Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do know that the Oath Keepers is largely composed of... police officers. They also jave worked with police departments. You know that, right?
Oath Keepers are the least of our problems. They aren't advocating killing police and burning towns down.
Black Lives Matter... that's a whole different story.
One of the concerns by the FBI years ago was the infiltration of police departments by domestic terror groups.
Glenn Palmer the Grant County, OR. Sheriff who invited the Bundies to a town hall meeting in the middle of the standoff is a great example. He also clamed to be a "constitutional" sheriff. LE cut him out of the picture because of his ties to the militants. Very similar to some of the other sheriffs in NV during the Bundy ranch standoff so when you state they are ex-police officers that doesn't impress anyone if they are a member of Oath Keepers.
I think they just want publicity and like another posters said earlier they will leave as soon as the police tells them "it's all under control"
Neither the Black Panthers or the Oathkeepers will plan a mass shooting so let's stop the conspiracy theories. What could happen is that one or two of their members could be crazy enough to plan some mass shooting but that can pretty much happen anywhere.
Now I think open carry is stupid, especially in protests. I can't believe for once Florida has done something right LOL
Why did the Oathkeepers support the Bundy terrorists that were threatening to kill law enforcement officers? Oathkeepers were part of the militia at Bundy ranch that pointed guns at cops and took up sniper positions on the high ground.
So when you say that the Oathkeepers don't advocate for the killing of police you are lying.
The Oath Keepers talk big, but never deliver very much.
For good reason. If a member i convicted of a felony, they lose all their guns forever, and cannot own or possess another firearm again for the rest of their lives.
Secondly, since many are former law enforcement, they could have their retirement fund jeopardized by a felony. (Of course, that would depend on the particular retirement requirements.)
This is as true with all the other militia groups. That's why they all hightailed it out of Oregon and stopped their chest-thumping after the bird refuge standoff collapsed.
There were some there who broke their parole in a couple of ways by showing up there. Prison has a way of slapping a fantacist back to reality real quickly.
If the terrorists were smart, they'd get a group of guys to split up and carry in various different places, then at a certain point, start shooting. With all those guns, you know there would be confusion and people shooting back. Five or six guys could get a nice war going.
The Oath Keepers talk big, but never deliver very much.
For good reason. If a member i convicted of a felony, they lose all their guns forever, and cannot own or possess another firearm again for the rest of their lives.
Secondly, since many are former law enforcement, they could have their retirement fund jeopardized by a felony. (Of course, that would depend on the particular retirement requirements.)
This is as true with all the other militia groups. That's why they all hightailed it out of Oregon and stopped their chest-thumping after the bird refuge standoff collapsed.
There were some there who broke their parole in a couple of ways by showing up there. Prison has a way of slapping a fantacist back to reality real quickly.
I agree with your assessment. In my experience Oathkeepers are mostly comprised of older, overweight, ammosexual mall ninja types that love to spend time thinking about Walter Mitty type scenarios where they could use their guns on live human targets despite the fact that few of them would be able to actually pull it off.
However, the posters that claim that the Oathkeepers are nothing more than peaceful members of the military or law enforcement that would never engage in acts of violence against police officers is completely false. They are part of the right wing sov cit militia movement and they have already participated in armed standoffs with law enforcement officers and support the actions of domestic terrorists like the Bundy family that have threatened the lives of police officers.
One of the concerns by the FBI years ago was the infiltration of police departments by domestic terror groups.
Glenn Palmer the Grant County, OR. Sheriff who invited the Bundies to a town hall meeting in the middle of the standoff is a great example. He also clamed to be a "constitutional" sheriff. LE cut him out of the picture because of his ties to the militants. Very similar to some of the other sheriffs in NV during the Bundy ranch standoff so when you state they are ex-police officers that doesn't impress anyone if they are a member of Oath Keepers.
Domestic terror is a problem.
You guys are seriously fixated on the Bundy incident. A handful of guys make trouble for the feds and suddenly they're a 'terrorist group'.
Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter is responsible for numerous cop murders and serious property destruction across the nation you defend them.
I agree with your assessment. In my experience Oathkeepers are mostly comprised of older, overweight, ammosexual mall ninja types that love to spend time thinking about Walter Mitty type scenarios where they could use their guns on live human targets despite the fact that few of them would be able to actually pull it off.
However, the posters that claim that the Oathkeepers are nothing more than peaceful members of the military or law enforcement that would never engage in acts of violence against police officers is completely false. They are part of the right wing sov cit militia movement and they have already participated in armed standoffs with law enforcement officers and support the actions of domestic terrorists like the Bundy family that have threatened the lives of police officers.
I'm not worried about them. The FBI has probably infiltrated them from the top down long ago, and if they ever actually come down to threatening anyone seriously, those agents gonna scoop 'em up like a bunch of nuts out of a tree.
I believe that was the Oath Keepers at the Bundy ranch threatening the Dept. of Interior employees, imagine if that was NBPP.
Also didn't they participate in the Oregon Standoff. They did in fact go to Ferguson but thankfully they were not involved in anything.
There aren't any oath keepers on here hoping that a shoot out happens so that Hillary Clinton can have a field day with it. Nor are there any Oath Keeper's saying they hope that Conservatives line up in a circle and start shooting each other. Just you liberals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Oh I see when a redneck takes on a government agency to protect a freeloader they are freedom fighters, when someone else does the same they are terrorists.
It just depends. If the person or group is justified in their purpose, than it doesn't matter to me what their skin color is, I would support them. If they aren't, then I won't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.