Oath Keepers

[O'Hare 1st MRB]

In light of the gun control measures being forced on us by the democrats/communists, as well as other measures that are apparently in violation to our Constitution like free speech, I hope that more Patriots stand up and stay loyal to the oath they had to take as I have and will always do. When I enlisted in to the military, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies. Foreign or domestic. It was appalling to see the National Guard follow illegal orders to remove guns from law-abiding Citizens after Katrina hit. There's no excuse for that in our country!

If you're not already, become an Oath Keeper!

http://oathkeepers.org

[Alvarez]

I am former U.S.F.S. Law Enforcement, and refused similar orders regarding firearms owned by a medical marijuana provider. The prosecutor asserted that the man's firearms were being used to commit the felonies for which the man was charged. ALL drug charges, nothing violent. I'm sorry, but a Remington 700 doesn't make the guy a cartel kingpin. More and more Law Enforcement are refusing to carry out such orders. I don't recommend it as a career. Sorry, Hall. <3

[Morton]

You guys are crazy. OH THE GUVMENT GONNA TAKE OUR GUN!! is a stupid viewpoint. It isn't going to happen. America has a gun culture that is ingrained in every child since birth. At worst they will make assault weapons illegal to own, big freaking deal. It should be illegal to own a weapon who's only purpose is to commit mass murder/killings. It not only would reduce violent crime, but keep our police officers safe. I'll let Mr. John Adams, Second President of these United States have the floor, over to you Mr. Adams:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States

Basically firearms in the hands of the citizens, when used at their discretion, with the exception of legitimate self defense, and in the service of the armed forces (Dick Act of 1903 made militias into the National Guard) destroys all laws and liberty.

Also if the majority of the people wish for stronger regulations on firearms, how is it being forced on you? Have you forgotten what a Democracy is O'Hare? Or is power in the hands of the few something you Fascist/Republicans believe in? (See what I did there? Democrats are in no way communists, just as not all Republicans are Fascists.)

[Lafy BAR]

It seems like the only government infringement that people want to use guns to protect against is the loss of guns to protect against government infringement. I don't hear any arguments that people need their assault riffle to shoot the IRS auditor or to somehow (i can't imagine how) protect against censorship.

[Morton]

I agree Lafy, no one even mentioned the NDAA or Patriot Acts. The two biggest threats to our liberty.

[Holland 1st MRB]

To rally support for your cause is a respectable thing to do. However...

democrats/communists

I have a problem with this comparison. To anybody who could explain such things to me, in which ways are these two even remotely similar?

[Morton]

Only among the Far Right are they considered the same.

[Alvarez]

You guys are crazy. OH THE GUVMENT GONNA TAKE OUR GUN!! is a stupid viewpoint.

It would behoove you to be more respectful.

I never said anything of the sort, only that I refused to take some guy's hunting rifles on trumped-up charges. I lost my career over it. That's how strongly I feel. Do I think the government is overstepping its bounds more than ever now? Yes. Do I think they're gonna come steal my shit without a legal case? Course not. So whatever it is that got you wound up, you need to go back and re-read it. Ask yourself if it was worth chastising two members over, or if perhaps there's another way to approach how you disagree with someone on the Political Forum.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Alvarez 1st MRB

[Morton]

Alverez, I was only responding with the same scorn that was in the OP. The whole democrats/communist line. Which in my experience is only uttered by the far right who insist that Obama is going to take their weapons, and other delusional things. And it was directed to O'Hare. I didn't even look at your post.

[Holland 1st MRB]

Before this gets out of hand, let's clarify that the Politics? forum is here for reasonably respectful political arguments. It is acceptable to judge another's view on a subject, however, it is unacceptable to attack an individual based on that view.

So let's remember that this is viewpoints clashing, and should not be members.

[Morton]

Oathkeepers seems to be another of these organizations that is promoting their own agenda. Sure they claim to want to uphold the Constitution, however look at one of their tenets:

We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.

However Article III Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the very Constitution they claim to uphold says otherwise:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Which basically means that they are the Supreme Authority on the Constitution. They decide what is, and isn't Constitutional.

Which means they don't actually plan on upholding anything other then their view of the Constitution.

As a student of History, this actually worries me, as I can see the parallels to other paramilitary organizations that have lead to the downfall of democracy.

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

It'll always be people clashing, because this is a topic that some people take extremely personally. If you treat this rationally, you come to the realization that these sides will never agree and most likely nothing is going to change the state of gun control in the United States.

The law is the law, and it is the duty of law enforcement to uphold those laws; whether they personally believe them to be just or not. If they don't, the only thing for them is to leave the force, as Alvarez did, not to pick and choose which laws they enforce.

In America, you can disobey laws you think are unjust, but only if you are willing to serve the punishment. I think a fair amount of gun control opponents would rather "fight" the government than engage in peaceful civil disobedience, which is why I have trouble respecting them or their views. The leaders of the civil rights movement who we respect today, and who fundamentally changed our country for the better didn't do it by gunning down cops, or advocating violence, they did it through peaceful protest, and by suffering unjust punishment for their beliefs.

That's why this kind of rhetoric, of "oath keeping" and "fighting the government" irks me.

[Morton]

Captain Giraffe I agree with you completely. Very good post.

[Peaker]

In light of the gun control measures being forced on us by the democrats/communists [...]

...Lol what? If the democrats are communists, then in Canada, we're Ultra-Marxists...and let's not even talk about France and Scandinavia. The reds are coming, hide your AR-15 and watch reruns of Red Dawn.

Here's a scoop though: Even if you have 10 assault rifles, if the US government decides to take "your" guns, they will. Any so called "rebellion" will be crushed by national guard and army units, who happen to have stuff like APCs, planes and tanks. Not to mention, we've been living under gun control for quite a long time here, and our government hasn't even come close to infringing our liberty as much as yours did. When the students got pissed off over the tuition hike last spring, they made the liberal government of Charest lose the ensuing elections, not by waving handguns around, but by peaceful civil disobedience and protests. Gandhi freed his country through civil disobedience.

Oh right, my arguments are probably invalid because I'm a dirty commie that supports gun control.

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

Yeah, O'Hare no offense, but I don't know what you meant by the democrats/communists comment and then relate how the National Guard took guns from law-abiding citizens in New Orleans after Katrina (which was during Bush's Republican Administration). I will say that I disagree with banning guns totally, you guys just need a much more extensive screening process around how people get their hands on guns and have the owners be more responsible for the security of their own guns so that people who are incapable of using guns professionally or maturely cannot get their hands on them.

Because you guys aren't going to get all these high-powered guns off of the streets now even if you tried, because they are so proliferated throughout your society. People can and will get their hands on these guns no matter how many laws the government passes regarding assault weapons, gun sales, or weapon clips. Moreover, you've got so many people so radically against and for this issue, I fear you guys could start another civil war just to get rid of them.

Just deal with the horrid social conditions that infest the United States and you'll deal with not just gun problems but a multitude of others, because the guns can exist and not kill anyone, they need a human to have a reason to use them for the malicious purposes that they are portraying in all these extreme cases throughout the states.

I also don't think you guys should get rid of conceal and carry permits, just make the process so extensive that nobody of nefarious intent can possibly get their hands on one legally. (which from what I've seen is mostly the reality)

However all of this is moot because your government agencies around gun crimes have not kept accurate statisitics for the past decade or so due to a decline in funding, so now you guys can't even prove whether banning guns makes a difference or not with any definative answer. So I would scrap the debate until they have the Universities or the agencies do the proper research again, but that won't likely occur will it?

[O'Hare 1st MRB]

I think they're in denial! LOL

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened..I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."– Norman Thomas, American socialist

[O'Hare 1st MRB]

Can't argue with this!

http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/co...form-t5149.html

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

I don't know why you guys in America are so afraid of socialism, and I'm not going to get too far into it, all I know is that it has worked fine up here Canada.

[Peaker]

Canada isn't socialist, it's a social-democracy. Besides, a bunch of extreme left wingers mostly ignored and shunned by the american mainstream claim that a big party "stole" their idea? On a joke website? I don't see much credibility there.

That said, I think we should follow the example of those fine gentlemen:

Happy late valentine's day.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Peaker 1st MRB

[Takel 1st MRB]

Can't argue with this!

http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/co...form-t5149.html

actually, yes we can.

Firstly, it's wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People's_Cube, here's a short excerpt:

"The People's Cube is a U.S. based satirical conservative website that was launched April 1, 2005, as a sequel to Communists for Kerry."

the way you linked it as fact just shows that it's good satire.

googling 'communist sue obama' brings up a few results about a chinese company who were looking to sue obama about some wind farms - the articles mention the companies projected profits after speaking to their chairman at the communist party congress in china. It does bring up two results that follow your URL; your URL and a blog that has copy/pasted that entire article into their own site.

as for the Norman Thomas quote, well... http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/socialism.asp

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

Canada isn't socialist, it's a social-democracy. Besides, a bunch of extreme left wingers mostly ignored and shunned by the american mainstream claim that a big party "stole" their idea? On a joke website? I don't see much credibility there.

That said, I think we should follow the example of those fine gentlemen:

Happy late valentine's day.

I never said Canada was socialist as a country, I know its a social-democracy. My point was that we have far more socialist tendancies than the U.S. I think they could benefit from caring for their society as a whole is all I'm saying, rather than heading further down the road of individualistic captialism. That's just what I think though.

[Peaker]

I know, but given how some people are wont to take everything at face value, and that socialism/communism is apparently Evul, I felt it was important to make the distinction.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Peaker 1st MRB

[O'Hare 1st MRB]

Can't argue with this!

http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/co...form-t5149.html

actually, yes we can.

Firstly, it's wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People's_Cube, here's a short excerpt:

"The People's Cube is a U.S. based satirical conservative website that was launched April 1, 2005, as a sequel to Communists for Kerry."

the way you linked it as fact just shows that it's good satire.

googling 'communist sue obama' brings up a few results about a chinese company who were looking to sue obama about some wind farms - the articles mention the companies projected profits after speaking to their chairman at the communist party congress in china. It does bring up two results that follow your URL; your URL and a blog that has copy/pasted that entire article into their own site.

as for the Norman Thomas quote, well... http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/socialism.asp

Actually you can't. Especially trying to use a wikipedia link and a liberal Snopes link. lol Nice try though... Point is the dems WERE sued by the Commies because of the SAME platforms. So no, you can't argue against it. Even the Commies believe that the Dems now have a communist platform. lol Just the facts kids!

[O'Hare 1st MRB]

Can't argue with this!

http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/co...form-t5149.html

actually, yes we can.

Firstly, it's wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People's_Cube, here's a short excerpt:

"The People's Cube is a U.S. based satirical conservative website that was launched April 1, 2005, as a sequel to Communists for Kerry."

the way you linked it as fact just shows that it's good satire.

googling 'communist sue obama' brings up a few results about a chinese company who were looking to sue obama about some wind farms - the articles mention the companies projected profits after speaking to their chairman at the communist party congress in china. It does bring up two results that follow your URL; your URL and a blog that has copy/pasted that entire article into their own site.

as for the Norman Thomas quote, well... http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/socialism.asp

Actually you can't. Especially trying to use a wikipedia link and a liberal Snopes link. lol Nice try though... Point is the dems WERE sued by the Commies because of the SAME platforms. So no, you can't argue against it. Even the Commies believe that the Dems now have a communist platform. lol Just the facts kids!

You don't like satire?

I mean hell, it's so close to truth anyway!!!

Edited March 6, 2013 by O'Hare 1st MRB

[Morton]

O'Hare. I've studied Socialism, and I'm actually a Socialist. With that said Socialism is a broad term that has a lot of viewpoints and while all Communists are Socialists, not all Socialists are Communists. It is exactly like how all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics.

Now the modern Democratic Party is not a Socialist party, however it does share some Socialists Ideas, as does the Republican Party. Some of these "evil" Socialist views are Mass Literacy, Child Labor Laws, Minimum Wage, Social Security, Public Education, The eight hour workday, Workplace Safety, Food Safety Laws, and others. We are not a bunch of Evil "Commie Basturds" waiting in the "left" wing to swoop down and destroy America. I love my nation, and I'm proud to be an American, however she isn't perfect and could use some improvements. Mainly in how Corporate Greed is out of control, and how the Justice System favors the Rich.