Breaking: Ferguson riots AGAIN

[Kutnupe14]

Weren't you critical of the OKs for not of them for not enough of them showing up last year?

Yeah, I was. But I had really considered the "why" they were showing up. In retrospect (and I don't remember exactly how I phrased it), I was wrong to be critical of them not appearing in Ferguson the first time.
Here's my thinking, in most other instances involving the OathKeepers, it clear who they are supporting. They rally to protect the citizenry from govt overreach. Are they doing this now? Who or what exactly are they protecting, and what do they bring to the table that those they are protecting can't provide themselves?

 

[pudly]

Weren't you critical of the OKs for not of them for not enough of them showing up last year?

Yes.

The influence was negligible because Ferguson BURNED. So these guys, and kudos to the FEW that stepped up, responded to Ferguson, and then packed up when the govt told them to? Hmmm, call me crazy, but the army at Bundy's Ranch seemed more than willing to tell LE to pound sand when they were protecting that piece of property. Probably because the weighted the situation and knew nothing would go down. It was like a 2nd Amendment party where everybody got to relive past glories and look tacticool.
If they were worth theyir salt, they'd adhere to their principles and protect everybody, regardless of what .gov told them.

 

[KG1]

Again, WHY are they there? This isn't the OKs typical MO. Did somebody request their presence? Seems like theyre creating more turmoil that providing solutions.

Not sure but according to this individual they may have been there at the behest of a "media outlet"

John Harriman, one of the Oath Keepers, said the group was in the area to protect a reporter from the website Infowars.com. Videos posted to YouTube by the InfoWars site showed Oath Keepers and protesters discussing tax codes.

Oath Keepers return to Ferguson, angering police

 

[Dead Duck]

Didn't the Oath Keepers show up at that Arizona ranch a while back with James Yeager?

Where's Yeager.
It's only a 5 hour drive by car so maybe a 1 hour trip for him.

 

[pudly]

Didn't the Oath Keepers show up at that Arizona ranch a while back with James Yeager?

Where's Yeager.
It's only a 5 hour drive by car so maybe a 1 hour trip for him.

Yeager is allowed to choose his battles, like everyone else.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not sure but according to this individual they may have been there at the behest of a "media outlet"



Oath Keepers return to Ferguson, angering police

That makes more sense. There was talk of a reporter referring to some of the OKs by name, so apparently they are his protection?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeager is allowed to choose his battles, like everyone else.

I don't think this is a battle that fits in with typical "love of liberty" adherents. Are the police overstepping their authority? It doesn't seem so. The OKs are creating more of a distraction than anything. LE can handle the situation, and I'd have issue with the OKs if they were supporting the protesters.

 

[Fargo]

I don't think this is a battle that fits in with typical "love of liberty" adherents. Are the police overstepping their authority? It doesn't seem so. The OKs are creating more of a distraction than anything. LE can handle the situation, and I'd have issue with the OKs if they were supporting the protesters.

With the number of journalists arrested last year, and the videotaped teargassing of a news crew and seizure of their equipment, it doesn't really surprise me that the oath keepers are there again.

I'm not saying that the police are overstepping their bounds at present, but some of last year's events left a really bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. Add in that the locals just decided to criminally charge the two reporters from the McDonald's incident this week, almost a year later.

 

[Kutnupe14]

With the number of journalists arrested last year, and the videotaped teargassing of a news crew and seizure of their equipment, it doesn't really surprise me that the oath keepers are there again.

I'm not saying that the police are overstepping their bounds at present, but some of last year's events left a really bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. Add in that the locals just decided to criminally charge the two reporters from the McDonald's incident this week, almost a year later.

I'm going to roll back my opinion of the OKs in this particular instance in Ferguson. I'll not hide the fact that I'm not a fan of the organization, but at can at least respect the 4 guys in Ferguson. They seem to be engaging people there, and don't seem to be causing any trouble. Props to the short one with the beard and baseball cap, because he seems to be going out of his way to inform, and not appear to be a threat.

 

[freekforge]

The oath keepers are there to "protect" infowars "journalists" from the cops and protestors and they were there the first go around too but then they were protecting stores.

i am doing dr. evil air quotes for the quoted words.

 

[OakRiver]

Yeah, I was. But I had really considered the "why" they were showing up. In retrospect (and I don't remember exactly how I phrased it), I was wrong to be critical of them not appearing in Ferguson the first time.
Here's my thinking, in most other instances involving the OathKeepers, it clear who they are supporting. They rally to protect the citizenry from govt overreach. Are they doing this now? Who or what exactly are they protecting, and what do they bring to the table that those they are protecting can't provide themselves?

I believe that last year the Oath Keepers guarded small businesses. I'd imagine they are likely doing the same thing this year.

 

[BE Mike]

I'm going to roll back my opinion of the OKs in this particular instance in Ferguson. I'll not hide the fact that I'm not a fan of the organization, but at can at least respect the 4 guys in Ferguson. They seem to be engaging people there, and don't seem to be causing any trouble. Props to the short one with the beard and baseball cap, because he seems to be going out of his way to inform, and not appear to be a threat.

Looks like the OK's are exercising their rights, just as peaceful protesters are exercising theirs. A lot of times, the exercising of rights makes folks uncomfortable, including me, but the acts and the laws protecting those acts (rights) are not supposed to make the police, news media, government entities or the general public feel all warm and fuzzy. When anyone steps over the line and violates the laws, then they should be prosecuted and judged by their peers. Our Constitution can be a mighty inconvenient piece of paper to those in authority.

 

[KittySlayer]

The oath keepers are there to "protect" infowars "journalists" from the cops and protestors and they were there the first go around too but then they were protecting stores.

i am doing dr. evil air quotes for the quoted words.

So why doesn't infowars just hire private security and an attorney?

 

[KG1]

The 2nd amendment protecting the 1st amendment...What a novel concept.

 

[BE Mike]

The 2nd amendment protecting the 1st amendment...What a novel concept.

I sure wouldn't want to be a OK in Ferguson and have to actually use that weapon. Facing a jury (or a mob) in that jurisdiction wouldn't be on my bucket list.

 

[Baditude]

 

[Stickfight]

The 2nd amendment protecting the 1st amendment...What a novel concept.

How will this go?

Oath Keepers plan unique demonstration with assault rifles in Ferguson | Red Dirt Report

 

[daddyusmaximus]

 

[Bigtanker]

View attachment 40624

That's a Swift truck. That could be just from a drive around the block.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How will this go?

Oath Keepers plan unique demonstration with assault rifles in Ferguson | Red Dirt Report

this seems like a recipe for disaster. Obviously they are a bunch of people in ferguson intent on violence. And while the OKs are illustrating the rights we all have, it's questionable if this is the forum to do it.