all.

This is a local matter. Let's the locals handle it. A kid was killed, and that's sad, but it happens every freaking day multiple times, sometimes even in the same city, not only in America, but around the world.

Where is the flipping outcry then on a freaking daily basis! Hypocrites!

People will be killed by accident, people will be killed by individuals who make a poor judgment call, people will be killed by individual police who make a poor judgement call.

This is part of freedom... It's when the state backs it that it becomes problematic. So my neighbor decides to kill someone, there obviously isn't going to be a huge public outcry, why? Because one person exercised his freedom to take the life of another, he will now pay with his own life through restriction... Self resolving but unstoppable.

Compared to a protest where an officer kills the protester -- they are totally different things. There is a REASON to rally against this and that's because it needs to be, so it doesn't become acceptable in society.

You can't stop murder, but you can set a precedent. That's the difference.

Militia's should always show up when it's about blocking the state from setting a new precedent that is anti-civilian. If that can't be done, militia presence is not necessary.

a reply to: NorEaster

it wouldn't have gone like that, and you know it. armed militia showing up at an already volatile situation would've been like throwing gasoline on a fire. think, for gods sake.