US anti-government group recruiting cops

[Eldorado]

"A police officer in Texas has “bragged” about being a senior member of an alleged anti-government group that is trying to recruit law enforcement personnel in preparation for “full blown civil war”.

"John Shirley, an constable based in Hood County, south west of Dallas, recently wrote an “insiders perspective” for the local paper, saying he had been a member of the Oath Keepers group for a decade and held “multiple leadership positions at both the state and national levels”."

Full story at the UK Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-oath-keepers-civil-war-hood-county-john-shirley-stewart-rhodes-latest-a9366046.html

At the US Star Telegram: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article240714426.html

The Oath Keepers at Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

[+and-then]

Oath Keepers should be feared by those who want to weaken or remove Constitutional protections of citizens.  They swear an oath TO THE CONSTITUTION.  They would only become weaponized against a government that attempted to impose anti constitutional "laws" or orders.  I see no problem at all with them.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Big surprise. The bootlicker loves bootlickers. 

[+and-then]

34 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Big surprise. The bootlicker loves bootlickers. 

Voting for people who want to ignore the Constitution or make an end run around it makes them traitors.  For a guy who thinks he's so wise, you sure do spout things that'll make you a target someday.  Just sayin' ...

[Imaginarynumber1]

10 minutes ago, and then said:

Voting for people who want to ignore the Constitution or make an end run around it makes them traitors. 

Despite you not liking people in office, this hasn't happened. 

10 minutes ago, and then said:

For a guy who thinks he's so wise, you sure do spout things that'll make you a target someday.  Just sayin' ...

You sure do have a hard on for wanting people to be hurt or killed who don't fall in line with your political beliefs. Just sayin'....

 

[+and-then]

6 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Despite you not liking people in office, this hasn't happened. 

You sure do have a hard on for wanting people to be hurt or killed who don't fall in line with your political beliefs. Just sayin'....

 

Not at all.  I'm completely willing to compromise on most issues in the political realm.  In case you hadn't noticed, it wasn't Republicans or Conservatives that refused to accept the results of elections and to promulgate an active "resistance' even through use of government agencies.  That'd be those you support.  I'm simply stating that when the attempt to enforce unconstitutional edicts, disguised as "laws", is tried, there WILL be resistance beyond what you've seen before.  It's not only the right but the DUTY of an American to support the Constitution.  Without it, we cease to exist.

[Imaginarynumber1]

4 minutes ago, and then said:

Not at all.  I'm completely willing to compromise on most issues in the political realm.  In case you hadn't noticed, it wasn't Republicans or Conservatives that refused to accept the results of elections and to promulgate an active "resistance' even through use of government agencies.  That'd be those you support.  I'm simply stating that when the attempt to enforce unconstitutional edicts, disguised as "laws", is tried, there WILL be resistance beyond what you've seen before.  It's not only the right but the DUTY of an American to support the Constitution.  Without it, we cease to exist.

Your civil war 2 wet dream isn't gonna happen. You've become paranoid in your rantings.

[Obviousman]

1 hour ago, and then said:

It's not only the right but the DUTY of an American to support the Constitution.  Without it, we cease to exist.

But isn't the issue with this group - and others like them - that it is the interpretation of the Constitution? Where some may see something as quite legal and the opposition say the courts are not adhering to the Constitution?

I'm not really across this but I am sure there would be a few issues that would be examples of this.

[Imaginarynumber1]

27 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

But isn't the issue with this group - and others like them - that it is the interpretation of the Constitution? Where some may see something as quite legal and the opposition say the courts are not adhering to the Constitution?

I'm not really across this but I am sure there would be a few issues that would be examples of this.

These guys aren't ant- government. they're just anti-democrat. Were they truly pro-constitution, they would support whomever is in office, regardless of party. A quick search shows a quite different picture, however. 

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Obviousman said:

But isn't the issue with this group - and others like them - that it is the interpretation of the Constitution? Where some may see something as quite legal and the opposition say the courts are not adhering to the Constitution?

I'm not really across this but I am sure there would be a few issues that would be examples of this.

Historically, when there has been a conflict over interpretation, the Supreme Court has sorted it out.  They have consistently supported 2A.  

The best example, the one that is so clear cut that no person who has read the Bill of Rights could mistake is the Second Amendment.  There is a growing movement within America to weaken or ignore the right to keep and bear arms.  

Our Constitution is not set in stone in some arbitrary way.  The Founders left the people a mechanism to amend the Constitution but they made it intentionally difficult so that there could be no casually determined change made by a passing political sect or party.  It requires a supermajority of the states to vote yes to the change that is desired.  The so called Progressives never even mention the idea of going through that amendment process because they understand that they would never get the votes they'd need.  Their answer is to simply ignore the rules and dictate change by passing a law or worse, by Executive order of a president.  

The day they make that attempt America will be torn apart and no American will benefit from that.  Anyone who would push things THAT FAR is a person who desires to take the country down, IMO.

 

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Were they truly pro-constitution, they would support whomever is in office, regardless of party. A quick search shows a quite different picture, however. 

It never occurs to you that the Left are actually wanting to move away from the restraints of the Constitution, does it?  They see it as old, archaic and in need of being "updated" to match their plans for our future.  That is what Progressives have said - and WRITTEN - for decades.  Read some of Woodrow Wilson's works or Dewey's fever dream writings about the future.

If the Dems do not attempt to run roughshod by ignoring the Constitution then no one has anything to worry about.  OTOH, if they and their followers are fully engaged with forcing that kind of change then having law enforcement officers who will ignore their unconstitutional edicts may be the only firewall left before armed rebellion would be necessary.  I can tell you from personal knowledge that the cops in  my area understand what jeopardy they'd face if they attempted to "follow orders" even if the community is standing against them.  They simply won't do it.  Job be damned...

[Imaginarynumber1]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

It never occurs to you that the Left are actually wanting to move away from the restraints of the Constitution, does it?  They see it as old, archaic and in need of being "updated" to match their plans for our future.  That is what Progressives have said - and WRITTEN - for decades.  Read some of Woodrow Wilson's works or Dewey's fever dream writings about the future.

If the Dems do not attempt to run roughshod by ignoring the Constitution then no one has anything to worry about.  OTOH, if they and their followers are fully engaged with forcing that kind of change then having law enforcement officers who will ignore their unconstitutional edicts may be the only firewall left before armed rebellion would be necessary.  I can tell you from personal knowledge that the cops in  my area understand what jeopardy they'd face if they attempted to "follow orders" even if the community is standing against them.  They simply won't do it.  Job be damned...

 Nobody is ignoring the constitution, no matter how many times you say it. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, a document that was written 200+ years ago may need some updates here and there?  It's been done before. 27 times, in fact.

[+and-then]

24 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

 It's been done before. 27 times, in fact.

Is this an echo?  I just said there is a legitimate means of changing the Constitution.  I'll never have a problem with any group that goes about changing it in the prescribed manner.  

[Imaginarynumber1]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

Is this an echo?  I just said there is a legitimate means of changing the Constitution.  I'll never have a problem with any group that goes about changing it in the prescribed manner.  

I don't actually read your entire posts anymore.

[+and-then]

13 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I don't actually read your entire posts anymore.

Good to know you don't mind admitting to being a troll then   No problem for me, carry on.

[Abaddonire]

14 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I don't actually read your entire posts anymore.

Heaven forfend that anything might intrude upon your mad world view, not even reality.

 

See, it rather easy to live in a bubble of imagination so long as one ignores anything and everything that might pierce that bubble.

 

Good luck with that delusion.

[Imaginarynumber1]

1 hour ago, Abaddonire said:

Heaven forfend that anything might intrude upon your mad world view, not even reality.

 

See, it rather easy to live in a bubble of imagination so long as one ignores anything and everything that might pierce that bubble.

 

Good luck with that delusion.

Nice assumptions you've made there. In true, but don't let that stop y po u from convincing yourself that you're right and patting yourself on your back.

[Imaginarynumber1]

2 hours ago, and then said:

Good to know you don't mind admitting to being a troll then   No problem for me, carry on.

Disagreeing with your constant m********ory fantasy of another civil war where people that have a different political view than you isn't trolling, but whatever. I don't reas the entire content of your post because it's the same paranoid rantings that you always post now. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Imaginarynumber1

[+and-then]

No, I'd say it's trolling.  Joining a thread with the express purpose of flinging a little ad hominem without adding to the discussion is pretty much the definition of trolling.  You state your opinion of me, personally, and add your interpretation of what you think I've said or "meant", to justify the slurs.  Yeah, I'd say that's trolling.  Back to the topic -

The thread is about a group called the Oath Keepers and I happen to support professional soldiers, marines, sailors and law enforcement types who make a point of openly saying they will support and defend the Constitution first.  The fact that there are elements in our nation today that want to brand them as extreme right wing militia types is what should be disturbing to Americans.  They've taken part in no violent protests nor threatened anyone.   Not unless those who feel threatened feel that way about ignoring the Constitution.  They NEED to feel threatened.  They NEED to know they will be resisted if they try to implement rules or laws that remove our basic rights.  

[Setton]

On 3/2/2020 at 1:39 AM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

 

You sure do have a hard on for wanting people to be hurt or killed who don't fall in line with your political beliefs. Just sayin'....

 

I wouldn't worry. He threatens civil war at least twice a week. Still can't drag himself out of that armchair. 

[RoofGardener]

On 3/2/2020 at 6:44 AM, and then said:

Is this an echo?  I just said there is a legitimate means of changing the Constitution.  I'll never have a problem with any group that goes about changing it in the prescribed manner.  

@and then, can you give me any examples of the "progressives" attempting to subvert the constitution ? 

[aztek]

seems to me they are building an army,  not protecting the constitution, .  why just police  and ,military?  why don't they  thrust civilians to protect  the constitution?   they have problem with gvmnt because they are not the gvmnt themselves, i have little doubt their end goal is to take power themselves.   as history shows when such types take power, they become much worse than gvmt they replace.  they aren't educated intelligence types like our FF were, they are simple enforcers, and crave power. not justice, and prosperity of a nation.

[Obviousman]

3 hours ago, aztek said:

seems to me they are building an army,  not protecting the constitution, .  why just police  and ,military?  why don't they  thrust civilians to protect  the constitution?   they have problem with gvmnt because they are not the gvmnt themselves, i have little doubt their end goal is to take power themselves.   as history shows when such types take power, they become much worse than gvmt they replace.  they aren't educated intelligence types like our FF were, they are simple enforcers, and crave power. not justice, and prosperity of a nation.

I'm sure they have plenty of 'average Joes' but for the objectives of the movement, they'd want people in positions of relative power, and people who can refuse to carry out what they determine to be 'illegal' orders.

I still believe that whilst it is admirable to be a patriotic organisation, we have the issue of interpretation. I believe @and then referred to the Second Amendment? I think that is a good example. Some use it to say 'you can pry my weapon out of my cold, dead hands' whilst others say that the interpretation of 'the right to bear arms' is out-dated, from a time when there was no single, organised national defence, and the newly-formed country relied on a militia, upon the people themselves.

Who is right?

Edited March 4, 2020 by Obviousman

[aztek]

8 hours ago, Obviousman said:

I'm sure they have plenty of 'average Joes' but for the objectives of the movement, they'd want people in positions of relative power, and people who can refuse to carry out what they determine to be 'illegal' orders.

I still believe that whilst it is admirable to be a patriotic organisation, we have the issue of interpretation. I believe @and then referred to the Second Amendment? I think that is a good example. Some use it to say 'you can pry my weapon out of my cold, dead hands' whilst others say that the interpretation of 'the right to bear arms' is out-dated, from a time when there was no single, organised national defence, and the newly-formed country relied on a militia, upon the people themselves.

Who is right?

yea, sure, they all say that, "people in power"  once they get there things change. look at almost any revolution in any period of time. 

2A is just as relevant today as it was 200+ years ago, if not more so

[Abaddonire]

On 3/2/2020 at 10:28 PM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Nice assumptions you've made there. In true, but don't let that stop y po u from convincing yourself that you're right and patting yourself on your back.

Ph I will believe any damn thing once solid evidence is provided. 

But you have none.