Oathkeepers goes operational

They sound like Seditionists - I don't trust them as far as I can throw them - people don't have to demonstrate any competence or moral character to found their own little group and call it a 'militia' - groups like that are magnets for wannabe terrorists, Neo-Nazis and psychopaths - those seem to be the kind of types that these little 'paramilitary' groups attract

And no 'militia groups' don't represent 'the founders', most of them are just posers - in a best case scenario, wannabe tough guys - in a worst case, potential terrorists/cults/radicals

 

Nothing more than grandiose and unsubstantiated speculation. Your specialty.

 

Tim McVeigh, the "Hutaree terrorists", etc, or just google "milita terrorist plot" and see how many news hits come up

The OathKeepers' entire mission statement is seditionist (encouraging military members to defy their superior's orders to protect the "constitution" or whatever), so that immediately deems them a threat in my view - what are the qualifications to join a 'militia' anyway? I don't think a mental health evaluation is required like it is in the military.

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization[1] that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

Like i said, seditionist - I don't know much about them but they don't seem exactly stable to me

 

I think it is this the people that scares the hell out of him. He needs the state to tuck him in at night and assure him that his neighbors aren't going to eat him. That's why you see him, in nearly every thread he participates in, calling for the state to murder someone on his behalf. Frightened out of his mind.

 

So you deem anyone who swears to protect the constitution as a threat? And you're an American? And you're accusing other people of being seditious? Houston, I think we have a problem. lol

 

They're a fringe group - their idea of protecting the constitution may very well involve some pressure cooker bombs - there's no qualification to join or create your own little 'militia' or 'constitutional' group (and certainly no mental health background check required) - meaning a person who thinks the "Bill of Rights" is some 70s rock band, could claim to be a 'constitutionalist'

I trust the military to defend the constitution, not some random group of 'tough guys' with a gun, who every well might be racists/cultists/terrorists

I'm more American than any of these "constitution cults" yeah

Why're you defending seditionism? They're seditionists, and radical libertarianism is basically a cult - deprogram yourself

 

I don't want a 'tyranny of the majority' - I'd much rather someone who's met the qualifications to serve in the military defending my freedoms - instead of some random punk with a gun and paranoid schizophrenia - meritocracy over mediocracy. Some people were just meant to rule over others (by merit), that's the way it is - mobocracy is a terrible scenario, and is what lead to Hitler's rise to power - that seems to be what you're advocating

As do you , and yes I enjoy that luxury - I like having a military and police to defend me from 'milita crazies' like Tim McVeigh, the Hutaree terrorists, etc who've proven themselves homicidal and a way bigger day-to-day threat to people's existence than any of the scenarios outlined on that "OathKeepers" website (ex. people being herded into internment camps, etc)

So if he was calling for some paramilitary punks to murder someone instead of "the state" - then you'd be down with the murder, I guess, lmao

 

Obviously, since you keep calling OK a militia.

Encouraging oath takers to keep their oath is not sedition. Why do you think that oath is administered in the first place?

 

I don't know much about OK in specific - but based on their site and stuff I've read on them elsewhere, they seem a little kooky - it borders on looking like a cult

Law de facto overrides your interpretation of the oath - if a serviceman is defying orders because he decides it violates his oath (ex. refuses to deploy because he believes the war is unconstitutional), that's sedition.

Plus I'm not nearly as worried about Americans being rounded up into internment camps, as I am some mentally ill person joining a group like that, and using his beliefs as an excuse to use terrorism on Americans

 

Your already regaled us with your grandiose speculation. There was no need to repeat the error.

 

The burden's on them to give me a reason to trust them - I don't trust groups like that in general

 

Your arrogance is surpassed only by your ignorance. What a load of BS.

 

perhaps someone can define what "defend the constitution" means. when that happens it will be interesting to see where that fits in the theology of nationalist religion called the oathkeepers.

 

So tell me why I should trust them - what are the qualifications for being an OathKeeper? I tend not to trust small 'sects' which have overly paranoid agendas (ex. Americans being put in internment camps)

That's the point - so does that mean "enact armed revolution", or what?

 

You're incorrectly assuming that your trust means anything to anyone.

 

As a last resort... yes. Nobody wants that. That founders knew that an armed populace cannot be ruled by a king, or their vision of government. That is why there are 533 of them, and 350,000,000 of us... who must be armed.

 

They won't get an ounce of support from me unless I trust them - I'll happily support them being locked up for sedition if they do anything crazy, like Snowden and Manning.

 

it means whatever they wish it to mean. it is called agitprop, newspeak, doublespeak, fill-in-the-blank.

what it actually means is psychological response to the collapse of the exceptionalist mythology. parke godwin mentioned it in "waiting for the galactic bus" when one of the characters says (paraphrasing) sooner or later every nation loses its cherry and gets to be just another broad on the block. the u.s. is losing its cherry and it is psychologically dangerous to many who have fully embraced and are fully invested in the exceptionalist mythology.

 

Problem is that individual 'sects' like this claiming to defend the constitution don't have any accountability to anyone but themselves - so they could be anything from just a group of freedom loving Americans, to terrorists, Neo-Nazis - you name it

 

No one said you should trust them. You have no intention of honestly weighing the evidence anyway. You're just a smear merchant who is obsessed with bashing people that oppose the authoritarian status quo.

They don't need or want your support, and if they had it, they'd have to reassess their position.

 

Like attention seekers such as Brady Manning who leak our confidential information to terrorists and foreign powers? Uh yeah

Translation - have their tin foil hats on too tight - quit drinking the Ron Paul kool-aid - you guys get 1% of the vote for a reason - your rhetoric is enough to make anyone seek the state for their protection. What you think is authoritarian isn't what normal Americans think is - that's why no one votes for you and you sit and wonder why that is

 

You think "accountability" means having politicians make decisions instead of free people.

 

There are STILL 350,000,000 of us. This is why we must be armed and trained... we the unorganized militia.

 

Yea, you're in line with "normal Americans". Keep telling yourself that.

 

That's how the founders set up the govt, yeah - what's your point? If you want to live like that then maybe Somalia is somewhere you should consider moving to - normal people don't want anarchism

- - - Updated - - -

Libertarian Party gets less than 1% of the vote - it's an astroturf movement that has almost no grassroots support