Page 1 of 1
In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:28:55
by OakRidgeStars
Re: In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:52:12
by SHMIV
I wonder why the author isn't a fan of Oath Keepers?
I was reading some of the commentary; some guy seems to think that rooftop snipers are only appropriate during times of war, and implies that Ferguson is experiencing a time of peace. Wonder what that guy's been smoking?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ] 
Re: In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:53:22
by 0ne5hot
That is insanity...I have never had a person who I was rendering aid to or a bystander ask me if my EMT license was current or If I even had one. When the SHTF and your getting your life or property destroyed only an insane person questions the guy helping you.
SHMIV wrote:I wonder why the author isn't a fan of Oath Keepers?
Charles C. W. Cooke is British
Re: In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:16:03
by SHMIV
Yeah, I guess that Europeans don't quite get American ideals.
What's insane is Ferguson PD freaking out about security licenses. Seriously? Because they've managed to keep law and order so splendidly, themselves.
What's right is wrong, and vice versa.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:47:28
by 0ne5hot
Also, if you are doing it for FREE why would you need a security license?...If the owner said okay then you are not trespassing and open carry is legal...what infraction would you even be arrested for
Re: In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:50:30
by Taggure
So I guess my question would be this:
Why are Oath Keepers considered an Anti-Government Militia?
I think the have a stronger sense of responsibility to protect the folks in this case then the police or any of the race-baiters in Ferguson do.
Re: In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:24:38
by SHMIV
Depends on who's doing the considering. I don't consider them to be anti-government. Anti-current-administration, maybe. Pro-Constitution.
The media, of course, who seem to report at the whim of Emperor Soetoro, would naturally have a problem with an organization that actually loves the United States, and vows to protect her from domestic threats.
Thus, they are labeled as "anti-government", and given other scary sounding labels, too.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:07:08
by 0ne5hot
Rhodes also gave Vice this explanation for the Oath Keepers' interest in the situation:
in Ferguson, what they're being told is you only have two choices: 1) a hyper-militarized police state to stop violence, including arson, or 2) let it go and burn the town down. Twenty different buildings have burned to the ground. That's a false choice.
For Ferguson in particular if...they don't believe that the police department is legitimate, they should be protecting themselves and secure themselves because the more they secure themselves, the less reason there is for the police to be in their neighborhoods and communities. So they should take care of themselves for both reasons—to be secure, but also to be more free.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/02/the-o ... hree-updat
Re: In Defense of 'Anti-government Militias'
Posted: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:48:15
by DCJon
OK isn't a militia.