Oath Keepers

[Tom Servo]

Neither Denny Hansen (Editor) nor Rich Lucibella (Owner of the mag and TFL) would put their names behind an illegitimate organization.

You've got a good point. As I stated earlier, my concern is not with the organization itself, but with the possibility that folks from the fringe could attach themselves to it. Organizations with strong rhetoric can have a strong allure for the misguided and overzealous. That's what they have to watch for.

[zukiphile]

I understand that some might not like this group for sociological reasons, but not liking or trusting the sort of people you think they are is hardly an indictment of an idea.

So... when I looked at their website, they completely lost me with this:

"If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you."
Do I have this right? There are NO conditions attached to the above statement, are there? These folks -- whose whole point, ostensibly, is that they're explicitly sworn to uphold the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" -- are saying that they'd support an attempt to overthrow the Government. The, um, Constitutionally mandated, duly elected Government.

Except that the statement doesn't offer help in overthrowing constitutional government. That the specific statement doesn't detail each circumstance underwhich they envision assistance or refusal to follow specific orders doesn't reasonably entitle a reader to conclude that they would oppose any and all government acts.

They can't have it both ways. This goes well beyond reminding those who serve that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

It is not "having it both ways" to swear to uphold the COTUS and to oppose with force those who depart from constitutional practice. The two principles are fully consistent.

Combined with the fearmongering which TG rightly points out, it's not a pretty picture, no matter how they try to dress it up in ersatz patriotism.

I wouldn't present myself as they have, but it isn't a reasonable extension of a difference in presentation to conclude that their love of country (not government) is inferior to my own or your own.

For those reasons, I believe that your analysis inadequately distinguished between the COTUS, government and country.

[Double Naught Spy]

Add to this that S.W.A.T. magazine endorses the group should say something about their legitimacy. Neither Denny Hansen (Editor) nor Rich Lucibella (Owner of the mag and TFL) would put their names behind an illegitimate organization.

So just who is doing the fear mongering here?

The above quote appears to be a good example of argumentum ad verecundiam, that the endorsers would not endorse something bad (and have not made a mistake doing so), hence there should be no problem with that which is endorsed.

Endorsements are nice and all, but don't mean too much to me. I have seen too many examples of very good people, very reputable people who endorsed things that turned out to be garbage, sometimes for various financial incentives, sometimes out of real or perceived commonalities, sometimes out of professional courtesies, sometimes out of naivete, and sometimes because they were out and out duped. Sometimes those making such endorsements simply have a different agenda from mine, even if they are very good people.

So just because people of note have endorsed the group is fine, but I can't see changing my mind about the organization on that sort of basis. To do so would mean that I would be doing nothing more than blindly following the lead of the endorsers...which sort of gets back to the original problem of cops and military folks who blindly follow illegal orders given to them.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Yup. After the guns had been confiscated. After the citizens had been assaulted and battered, under color of law. The Courts are a great place to correct the wrong, after the wrong has been committed.

I know what you mean. Democracy sucks. Many time folks are wronged and have to then go to court where the wheels of justice grind slow but they grind fine. I guess those citizens should have fought the police with their guns rather than let the law take care of the problem in due course later on.

Is that what you and Oath Keepers are proposing? Surely not. Without a doubt the government does oppressive and bad things from time to time. Sort of a human thing I guess as the leaders of government are human. Me, I like the idea of a nation of laws not men. Nagin was sued by the NRA and the NRA settled the case. I guess they felt they achieved restitution enough but you don't think so. Of course legally the RKBA does not now apply to the states and hasn't in 200 years but our courts will fix that in June next year right? Yeah, Nagin is an idiot and might get away with the gun grab unless he loses the next election.

Yeah the democratic system of law sucks, unless of course you compare it to any other system.

Originally Posted by Antipitas

They do endorse that those considering membership, remember their sworn oath and hold to it. Oath Keepers mission is to remind us of that oath.

I don't need to be reminded of something I took seriously to begin with.

Originally Posted by Antipitas

The older laws did not curtail crime. New laws have not curtailed crime.

You lost me here. Law never curtails crime as far as criminals go. Only honest people obey the law. Enforcing the law curtails crime. As my daddy used to say: "locks are for honest folk." Are you saying then that individuals should enforce the law as they see fit as opposed to officers of the court and law?

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Oath Keepers is not a militia movement,

Same song, different tune. the government is out to get you and FEMA is a parallel government blah blah. BTW I used to work with FEMA a whole lot and the thougth of them running us is laughable.

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Add to this that S.W.A.T. magazine endorses the group should say something about their legitimacy. Neither Denny Hansen (Editor) nor Rich Lucibella (Owner of the mag and TFL) would put their names behind an illegitimate organization.

I am sorry. I didn't know that TFL officially endorsed the Oath Keepers.

Originally Posted by Antipitas

So just who is doing the fear mongering here?

Let's see, concentration camps, foreign troops on our soil depriving us of liberty, states right to secede from the union, blockading cities, martial law, detention camps, taking of food from the populace by military force. Al, are you serious? Do you think in the face of this I am fear mongering?

Did you notice Mr. Stewart has a place to donate money to his cause? Follow the money.

[hogdogs]

And one of the ironies of this whole thing is the notion that the way to "nurture the concept of individual freedom" is to get people to (drum roll here) join a group.

I hit upon vanya's post and it stole the wind right outta my sails...
I was going to say that I have my beliefs and agendas but refuse to align myself with groups of similar as they always seem to have a few other agendas or beliefs either in the way of officially or just that of some members that will be 180 out from my own. I also prefer to keep my name off their rosters for many reasons.

I do belong to the NRA as they are the only frontline lobby group fighting on behalf of my 2A rights directly.
Brent

[zukiphile]

The above quote appears to be a good example of argumentum ad verecundiam...

It doesn't appear to represent that fallacy well.

An argument from authority is that X must be true because Mr. Y says so.

The argument here isn't that Oath Keepers are "true", but that they aren't a group of icky camo wearing embarrassments. That is directly responsive to the charge that the group is a bunch of icky camo wearing embarrassments.

[zukiphile]

I know what you mean. Democracy sucks.

Certainly, but you've missed the point. A remedy once a wrong is committed is not an impediment to the wrong. Refusing to engage in the wrong before it happens has an obvious value.

France gave us democracy in 1787 and it was a bloody horror, the mother of modern totalitarianism. Let's not permit liberties to be abused so long as it is done by majority vote.

Let's see, concentration camps, foreign troops on our soil depriving us of liberty, states right to secede from the union, blockading cities, martial law, detention camps, taking of food from the populace by military force. Al, are you serious? Do you think in the face of this I am fear mongering?

Since these are merely activities in which these people say they will not participate, but you present the group somewhat differently for discussing the topics, it would be reasonable to conclude that you are fear mongering without due justificaion.

[thallub]

Vanya, thank you for a most excellent post.

[MTT TL]

Curiouser and Curiouser... The military should not have a problem with most of these but the police sure will.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

Ok, got it.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

Hmmm... this is problematic for the police. There are many circumstances where a search is conducted without a warrant legally.

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

On the surface this seems clear. However there are a number of circumstances (such as captured in a combat zone fighting US troops or certain contractors) where this simply would not apply.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

That is pretty much a non-starter. A "state of emergency" is declared frequently after a natural disaster strikes.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

That is no good either. The SCOTUS found in White vs. Texas that the States do not have the right to secede. I guess they only believe in certain parts of the Constitution and not the whole thing.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

Well OK. Even if such a thing were possible it would require a huge amount of resources so they would probably have a pretty good reason for it.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Hmm. That is also a non-starter for police. The location for prisoner processing is sort of irrelevant so long as their rights are respected.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

While even more Paranoid than #6 it seems a good idea.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

Again a non-starter for the police, especially the feds who confiscate stuff at the drop of a hat. Many of the drug war laws would have to be rolled back.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Not a chance. Not if they mean unlimited rights anyway.

[mayosligo]

We could have used more people who followed the 10 lines of the Oath Keepers during Katrina as law abidding citizens were treated like criminals and had their firearms confiscated while looters ran wild.

It sounds like a group that are simply reaffirming an original oath to remind and in some case educated a population that has little knowledge of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the fact that we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

Additionally, I don't read anything that sounds like they are gathering to organized some type of armed resistance.

[ronl]

TG I will answer you with facts. Let me ask you what good has Heller done? It is still near impossible to get a firearm registered in DC. Since you mentioned full auto weapons, I'll use it as an example of a loss of freedom. I want a full auto weapon. I know all I have to do is fill out the paperwork, pay my tax, and wait. I go out looking and all the FA weapons are much too expensive. What ought to cost $1500 costs $4000-5000 or more. Why is that? Because the gov't decided FA weapons could no longer be manufactured for sale to the general public. While, technically, my right has not been denied, I cannot exercise it because of restrictions the gov't has placed upon it that place it out of my reach. Am I more free, certainly not.
The Declaration of Independence gives creedence to the existence of Oath Keepers. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Perhaps they see the tremendous deficit as a yoke binding us to serfdom under the government. I know I do. Perhaps they see the possibility of despotism rearing its ugly head and wish to stand against.
Your statement of nothing happening in the past 200 years that approaches the scenarios outlined by the 10 points is not quite correct. What about the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2? It is ironic that the 442nd was the highest decorated unit during the conflict. What of the illegal seizure of weapons during Katrina, as has been previously mentioned. Then there is that little incident called the Civil War( War of Northern Aggression).
I say the rights we enjoy are just words on a piece of paper and as valueless as a dollar without something to back it up. It is the RKBA that gives teeth to the BOR, and without it all the other rights are nothing but well meaning intentions.
One last thing. Since when has the militia conjured up such negative images? It existed into the 20th century without a problem. What is wrong with a group of citizens banding together to protect themselves during a time of crisis? It must be all the hamlets and villages attacked by militia groups. Maybe its all the bombings they've committed. Oh. that's right, there haven't been any attacks by militia units. Maybe its just the kool-aid.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by ronl

TG I will answer you with facts.

And I will answer you with some more.

Originally Posted by ronl

Let me ask you what good has Heller done?

Loads. First of all it established that the second amendment protects the right of the individual to RKBA not connected with service in the militia. This had not been done by the court in our 232 year history. I think that is pretty good.

Originally Posted by ronl

It is still near impossible to get a firearm registered in DC.

Before Heller it was impossible to register and thus posess a handgun at all in DC. I think that constitutes more freedom than before?

Originally Posted by ronl

I know all I have to do is fill out the paperwork, pay my tax, and wait. I go out looking and all the FA weapons are much too expensive. What ought to cost $1500 costs $4000-5000 or more.

Save up your money. I recommend you listen to Dave Ramsey

Originally Posted by ronl

Why is that?

Supply and demand.

Originally Posted by ronl

The Declaration of Independence gives creedence to the existence of Oath Keepers.

The Law of the Land is the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence. That was between the colonies and Great Britain.

Originally Posted by ronl

What about the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2?

Corrected and restitution made. BTW the SCOTUS decision that upheld the internment is still legal precedent.

Originally Posted by ronl

What of the illegal seizure of weapons during Katrina, as has been previously mentioned.

Small scale, legally stopped and reversed. What is your point? I never said Government doesn't make mistakes, what's next the Battle of Athens?

Originally Posted by ronl

Perhaps they see the tremendous deficit as a yoke binding us to serfdom under the government. I know I do. Perhaps they see the possibility of despotism rearing its ugly head and wish to stand against.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by ronl

I say the rights we enjoy are just words on a piece of paper and as valueless as a dollar without something to back it up.

I agree and those rights are protected by free elections, trial by jury, our armed forces, our courts and representatives and our LEOs. Not the shotgun in your closet.

Originally Posted by ronl

One last thing. Since when has the militia conjured up such negative images? It existed into the 20th century without a problem. What is wrong with a group of citizens banding together to protect themselves during a time of crisis?

Since kooks started forming them in the 1990s. The militia was done away with in 1903 because it didn't work well to defend the nation. Nothing wrong with citizens banding together in temporary crisis like Katrina to protect themselves WHEN NEEDED. But that is not a militia.

Originally Posted by ronl

Maybe its just the kool-aid.

Which I would advise you to quite drinking.

[johnwilliamson062]

I meet many police officers, military officers, etc, who have taken an oath and I very seriously doubt they really thought about it or value it. Many are just in it for a paycheck or college tuition. I don't think it is odd that this group wants to differentiate themselves from a wider less conscientious group of their peers. I think anyone who says that every, or even most, US military or police hold their oaths of office near and dear to their heart is kidding themselves. How many out of those groups could repeat their oaths back today? If they can't, they obviously do not take them seriously.

Some of the statements on their site are at the least a little aggressive and a little doom and gloom. I think anyone who says we are currently at a point where rebellion is necessary is crazy. Are we headed that way? It is pretty much the nature of all government to head that direction.

The next Lee Harvey Oswald or Timothy Mcveigh will almost certainly be an NRA life member. Are any of you canceling your memberships?

What would the site of a group with the same fundamental message as the oath takers but toned down to what you are comfortable with read like? Do you all generally think that joining a group which reaffirms you take your oath of office seriously is bad in general? Is there anything on that list that you would want an officer of the government to do? I might have trouble with swearing not to enter a state in rebellion under arms. I don't know, I would have to think on that. It would certainly be a ------ day, but I think there would be a good number of circumstances in which i would do it.

All joking about the availability of fresh fruit aside, we used concentration camps in WWII. Did any of you watch he Siege and say to yourselves "This is absolutely appalling. This could never happen."? If terrorists supposedly had a nuke in NY City I hate to think of what the government would resort to in trying to stop its detonation. Maybe that situation justifies throwing the constitution out the window.

Despite what other parts of the website say the scope of membership qualification seems to be 1. Having taken an oath of service and 2. willingness to follow those ten rules.
I would have trouble judging anyone who met those qualifications harshly. Think of a northerner who sat out the civil war b/c he thought it was unconstitutional. Does that sound crazy? Craxy dangerous man?

Sometimes I like having a rabid senseless bulldog, such as GOA, in the fight. The ACLU has made the strategy work for decades.

[johnwilliamson062]

A couple more facts that I will try to keep impersonal:

Mexican soldiers, under the control of international drug cartels and supplied by our own military resources(rifles, humvees, etc), regularly cross several miles into the US for operations while in uniform.

Research on dominant authority figures almost exclusively points to people being unable to defy an authority figure UNLESS they have previously considered the scenario and made a decision. THAT is what most people who have studied Nazi Germany and other genocides say MUST happen to prevent such acts. The people on the ground must go into the situation having decided their reaction before the situation presents itself. Even then many fail. Very few are able to make the "right" choice in the heat of the moment against authority. Many will follow if someone else goes against authority.

I have not seen anywhere that they ask for money in order to be a member. If someone has more info on this I would also be interested,

[Uncle Billy]

All of this seems to have begun with the election of an administration, with a clear majority of votes, that's led by someone who is ethnically and politically much different than any leader in our past.

Not only are we frightened by his ethnicity (he doesn't look like us) and what we assume his politics are, the fact that he'd win an election with a clear majority from a war hero Conservative (who does look like us) adds to the fear. What's become of "our" United States (as defined by the power distribution, economic forces, political hierarchy, moral values, racial juxtapositions, and place in the world of the 1950's)?

Our country seems to be eroding and melting away from around us and under us; what was "the way of things" has moved away from us- or so it seems in our insecure and frightened conjectures of what's to happen to us when the majority of voters don't match our politics or prefer our ethnicity.

Well, it's a different country in so many ways than it was during Ike's tenure as president. In the manner it has always done in the past, it has changed with the times and with the will of the majority of the people who vote. Anyone who resists change, like the Torys of Revolutionary times, will be left behind as the dynamic, adapting, growing, flexible powerhouse this nation is makes its way amid a changing world, holding as constant as is possible the basic tenets of our identity as seeded in 1776 and 1789.

A lot of of the assumptions that have been made about what's to happen to our Constitutional rights (including gun rights) are not supported by a comprehensive, objective, close reading of the administration's stance on the issues as stated before and after the election. It's more emotion than thought, fear than knowledge that drives the perspective of too many of us. Now is a crucial time to get off our lazy intellectual butts, put aside our emotions and fears, and THINK. We must learn what there is to know from sources with no agenda or axe to grind and then decide independently what it is we stand with. Let no one tell us what to believe when we have the mental equipment and the guaranteed freedoms to find out for ourselves. All that's required of us is that we confirm the objectivity of anyone who tries to convince us of anything, and to have the energy, integrity and responsibility to learn what we can BEFORE we decide what we support or believe. These are the basic responsibilities of citizenship in the US which were expected of us by the Founders who gave us the Bill of Rights.

Individual freedom is more than a right, it's a responsibility, a duty of us all, which includes first of all putting in the intellectual efforts being free requires.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

All of this seems to have begun with the election of an administration, with a clear majority of votes, that's led by someone who is ethnically and politically much different than any leader in our past.

Bingo! And during the last administration we were hearing the same junk from the other side of the political spectrum. Now it's right wing claptrap.

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

A lot of of the assumptions that have been made about what's to happen to our Constitutional rights (including gun rights) are not supported by a comprehensive, objective, close reading of the administration's stance on the issues as stated before and after the election.

So now, we need to take oaths that we won't do things that won't happen but scare us irrationally because they "could" happen.

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

Now is a crucial time to get off our lazy intellectual butts, put aside our emotions and fears, and THINK. We must learn what there is to know from sources with no agenda or axe to grind and then decide independently what it is we stand with. Let no one tell us what to believe when we have the mental equipment and the guaranteed freedoms to find out for ourselves. All that's required of us is that we confirm the objectivity of anyone who tries to convince us of anything, and to have the energy, integrity and responsibility to learn what we can BEFORE we decide what we support or believe.

Oh but it is so much easier to let internet wizards think AND take our money.:barf:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Research on dominant authority figures almost exclusively points to people being unable to defy an authority figure UNLESS they have previously considered the scenario and made a decision.

OK now I'll say for you. Sheeple.

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I have not seen anywhere that they ask for money in order to be a member. If someone has more info on this I would also be interested,

Look on the home page John. they solicit "donations" for "support". Follow the money! Fear sells very well.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I meet many police officers, military officers, etc, who have taken an oath and I very seriously doubt they really thought about it or value it...Many are just in it for a paycheck or college tuition.

John, I was one of those military officers. You're right, I just did it for the money Made a lot too. How insulting! BTW what noble profession are you in?

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Are we headed that way? It is pretty much the nature of all government to head that direction.

Really, well we've had 233 years and counting. How close are we to rebellion? Oh, that's right we have MORE freedoms today than in 1776.

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

The next Lee Harvey Oswald or Timothy Mcveigh will almost certainly be an NRA life member. Are any of you canceling your memberships?

Sure, when they start advocating stupid oath taking and other kooky fringe ideas.

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

What would the site of a group with the same fundamental message as the oath takers but toned down to what you are comfortable with read like?

Why don't they just dispense with the scary far out stuff that is not going to happen and work towards REAL political change that keeps our rights protected rather than encourage our public servants not to follow orders or do their duty. Might work much more effectively.

[Uncle Billy]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman:

...Oh but it is so much easier to let internet wizards think AND take our money....

It's a lot more pervasive and odious than just the Internet wizards- where do you suppose Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Fox "news", Cheney, and so many others fit into this campaign of distortion, misrepresentation and outright lies?

[Evan Thomas]

Uncle Billy, that's a fine post up there.

I particularly liked this bit:

Individual freedom is more than a right, it's a responsibility, a duty of us all, which includes first of all putting in the intellectual efforts being free requires.

[Double Naught Spy]

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

Okay, so they won't watch. It goes along with the whole long list of things they won't do. So I guess when those things happen, they will just close their eyes?

So they won't participate in warrantless searches and all that, but what are they going to do to stop it when it does happen?

So they want folks to keep the oath they have already taken (police, fire, military, etc.) but they want $30 for it, but they will allow folks who don't fit in the above category to be supporter members for $30 as well.

So that am I missing? They want $30 for folks to feel good about themselves? This sort of reminds me of televangelists (many of whom have some lofty endorsements as well).

[Wagonman]

John, I was one of those military officers. You're right, I just did it for the money Made a lot too. How insulting! BTW what noble profession are you in?

If you just did it for the money why not be a plumber or some other neutral profession. You are deliberately distorting his point. There are different levels of obligation Cops and Soldiers feels from the mercenary to the patriotic and the goofs who are just there for a paycheck or college would be the first to disregard the BOR.

where do you suppose Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Fox "news", Cheney, and so many others fit into this campaign of distortion, misrepresentation and outright lies?

Where are these lies? They have been gunning for Rush for 20+ years and this latest libelous debacle gives credence to his opinions in my book. They have to lie about him to fit him into this template.

So that am I missing? They want $30 for folks to feel good about themselves? This sort of reminds me of televangelists

or it could just remind you of a garden variety house of worship that passes the collection plate.

[thallub]

So they want folks to keep the oath they have already taken (police, fire, military, etc.) but they want $30 for it, but they will allow folks who don't fit in the above category to be supporter members for $30 as well.

So that am I missing? They want $30 for folks to feel good about themselves? This sort of reminds me of televangelists (many of whom have some lofty endorsements as well).

+1

By golly I think that you have nailed it: It's about lining someone's pockets.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think we are done. We moved from the L and CR issues that this organization might support or problem they might cause to evaluating TV preachers and talk show blather.

Closed.