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.

 

Here’s What Jesse Ventura Thinks About the Oath Keepers

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
In this edition of #WWJVD, I sound off on the rise of the vigilante group the Oath Keepers -- who recently marched side-by-side with the residents of Ferguson with arms in hand. My stance may shock some of you -- watch and find out! Plus, I take your social media questions.

Agree or disagree with me?




posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Vigilante group?
I get it ,WRONG: according to EVERY SINGLE ONE I have met and known but I get your opinion.
Maybe you are missing the on the street connection now.
Vigilates would have SWEPT the street and a few would have been SHOT ,qualifying the title.
They aren't stupid,reactionary activists,they're VETS....you may have met a couple in your time.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Should watch the video. When he says "vigilante group" its not in a bad context.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

I saw it.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

I think blm is waiting for their shot heard round the world and they still don't know it.

As for the oath keepers? They have been likened to terrorists.

For nothing more than swearing to defend the constitution.

Media has been bought.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Black Lives Matter 2nd Amendment Rally in TX

Does this answer your question?

edit on 3-9-2015 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Funny, they haven't called the GUARD out ,so HE got that wrong.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Aside from satellites spying on his cleft chin, I would say he's got quite a few problems.
Now he's subtly fomenting racism. He lost me when he came out as a man made climate change shill.


I'm pretty sure he needs to learn the difference between 'vigilant' and 'vigilante'.


a reply to: cavtrooper7

# 506



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Now if it was a bunch of Muslim looking men, with beards, people would be crapping themselves and apaches would be in the sky



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
I'm pretty sure he needs to learn the difference between 'vigilant' and 'vigilante'.


Well, to be fair the oath keepers by there own admission went to Ferguson that night to carry out a "vigilante" role.

Anyway, Jesse did bring up some good points in the video. Firstly, what possible purpose was there to take semi-automatic firearms into such a situation? Obviously its there right to do so and that has to be respected. But having said that, theirs no possible scenario where those firearms could have been discharged that would of had any kind of a positive effect for the Ferguson protesters, or gun rights in general.

Secondly, if that had of been 5 black dudes who were sagging and carrying around those weapons that night, the scenario would have been completely different. The police would not have been so passive about black people upholding there 2nd amendment right.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

There are actually several ways that the carriage of weapons by the Oath Keepers could have been positive. They were there to defend the constitution, and to act according to its content, which, one could argue, is not always the sole aim of police officers in riot gear, department heads, and so on. They were there to remind everyone, including local LEOs, of their obligation to protect the peace, by way of a clear demonstration that failure to do so by discharging weapons into a crowd or preventing free protest by any method, would force those Oath Keepers to defend the constitution and indeed the people, by force of arms if required.

Looked to me like they were there to keep folks as honest as possible, in a situation which might otherwise have been used to divide populations against one another. Good effort as far as I can tell.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Im a little confused...why are we guys hanging on Jesse Venturas words? I dont get it..

What has he said/done to warrant your attention? Other than say what you want to hear from what i can tell. No insults intended, im genuiely curious

edit on 3-9-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Oath Keeper = On "a list" = First to be round-up



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Usually I agree with the man.
I think as he is a celebrity AND a SEAL from one of the nastiest fights we had ,that carries much respect to me.
I'm NOT a robot
AS to the function of such a group I would suggest to secure business which I have arged here about the USE of the weapons IF attacked and the morality of killing for possessons that some disagree with.
edit on 3-9-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   


Anyway, Jesse did bring up some good points in the video. Firstly, what possible purpose was there to take semi-automatic firearms into such a situation? Obviously its there right to do so and that has to be respected. But having said that, theirs no possible scenario where those firearms could have been discharged that would of had any kind of a positive effect for the Ferguson protesters, or gun rights in general.


The oath keepers said they were there to protect the people of Ferguson and their rights, not to back the police. The rights of the people of Ferguson. That is kind of the intent of the 2nd, is it not? And stop with the "semi-automatic firearm" rhetoric. Typical anti-gun statement. The purpose is because they can, period. The people of Ferguson feared the police, who aren't carrying single fire bolt action weapons.

You are correct that there would have been no good outcome from shots being fired but when only one side has all the weapons that is a much higher probability.




Secondly, if that had of been 5 black dudes who were sagging and carrying around those weapons that night, the scenario would have been completely different. The police would not have been so passive about black people upholding there 2nd amendment right.



A group of black Ferguson residents armed with high-powered rifles stood outside a white-owned business in the city during recent riots, protecting it from rioters that looted and burned other businesses.

Well, whaddyaknowabouthat



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

I keep getting a 404 message that says network error.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Damn that was a whole lot of ownage. I guess people aren't starring your post either because they didn't click the link or they don't want to upset Almighty Ventura.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I agree with that. The media of the United States carries the agenda of whatever they want to carry. They're in complete lock step with the status quo.



originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: JesseVentura

I think blm is waiting for their shot heard round the world and they still don't know it.

As for the oath keepers? They have been likened to terrorists.

For nothing more than swearing to defend the constitution.

Media has been bought.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join