If you have not joined Oath Keepers, here's your chance.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The point of being present in Ferguson was to do what the police on shift were forced not to do, which is to maintain order. When appointees in governmental positions make decisions that jeopardize the general public, like in Baltimore, it's best for innocent people that someone stands up to dissuade rampant lawlessness.

I, and I'm sure many lurkers out there, appreciate the fact that brave people will put their lives on the line to maintain order when the civil authorities fail to do so.

I'm sure the people of Ferguson sure appreciated Oath Keeper's presence during the riots.
 
And from what I've heard about the Bundy ranch, that property had been in their family for over 100 years
 
I must be missing something here. How is a group of people who uphold the Constitution and protect our rights a bad thing? And Cairo, I'm in agreement with you except for one minor point. Cops are civilians. Because if they are not, that means they are military. And that is in violation of the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act.
 
FireInCairo said:
And from what I've heard about the Bundy ranch, that property had been in their family for over 100 years
Click to expand...
As noted by alsagr above, your information on the Bundy's are incorrect. Further, the "ranch" was not at issue - it was the Bundy's assertion of rights onto land that was not their property. And, as the courts have firmly upheld, there are no legally recognized inherited grazing rights, preemptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered public-domain land-use rights held by the Bundy family or Bundy's ancestors. Bundy lost all his special-rights arguments in the United States v. Bundy cases.

And again no direct RKBA issue here, and no true Constitutional issue.

And to bring up Ferguson and ... Baltimore ?!? ... Once again, no direct RKBA issues, as the 2A rights of citizens where not in question in either scenario (at least in Baltimore, no more curtailed than RKBA "normally" is).

This all just illustrates, at least to me, that this group is not involved in practical and workable actions on behalf of RKBA.
 
coondogger said:
I must be missing something here. How is a group of people who uphold the Constitution and protect our rights a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Spoken this way, the same could apply to any American doing their civic duties on a daily basis.

But, look a little deeper about some of the odd stuff going on in this group. Just ran across one Oath Keepers youtube video on "Defeating Drones: How To Build A Thermal Evasion Suit." What - exactly - does that have to do with the Second Amendment, RKBA, or the Constitution in general?

Looking at this groups website for my state, I don't see much at all that is related to the Consitution. I do see a lot about emergency preparedness, backup comms networks, and general SHTF prepper stuff.

I'll be blunt - this group sounds like it started with a reasonable idea that got wrapped up in a ton of tin foil hats.
 
Nope. I attended an Oathkeepers event and found they were a joke. Boy Scouts would have a better chance fighting martial law than the Oathkeeper members I saw.
 
Once again you haven't answered direct questions. Which of our Constitutional rights were being defended by Oathkeepers in Bundy's case or in Ferguson, MO last fall?

Specifically, how is this group doing anything that is related to 2nd A, RTKBA?

It appears to me that this group's main thrust is centered around "when SHTF" and they say just that on their web and Facebook sites.

Conversely, the High Road exists to discuss 2nd A and firearms related issues.

What am I missing?
 
Not everything that an organization does has to be only in defense of the Constitution to still be a defender of the Constitution. We don't ban NRA talk because the Eddie Eagle program does nothing to directly defend our Constitution. That being said, it might help to point out some RKBA or Constitutional issues the Oath Keepers have been involved with to give more merit.
 
coondogger said:
I must be missing something here. How is a group of people who uphold the Constitution and protect our rights a bad thing? And Cairo, I'm in agreement with you except for one minor point. Cops are civilians. Because if they are not, that means they are military. And that is in violation of the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act.
Click to expand...
Point taken on the civilian issue.

Also, thanks for having the courage to chime in. If people who believe in upholding the Constitution can't even declare that on a gun forum without such opposition, our nation is in a sadder state than I previous thought.

Speak up, people, exercise your right to free speech!
 
Last edited:
wojownik said:
As noted by alsagr above, your information on the Bundy's are incorrect. Further, the "ranch" was not at issue - it was the Bundy's assertion of rights onto land that was not their property. And, as the courts have firmly upheld, there are no legally recognized inherited grazing rights, preemptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered public-domain land-use rights held by the Bundy family or Bundy's ancestors. Bundy lost all his special-rights arguments in the United States v. Bundy cases.

And again no direct RKBA issue here, and no true Constitutional issue.

And to bring up Ferguson and ... Baltimore ?!? ... Once again, no direct RKBA issues, as the 2A rights of citizens where not in question in either scenario (at least in Baltimore, no more curtailed than RKBA "normally" is).

This all just illustrates, at least to me, that this group is not involved in practical and workable actions on behalf of RKBA.
Click to expand...
This is not a debate on the Bundy ranch issue. Start your own thread if you want to discuss that. Thanks for respecting that!
 
another pake said:
Once again you haven't answered direct questions. Which of our Constitutional rights were being defended by Oathkeepers in Bundy's case or in Ferguson, MO last fall?

Specifically, how is this group doing anything that is related to 2nd A, RTKBA?

It appears to me that this group's main thrust is centered around "when SHTF" and they say just that on their web and Facebook sites.

Conversely, the High Road exists to discuss 2nd A and firearms related issues.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
The point is to actively engage people who want to defend Constitutional rights, in general, which act to preserve all Constitutional rights including the 2nd Amendment.

But I don't have to justify anything to anyone on here. The point of this thread is to get the link to those who wish to sign up. And that's exactly what this thread is doing, despite the opposition.
 
I've updated my original post to give better detail as to how Oath Keepers are a worthy group to join because of their defense of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
another pake said:
Once again you haven't answered direct questions. Which of our Constitutional rights were being defended by Oathkeepers in Bundy's case or in Ferguson, MO last fall?

Specifically, how is this group doing anything that is related to 2nd A, RTKBA?

It appears to me that this group's main thrust is centered around "when SHTF" and they say just that on their web and Facebook sites.

Conversely, the High Road exists to discuss 2nd A and firearms related issues.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
The best way to "preserve" a right is to actively exercise that right. And that's exactly what they did when they stood guard, armed, to protect and preserve the livelihoods of other citizens, something the police weren't allowed to do at that time.
 
FireInCairo said:
This is not a debate on the Bundy ranch issue. Start your own thread if you want to discuss that. Thanks for respecting that!
Click to expand...

No, its not. But YOU are the one who brought it up for discussion. So the gates are open insofar as it pertains to the theme of this subforum: I have neither seen nor heard anything about this group that indicates it is involved in practical and workable actions on behalf of RKBA. And I certainly did not see anything on the local group's website and blog posts that indicates any workable actions on behalf of RKBA.
 
I've met some "oath keepers." I was unimpressed with not only their basic understanding of the Constitution and elements of federalism as interpreted by the courts, but I was mostly disgusted with their manners - nothing suitable to display here verbatim. I will say I found them personally offensive given both my lifestyle and background.
 
The primary goal of this thread is to engage those who wish to participate. For those who oppose Oath Keepers, you're welcome to exercise your first amendment right to free-speech. Just know that I won't be engaging anyone further on the merit of this organization, as it's obviously pointless to argue with some on the internet.

I am shaking off the dust off my sandals, and moving on from you.
 
Sav .250 said:
I`m offended . Hey, it works for everybody else.
Click to expand...
Life is too short for that. And if life is to short for that, let your ignore list be long!

oath-main.jpg
 
FireInCairo,

As much as I would love to engage you and your Activism Plan, in rereading the Rules Section in this area I conclude that I should not. The rules state among other things that the Activism thread is a place for getting work done not bickering. So I erred and I apologize.

It also states that just telling people to Sign Up for one thing or another does not cross the threshold of activism. But moderating is the moderators job, not mine.
I will voluntarily place myself into "time out" and bid you adieu at this time, on this topic, in this thread category.

For anyone else wishing to learn more about the "work" of this organization, just Google Oathkeepers in the news. Good reading.
 
When those nutjobs went out and tried to defend that criminal Cliven Bundy, they hit my "enemies list."

From the TV, it looked like most of them were outlaw biker gangsters.
 
This part of OK is crawling with "Oath Keepers". i met many of their members and have been asked to join numerous times. Members range from decent guys to tinfoil hat nutcases talking civil war.

Three local "Oath Keepers" stand out. One has a general discharge from the Army, one is an often fired former cop who can't get a job. The third guy is currently under indictment for the manufacture of recreational pharamceuticals-meth.

i will not join a group like that.
 
Folks, this is a wide ranging discussion, but we have to try to have some boundaries in this topic. If posts disappear they fell outside those broad boundaries and risked derailing the discusdion..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Oath Keepers! Lexington Massachusetts
Replies
0
Views
431
n00b
N
O
  • Locked
Oath Keepers sworn to protect gun rights.
Replies
1
Views
477
rbernie
rbernie
Hondo 60
  • Locked
Veteran's Oath
Replies
1
Views
450
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
H
  • Locked
Oath to protect the Constitution
Replies
2
Views
497
White Horseradish
W
J
  • Locked
Military to Pledge Oath to Obama, Not Constitution
Replies
8
Views
1K
Mal H
Mal H
Back
Top