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

Heavily-armed members of a controversial patriot group added an extra dose of unease to protests early Tuesday in Ferguson, Missouri.

The Oath Keepers organization says its members — all former military, police and first responders — pledge to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

However, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar described their presence as "both unnecessary and inflammatory."

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

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

More inflammatory BS. Armed citizens patrolling the streets in Ferguson during a peaceful protest. Yeah...let's bring more assault rifles to Ferguson....what could go wrong?

Ayep. Trump will fix this. Eyeroll.

Heavily armed 'Oath Keepers' inject new unease to riot-hit Ferguson

‘Mili taristic’ Oath Keepers patrol Ferguson streets to ‘protect’ InfoWars journalist working for Alex Jones

But hey...they have every right to be there too, right?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I'm having trouble understanding why they would be there aside from having a few topics circulate the internet like this.

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..........

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yeah. That's what Raw Story says.

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.

I saw that "some" of the protestors asked them to leave. No idea how many, but the point I kept seeing was they didn't want the attention focused on a bunch of dudes carrying guns.

Very strange. I have no idea why they would be sent to protect somebody from infowars. That's just....odd.

Never mind, I misread it. Now it makes sense. Jones needs to get that pot stirred, and this is an easy way of doing that. Silly me, what was I thinking?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Protect them from who is the question, I guess. At the Bundy Ranch their weapons were turned on who?

So...um. I'm so confused. But not confused enough to not see this isn't the greatest idea.

ETA: To paraphrase...be the story you want to see?

Wonder why they can only help keep the peace when they are armed? They think they look like brave men but they all look like cowards to me.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The imminent martial law that Jokes (I mistyped his name but I kinda like it spelled that way) has been preaching about for years now.

And if that doesn't happen, then he can still spin all these interactions somehow. Black people don't understand the 2nd. Black people cant exercise their 2nd and this is an example of it. Black people don't like the 2nd. Had the police spoken to the oath keepers, that opens up a whole new gamut of topics for Jones to wax prophetic about. The possibilities for him and his site are nearly endless all because of this little charade he orchestrated. To me it's actually a pretty masterful ploy.

Pathetic, but masterful.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Masterful but disturbing....

They have the right to be there so people better learn to deal with it.
They would also be more likely to protect the protesters than to attempt to stop them.

Whether someone has the right to do it or not, this is deliberately confrontational and deliberately inflammatory to the situation, Jones knows it and the "Oath Keepers" (I cringe every time I read that) know it too.

These are grown men who have the mentality of teenagers, they probably have very small penises, severe control and anger issues, and they need to carry big guns and pretend to play military to make themselves feel like the real man they wish they were.

Now, if only someone could get them to spend their time playing dress-up in some other way the country would be much better for it

Did they shoot anyone, or even spontaneously fire their weapons into the air?

No?

How weird is that?

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Whether someone has the right to do it or not, this is deliberately confrontational and deliberately inflammatory to the situation, Jones knows it and the "Oath Keepers" (I cringe every time I read that) know it too.

These are grown men who have the mentality of teenagers, they probably have very small penises, severe control and anger issues, and they need to carry big guns and pretend to play military to make themselves feel like the real man they wish they were.

Now, if only someone could get them to spend their time playing dress-up in some other way the country would be much better for it

Would it be better if they pulled their pants down to their knees and wrapped bandannas around their foreheads?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

That makes almost TOO much sense.

Could be because the protests haven't been all peaceful....cops were shot at and another protester was shot by the cops.

And whomever said they look like cowards, I guess you failed to understand most of these guys are ex military that carried similar weapons into their deployments.....so anyone with a gun is a coward? I guess by that line of thought, anyone with a car is lazy?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Yep. I pretty much already said that. Question remains though as to why they really are. Protecting the reporters. From who?

You know what should be protecting the protesters? Their right to be there.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Bluntone22

Yep. I pretty much already said that. Question remains though as to why they really are. Protecting the reporters. From who?

You know what should be protecting the protesters? Their right to be there.

The protesters haven't exactly been peaceful.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Correct, 'Oath keepers' wouldn't know the constitution if you recited it for them over and over for 24 hours straight.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Could be because the protests haven't been all peaceful....cops were shot at and another protester was shot by the cops.

So they're there to protect the reporters from InfoWars from getting caught in the crossfire?

So more men standing around with guns Is going to help defuse that kind of situation?

Just trying to understand.