It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Should groups like the Oath Keepers be banned?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:18 AM
Oath Keepers Wiki for those not familiar.

This was further down into an article about people wanting to ban militia groups. I'm used to people wanting to ban militia groups. People are pretty stupid after all assuming a 'ban' on anything magically makes anything just go away.

What shocked me about the Oath Keepers was that up until this moment I thought they were pretty broadly supported. Even some of the most ardent anti 2nd and pro-totalitarian posters on ATS have posted either support ar at least indifference to the Oath Keepers.

But we seem to have a 50/50 split.

Should armed groups such as the Oath Keepers be outlawed in the United States?

Yes: 49%
No: 51%

Article here

Of course, the video that was shown was done by CNN. Notoriously biased anti 2nd and pro-totalitarian ever since the great campaign of lies and hysteria that pushed the Clinton AWB into law.

Makes me ask are the Oath Keepers really being lumped in with the McVeighs in the publics mind and if they are is it the medias fault for their portrayal of the group and if so how many other generalizations are floating around out there supported by the media that are strong enough to influence not just public opinion but the law as well?

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:11 AM
If we could harness CNN's spin we wouldn't need windmills, solar panels or nuclear power plants. Right now if you are against the Democrats, believe in the Second Amendment and believe that our rights are being eroded you are a "militia wacko" and need to be stopped or banned.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:20 AM
Heck not ban them! They at least have the guts to do what so many neocons are affriad to even attempt. Those that want them banned are either being misinformed or working as governement SHILLS...

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

No they should not.

While I agree that the timing is a bit off, better late than never

These men will go down in history as the ones who stood between America and those who want to destroy her.

I am thinking about joining myself.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:52 AM
Hear hear! No! we cannot ban these people. For one thing, they are doing what everyone who took the oath should do, and for another thing, when something is banned, where does it go? I can assure you all it doesn't just stop, or go away, no, it goes underground, and out of sight. The smoking of a certain herb is a good example here.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:53 AM
If we ban the oath takes we might as well ban the oath the military takes to join. Ban the oath everyone takes to join office including the president. Then to finish ban the paper they take an oath to support.

When you're ready to go that far, get back to me.

As a citizen of the united states, I support anyone willing to stand by their oath to the constitution.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:20 AM
To ban militias is to ban the second amendment. "A well-regulated milita, being necessary..etc." is the whole reason for gun ownership in America.
Take that right away you may as well take the rest because after that no-one could stop them. Were it not for the militas America would be much farther along the road to totalitarianism than it is now. Gun ownership is the leash on the beast of federal government. We don't want to see what would happen were the leash to come off.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:28 AM
Those that wish to ban people like the oath keepers should also declare themselves free of the same protections that oath provides them. Then we will see how long those kinds of people last in this world.

This is one of those things that worry me about this society, where the fed govco is seen as above its founding document.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:52 AM
How does anyone or any group Ban resolve?
How can they even possibly consider banning a decision?
Oath Keeper = made a decision.

I believe NOW that a list of : treasonist - corrupt - criminal - lawmakers - media heads - traitors to the constitution, should be made, and made very public.
I've met more and more individuals in the last few years who have completely lost their minds with the access to power.
Banning groups such as Oath Keepers?

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).

It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.
Thomas Paine

These freaks running this world, make me sick!

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:27 PM
I think there's 1 question that need to be answered, and I am not sure I know what the answers are, but.

1) 2nd Amendment says" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What is well regulated? at least an interesting read is this:
Not sure why it is on this site, but it did point out some good topics in the articles as to the meaning of Militia

Not sure of the answers here. But things to ponder.

I do not think you can ban any of these groups. But if your interested in the true protection of the Constitution, I do not think these groups are your answer either. There are political agendas at play here and the more I read about some of these groups, the less I think it is truly about out rights and freedoms. At least at the leadership levels.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:28 PM
A militia group?

Where do you get that information from.

That would be like saying the VFW or the American Legion are militia groups.

Is upholding the oath to defend the constitution such a bad thing?

Loyalty to your country but not the idiots in power?

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:42 PM

What’s a Three Percenter?

A broader definition would be that they are hard-line Americans who are done backing up and will not comply with further infringement of any of their rights. It also alludes to the three percent of the colonists who took to the field against the King during the Revolution, and the estimation that at least three percent of modern Americans will actively fight, if it comes to it, to preserve liberty. Read this essay for more explanation.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by 12.21.12]

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:43 PM
Militias are the new 'terrorists'. I posted this a week or so ago:

In my opinion, the idea is to demonize militias enough to where the people will denounce them. no organized militias=no defense against domestic threats.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:45 PM
Ban them? Who's next?

Banning groups because the power structure doesn't like what they have to say, or what they represent? Then we truly have ceased to be a nation of free individuals.

That goes for any group. Period. Full stop. KKK, separatists of any sort have a right to free expression, no matter how I personally feel. Groups that support the acquisition of rights that I feel already exist are certainly welcome to voice their opinions. Just as groups who disagree are welcome to voice that disagreement.

Ban one voice, and the chorus of freedom is weaker as a result.

That soapbox was just sitting there...empty.


log in