It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Did they shoot anyone, or even spontaneously fire their weapons into the air?

No?

How weird is that?


Or accidentally discharge their weapon in the parking lot?

Those guys are not only nuts, they're dangerous and nothing good can come from these "Bundy Ranch" style reactions.

I take that back, I guess senseless gun displays like this could help advance the cause of gun control legislation in the future. Go figure!


Senseless gun displays? what exactly is senseless in exercising a right?

"I can't believe OJ and his senseless requesting of a trial by jury"

"Why won't he talk? What a senseless use of the right to remain silent"

"How dare you breastfeed your child!!! Why do you have to senselessly display yourself like that?"

See....it just loses its ring when you apply logic tests to it. A right is a right.


What logic? You call that "logic?"

I'll tell you what's logical, if you go looking for trouble, eventually you'll find it.

It's also logical to expect that if they keep insisting on exercising their right to open carry at contentious events just to inflame tensions, that right they so cherish might be short lived.



Yes, that is what you call "logic". You apply the same reason to similar things to see if the line of thinking holds water.

It is not logical to expect that behaving lawfully would lead to further restrictions of rights.

Should we expect that all those idiots on Twitter and Facebook, and their "senseless" exercising of their first amendment right will lead to curtailing of said rights? No. We shouldn't. Unless we discard reason first.




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I have never posted anything negative about Oath Keepers before.
Just like any group you have members that go off on a tangent and do things that could bring bad publicity.
We just saw that in Seattle with the girls who hijacked the podium for BLM.
But this is upping the ante and in the minds of some there will be an open provocation.
Context is everything.

Eta: If Oathkeepers were there to watch out for neighborhoods I would construe their purpose differently.
It seems that they want to be close to the protestors for no other reason than to intimidate.
What kind of journalist is going to stay well away from the protests?
If they are there to protect them they will be wherever that reporter is.
edit on 11-8-2015 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Flatfish

Actually it did nothing to deter the passing of open carry laws (less gun regulation) here in Texas, so your argument is false. The open carry Texas movement was quite active and present and as such we have campus carry and open carry.

In your opinion, what makes them nuts / dangerous? I'm curious how rooted in Statism your opinions are.

A couple points / questions:
1) It is negligent discharge. No such thing as "accidental discharge" unless there is some kind of rare firearm malfunction.
2) Are you from Austin?


Nope, I'm native born Texan but not from Austin and I would wager that I own more guns than you, but I'd never use one to incite confrontation, which is exactly what these so called "patriots" are doing.

Furthermore, you can call it accidental, unintended, negligent or whatever you want.

It's not about what you call it, it's about some innocent bystander getting hurt or killed just because these nuts feel the need to add their weapons to an already contentious situation under the guise that they're providing some kind of security.

"Stupid" is what I call it.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Did they shoot anyone, or even spontaneously fire their weapons into the air?

No?

How weird is that?


Or accidentally discharge their weapon in the parking lot?

Those guys are not only nuts, they're dangerous and nothing good can come from these "Bundy Ranch" style reactions.

I take that back, I guess senseless gun displays like this could help advance the cause of gun control legislation in the future. Go figure!


Senseless gun displays? what exactly is senseless in exercising a right?

"I can't believe OJ and his senseless requesting of a trial by jury"

"Why won't he talk? What a senseless use of the right to remain silent"

"How dare you breastfeed your child!!! Why do you have to senselessly display yourself like that?"

See....it just loses its ring when you apply logic tests to it. A right is a right.


What logic? You call that "logic?"

I'll tell you what's logical, if you go looking for trouble, eventually you'll find it.

It's also logical to expect that if they keep insisting on exercising their right to open carry at contentious events just to inflame tensions, that right they so cherish might be short lived.



Yes, that is what you call "logic". You apply the same reason to similar things to see if the line of thinking holds water.

It is not logical to expect that behaving lawfully would lead to further restrictions of rights.

Should we expect that all those idiots on Twitter and Facebook, and their "senseless" exercising of their first amendment right will lead to curtailing of said rights? No. We shouldn't. Unless we discard reason first.


I'd say you discarded reason long ago and If I'm not mistaken, there was a time when you could holler "FIRE!" In a crowded theater and expect protection under the 1st Amendment too, but not anymore.

So it would appear, at least judging from past practices, that abusing rights to the point that it endangers others does indeed lead to restrictions being placed on those rights.

See how that works?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
They are not there to protect fictitious rights that professional protestors think allows them to riot, rob, pillage, burn things down etc. after they loot liquor stores in their quest for the latest Reeboks and iphones

Sounds like they are all professionals in security trained in combat hired to protect someone, not toothless braindead hillbillies with small penises like some hateful people have suggested. That's just duh!, so stupid it is funny.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
It may be within their rights to be there but if Jones is looking to stoke up some action he might just get his wish. Somebody out there probably has a rifle too and will be sorely tempted to take some shots from a distance. White guys standing around with guns who are not the police will look just as much like an enemy to them as the police do. Shame on you Alex Jones. You are putting others lives in jeopardy just to up your ratings.

Shame!!



A white person was born today, shame on them parents bringing another target into this world!



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Answer me this - in how many of these situations that Oathkeepers (or the Open Carry Texas movement for example) or any other states that allow open carry, have innocent bystanders gotten hurt or killed from a negligent discharge? (I point this out because it demonstrates knowledge of firearm safety and their operational mechanics), whereas you qualify your credibility based on the fact that you "probably own more guns than me".

Now compare that to how many bystanders or innocent people have been wounded / killed by a police officer's firearm?

Your argument holds no logic if you look at the numbers. Do you apply the same argument to the police that are there in riot gear, openly carrying firearms?

You keep referring to these folks as nuts and stupid, yet you haven't really provided a valid supporting argument other than your perceived fear of people who open carry.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
oathkeepers

nothing from them on their website.

is this confirmed or just another joke?




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
While this has been discussed before in many other threads...........the root of the problem is the "trigger happy" nature of the US Police against the blacks and some other races. More training and tools at hand should stop this "happy shooting" attitude.

Oath Keepers should talk to Police first and ask them to STOP shooting so easily. This police action is causing a mini civil war in the US as now reports of blacks shooting at Cops have started to come up.

Presence of Oath Keepers type vigilantes is only going to explode the situation if any firing starts even by mistake. US is the strongest military power on earth and it does not need Oath Keepers to come with any help. SWATs, National Guards, Regular army etc. are more than enough to control riots as they have done several times in the past.

These OKs should be asked by government to get back to the "bored chambers" that they came from.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Its almost like doublespeak when you start questioning when, where, and why people choose to exercise their rights.

Would it be considered "inflammatory" for a woman to breast feed while in church? A right is a right.


The only problem with this statement? It's not about rights. It's about intent. It's about agenda. It's about a potential explosion.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
oathkeepers

nothing from them on their website.

is this confirmed or just another joke?



Another joke? What was the other joke?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Firefly_
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Why can't those oath keepers exercise their pledge to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." and deal with the corrupt politicians and corporations destroying not only the US, but the entire planet for profit, deal with the corrupt organisations and agencies that enforce the corrupt laws?


Great question. Those that served on the military did that at one time. Guess maybe them going to DC is a bit touchy? I don't know.
edit on 8/11/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Its almost like doublespeak when you start questioning when, where, and why people choose to exercise their rights.

Would it be considered "inflammatory" for a woman to breast feed while in church? A right is a right.


The only problem with this statement? It's not about rights. It's about intent. It's about agenda. It's about a potential explosion.



Its about rights. They are exercising their 2nd amendment rights, and it is considered inflammatory.

Its like the asinine notion of someone refusing to give testimony being contempt of court. One choosing to not speak is a first amendment right. It isn't inflammatory...its just someone exercising their right.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Its almost like doublespeak when you start questioning when, where, and why people choose to exercise their rights.

Would it be considered "inflammatory" for a woman to breast feed while in church? A right is a right.


The only problem with this statement? It's not about rights. It's about intent. It's about agenda. It's about a potential explosion.



Its about rights. They are exercising their 2nd amendment rights, and it is considered inflammatory.

Its like the asinine notion of someone refusing to give testimony being contempt of court. One choosing to not speak is a first amendment right. It isn't inflammatory...its just someone exercising their right.


No. It is not. It is my OP and it's not about RIGHTS.

You people injected that part and made assumptions and took this in a whole other direction.

Like you pretty much do with every thread that touches even in a totally tangential or ancillary way on something you hold precious.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: ~Lucidity


Led by a man who gave his name only as John, the group, whose members wore bulletproof vests and carried sidearms in addition to combat-style rifles, said they had come to protect a journalist from the conservative "Infowars.com" Web site.


I'm thinking Alex sent them in with his journalist buddy and told them to brush-up on their knowledge of the 2nd amendment, look serious and professional when staring at the camera and create a story by raising tensions. Get other journos to post the news and make sure to add the fact these fellas are white, in a predominantly black area, and they are packin

I think Jones gets lonely unless he's at the center of a ship-storm.

Standing by..........



THIS is the subject.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: xuenchen


Another joke? What was the other joke?


Well where is the proof that these guys are actually Oath Keepers?

They could be actors planted by parties with vested interests.

Where's the verification?

with the MSM sources?



edit on Aug-11-2015 by xuenchen because: no proof no rum



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Then what is the issue here? That some dudes showed up? I mean, this WAS in the OP:


Imagine the carnage if the other protesters asserted their right to carry too. I swear it seems like some people actually want carnage.


Its actually the first sentence you wrote. Right underneath that image you have of guys carrying rifles.

But ok. Sure. This thread isn't about the right to bear arms. Its about some dudes going to Missouri. Has nothing to do with firearms at all.

oO
edit on 8/11/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I love all the people that are saying they shouldn't be there.

They have a right to be there and be armed. I don't give a flying -snip- if you think it is "inflammatory" or aggressive looking or what have you.

It is because of you mentality bullies that so much BS is outlawed in this country and we are running off the rails as it is.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Flatfish

Answer me this - in how many of these situations that Oathkeepers (or the Open Carry Texas movement for example) or any other states that allow open carry, have innocent bystanders gotten hurt or killed from a negligent discharge? (I point this out because it demonstrates knowledge of firearm safety and their operational mechanics), whereas you qualify your credibility based on the fact that you "probably own more guns than me".

Now compare that to how many bystanders or innocent people have been wounded / killed by a police officer's firearm?


Don't know how many have been injured to date but if they continue to openly seek a confrontation, it's just a matter of time before they get one, whether it's with law enforcement or some other group.

Answer me this; How many people have they saved? How many times have these oath keepers prevented an actual crime, responded to a violent crime or apprehended an armed & dangerous criminal?


originally posted by: SonOfThor

Your argument holds no logic if you look at the numbers. Do you apply the same argument to the police that are there in riot gear, openly carrying firearms?

You keep referring to these folks as nuts and stupid, yet you haven't really provided a valid supporting argument other than your perceived fear of people who open carry.


There is no "logic" in comparing them to armed police officers when they're actually more akin to armed vigilantes.

The Oath Keepers is just a bunch of looney assed Alex Jones followers who got together in 2009, (probably in protest of this nation's first black POTUS) and somehow think it's their duty to protect the rest of us from a fictitious government takeover and/or martial law and FEMA camps.

To make a long story short, IMO anyone who wraps themselves in confederate battle flags or believes in and/or follows Alex Jones and his nutty assed conspiracy theories should probably be avoided. They're all at least a sandwich short of a box lunch.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

To be a vigilante requires you to actually do something.

If walking around, behaving in a legal manner is vigilantism.....

There really can't be a bad time to exercise ones rights.




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join