The Oath Keepers, unsung heroes in Ferguson, MI

[Wells]

We have here conspiracy theorist with weapons who are ready to use them to protect property or themself
yeah that is bad.

What is worse however are the people behaving to attract those nutcases in the firstplace.

You're tilting at windmills.

[Wildtree]

There are people in Ferguson, who are attacking reporters, and stealing their possessions. I even linked a story about it, how again is that a lie?

You said

The people of Ferguson

That means and always meant all people of Ferguson.
Would you've said some criminals, everything would be okay. Otherwise you're just dishonest.

[Stop Pretending]

you responded with the nonsense that they can legally carry......
Everyone knows that.... You're the one that failed and still does fail the point.
Just because they can open carry does not mean they should do it, given the circumstances.
Because given said circumstance their presence is provoking and inflammatory.

Remember how Fergusson got out of line a year ago?
Hint..... Visual appearance of the police force..

Someone asked if it was legal I repsonded. That's why I stated it, so obviously not " EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ".
So you obviously have missed the point of the conversation, and are making yourself look rather foolish.
Quote me where I said " Well they can so they should ", go a head, I'll wait.
They were hired, wether or not it's provoking isn;t a debate I was having with anyone, I simply stated there isn;t anything anyone can do about it.

So because me proving that reporters are being attacked by people, beaten, and robbed, you're offended by it?

Seriously, is someone else using your account tonight?

[Underverse]

Of course it does. The correct response is to restore civil order.

It's silly to only kick to the right when the other side is clearly worse.

Yes, the correct response s to restore civil order. And if you want to restore civil order, you do it with law enforcement, not extremist mercenaries.

[Deleted]

You're tilting at windmills.

I think they had masscale property damage and violence in ferguson?

Is that correct or not? What did those guys in the OP cause?

[Stop Pretending]

You said
That means and always meant all people of Ferguson.
Would you've said some criminals, everything would be okay. Otherwise you're just dishonest.

People equates all now? That's a fucking stretch, and you know it, you are being dishonest at this point.

[Underverse]

Yep a bunch of White thugs showed up with guns and cops did nothing, not surprised.

Well, they're within their rights, so police technically can't do anything. But that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea.

[Shadowmelded]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...owars-ferguson

So I mean, they're clearly a bunch of batshit loons with guns.

Oh yeah, just refuting the "he hired them" narrative since according to the journalist they're "protecting"

Joe Biggs, a reporter for infowars.com who is currently reporting in Ferguson, told the Guardian that he was contacted by members of the local Oath Keepers chapter prior to arriving in the town late on Monday night, offering to provide security for him while he is working there.

which doesn't scream of "they're just begrudgingly fulfilling a contract you guys, not agitating or anything...." as if they wouldn't have been there had someone not hired them.

It's funny that they're so anti-government though yet they're touting their familiarity and acceptance by the police.

[Underverse]

Also... feel free to explain this: https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/631131587661463552

What a circus.

To be fair, as the first response to that tweet says, "Carrying an unlicensed concealed handgun is a crime in Missouri. Carrying a rifle isn't."

[Stop Pretending]

Yep a bunch of White thugs showed up with guns and cops did nothing, not surprised.

They were acting with their legal rights, that has been established, wether or not it was a good idea is the subject you should be trying to have.

[Deleted]

Who are objective worse the people who actually harmed other people or the so called militia?

It's time for the far left in this thread to come out.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well, they're within their rights, so police technically can't do anything. But that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea.

If the purpose was to clear people out of the area, such as arresting 2 reporters for not moving fast enough, it is hypocritical to then allow Oath keepers to show up, with weapons occupy the same area.

[Wells]

Remember this is the same group that threatened federal official at the Bundy Ranch, so I guess Government > Angry Minorities for these guys or something.

[Underverse]

Who are objective worse the people who actually harmed other people or the so called militia?

It's time for the far left in this thread to come out.

It doesn't matter who is worse. That's not the question of this thread. The question is: is it a god idea? To which the answer is: no.

[Deleted]

Remember this is the same group that threatened federal official at the Bundy Ranch, so I guess Government > Angry Minorities for these guys or something.

How many people did they harm in ferguson and how much property damage did they cause?

^

It doesn't matter who is worse. That's not the question of this thread. The question is: is it a god idea? To which the answer is: no.

It counters all hypocrisy accusations and directly reflects them at the one issuing them.

[Stop Pretending]

I thiink most people are on the same page that it wasn't a good idea, but people seem to be confused by saying " Well it's not illegal", they assume that we are supporting their cause. Stop doing that.

Edit: If they are hired, as security, then they are doing their job, and I can't say " well fuck them ", but I don't think hiring them will help with the situation in ferguson.

[Doctor Amadeus]

They were acting with their legal rights, that has been established, wether or not it was a good idea is the subject you should be trying to have.

Do these men live, there, are they were they given legal authority to be there, and if so by whom, I don't need to entertain whether it was or wasn't a bad fucking idea, because, unlike some I am not fishing for a reason to defend their being their, I know damn well if those protesters started arming themselves, or DO this is going to be one of those things, that serves as another clear example of why they should be protesting in the first place.

[Underverse]

How many people did they harm in ferguson and how much property damage did they cause?

"They"? You can't blame all of the protesters for the damage caused by a few. And you can't call all of the protesters terrible people because of their actions. The Oathkeepers, on the other hand, are ALL self-identified extremists.

[Wildtree]

People equates all now? That's a fucking stretch, and you know it, you are being dishonest at this point.

The People provide........ The providing the condition to all
vs
People provide.... Providing the condition to an unspecified amount.
Some people, a few people, a lot of people.. etc. etc......

Really stop trying to reinvent the English language.

[Stop Pretending]

Do these men live, there, are they were they given legal authority to be there, and if so by whom, I don't need to entertain whether it was or wasn't a bad fucking idea, because, unlike some I am not fishing for a reason to defend their being their, I know damn well if those protesters started arming themselves, or DO this is going to be one of those things, that serves as another clear example of why they should be protesting in the first place.

The constituion gave them the legal authority, they don't have to live here, most states recognize other states right to carry ID's. These protestors already have armed themselves, as was illustrated in another thread when a security camera caught a person firing on police.