Oath Keepers Turn Up at Michael Brown Protests in Ferguson, Missouri

originally posted by: CantStandIt
a reply to: KingIcarus A simple protest isn't necessarily a violation of rights, but if the protest denies access to public thoroughfare or causes property damage, then it does. The law gives priority to those who would pursue lawful behavior, protesters don't have a right to deny movement or access in their pursuit of addressing a grievance.

Fair enough, but raising what's effectively a militia to police that seems unnecessary and dangerous. I'm not certain armed civilians are required to keep public streets open if other routes are available. As far as I can see, the Police are still active there.

Thank you for you informative response though - I hope everyone in Ferguson, Oathkeepers and protesters alike, behave responsibly and make their points safely.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I guess you can't pay to get people to trash their own city...

a reply to: crazyewok

The UK has more reports of Police Brutality than the US...the difference is you guys try to hide it and your brainwashed populace falls for it:

Source

More than 3,000 police officers are being investigated for alleged assault – with black and Asian people significantly more likely than white people to complain of police brutality, according to an Independent investigation.

Almost all of the officers under investigation for alleged violence against members of the public are still on the beat, with just 2 per cent suspended or put on restricted duties.

You continue to show a complete ignorance of what actually goes on in your area...

Edit: Hopefully you were only referring to police kills, which the US does in spades compared to other countries, however it wasn't that long ago your police were shooting my relatives for fun. And trained by the British Army to do it no less.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

More heavily armed, open carry, black protesters. Where is the outrage? I keep hearing how black people cant do this, yet I keep seeing them do it.

www.theblaze.com... ng-up-on-you-in-the-dark-of-night/

A group of New Black Panthers armed with rifles faced off with sheriff’s deputies Wednesday outside the Texas jail where Sandra Bland died, where a leader of the protesters shouted an apparent threat to law enforcement.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: spav5
If they are there to protect property, against unarmed people, then they are cowards for arming themselves.

Spoken like a true ideologue.

This scenario doesn't make anyone a coward, it makes them intelligent. Protecting someone else's property isn't worth losing one's life over because a bunch of immature future Darwin award winners want to take what isn't theirs. However, if these looters want to put their own life in danger for doing something illegal, that's their own choice, and that's what we call Natural Selection.

What award winner is someone who values property over lives? Heartless? Greedy? Subhuman? Barbaric? Remedial?

originally posted by: CantStandIt
a reply to: spav5 That's one of the beautiful things about the Constitution, it protects lawful behavior without regard for others not being able to understand it. You are free to make those decisions for you, not for everyone. In that some unknown number of " protesters " are armed, these Oath Keepers are armed in their defense. The difference being that the Oath Keepers aren't trying to hide that fact. Sadly, the appearance of a firearm frightens some folks, whereas they aren't frightened when others conceal them. Out of sight, out of mind. I consider that concept a weakness.

Yes, I decided it takes a coward to use weapons against unarmed people who are not trying to harm you. You are free to feel anyway you want to about it and you don't even need a constitution to do so. Only a fool would bring a weapon to only intimidate.

a reply to: spav5

It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).

The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.

Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.

But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.

a reply to: spav5

They'll SHOOT if the have to.
They are loaded.
Sorry how the world hurts your feelings...get better.

a reply to: TheBulk

Post it.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: spav5

They'll SHOOT if the have to.
They are loaded.
Sorry how the world hurts your feelings...get better.

My feelings are not hurt. Perhaps yours are? I stated that I think anyone who would shoot an non-threatening unarmed person over property..is a coward. That is my opinion. I can't help it if your feelings are hurt.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5

It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).

The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.

Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.

But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.

I am not thinking about the law because I am not talking about the law. I think that anyone who would shoot another unarmed person for the sole purpose of protecting property..is a coward.

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5

It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).

The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.

Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.

But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.

I am not thinking about the law because I am not talking about the law. I think that anyone who would shoot another unarmed person for the sole purpose of protecting property..is a coward.

A coward is someone afraid to fight for whats theirs. SO i take it the patriots in the Revolutionary war fighting for freedom and their land were cowards huh? The Indians too apparently they were also cowards huh? What about the soldiers in WW2 fighting to protect their homelands? According to you they were all cowards too huh?

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Are these allowed to do this and if this isn't an advert for banning firearms then what is. Why do you Americans want to keep your firearms. Hunting, Defence or control. I am really confused as to the argument for firearms.

The simple concept of equal rights eliminates all confusion. In your country, you believe the ruling class should have extra rights, but we don't. What I'm confused about is why you think an Oathkeeper with an assault rifle is dangerous. How many people have been killed by Oathkeepers?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5

It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).

The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.

Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.

But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.

I am not thinking about the law because I am not talking about the law. I think that anyone who would shoot another unarmed person for the sole purpose of protecting property..is a coward.

A coward is someone afraid to fight for whats theirs. SO i take it the patriots in the Revolutionary war fighting for freedom and their land were cowards huh? The Indians too apparently they were also cowards huh? What about the soldiers in WW2 fighting to protect their homelands? According to you they were all cowards too huh?

Sorry, I did not read all of what you wrote (as so far you have not been the least convincing) reading your reply will take more time than I am willing to give. Perhaps you need to become more familiar with the reasons for the revolutionary war.

I guess on this topic we will just have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5

It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).

The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.

Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.

But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.

I am not thinking about the law because I am not talking about the law. I think that anyone who would shoot another unarmed person for the sole purpose of protecting property..is a coward.

A coward is someone afraid to fight for whats theirs. SO i take it the patriots in the Revolutionary war fighting for freedom and their land were cowards huh? The Indians too apparently they were also cowards huh? What about the soldiers in WW2 fighting to protect their homelands? According to you they were all cowards too huh?

Sorry, I did not read all of what you wrote (as so far you have not been the least convincing) reading your reply will take more time than I am willing to give. Perhaps you need to become more familiar with the reasons for the revolutionary war.

I guess on this topic we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you are going to be insulting at least be up front about it. YOU said ANYONE FIGHTING OVER AND WILLING TO SHOOT SOMEONE OVER PROPERTY WERE COWARDS. Your words basically. Intellectual dishonesty is big apparently because you will not read anything contrarty to your views. You are showing fellow posters you are not willing to consider other possibilities when you do such actions. maybe your not reading it is not your fault but your educators fault?

a reply to: chewi

It has become a cult. Gun worshiping. I have rifles but I don't have lovey touchy feelings for them.

a reply to: spav5

I don't have feelings for theives or criminals if they don't have the common sense NOT to attack an armed defender, screw them.
The world is better served by their absence.
IF YOU wish we will direct them to riot where YOU are ,so you can enjoy sacrificing YOUR possesions,livelyhood and property to them.

a reply to: MOMof3

WHO does?
I like Sci Fi art MORE than my guns.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Apparently those guys totin guns keepin the boys in line instead of at home.

a reply to: MOMof3

MORE than likely they are tired of the crap and THAT is what they decided to do about it...it IS working.