And here's one other thing to keep in mind: What do you call a person who has been dishonorably discharged?Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at a new potential where intended consequences can devolve into unintended ones. Then again, some may be counting on provoking a reaction.
That's right, a "prohibited person." Subject to having their firearms confiscated. [More]
Also listen to a Sunday radio broadcast substantiating that AG Holder is stumping for a course that can only lead to confiscation attempts. Also get the latest from my fellow GREs.
Tell a friend?
13 comments:
The ranks of the 'prohibited' will grow ever faster as fedmed elimination of privacy allows and policy demands med svc providers post all patient related data to the cost saving fedmed database. Been to a marriage counselor? You may now be a prohibited person. Have a scrip for heavy duty pain meds, you may be a prohibited person. Almost any encounter with law enforcement has the potential to land you on a list and make you a prohibited person.
Keep your heads down for a bit, but do not abandon the field.
Well, of course, they will.
And Oath Keepers makes it easy for the FEDGOV, by keeping a list of members (at $30 a pop), that can be subpoenaed. Stupid....
Each person on that list who is on active duty can arguably be prosecuted for perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury, or anything else they can throw at you. When active duty members swear an oath, it is very specific: (1) to protect the Constitution against all enemies; AND (2) to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. That oath has to be repeated at the time of promotion or re-enlistment. If you join Oath Keepers today, and you swear that oath tomorrow, a military court martial can nail you for "intent to commit perjury", "conspiracy to commit a crime", etc.
And you're certain that this project wasn't some put-on to shake out the tree and see what fell out? You know one of the favorite tricks the Federal agents use to ensnare the stupid: use a an undercover operative to "suggest" illegal activities to a group (e.g., a militia, a peace group, etc.) and then nail the group for "conspiracy" to engage in the illegal activity originally suggested by the undercover agent. Hmmm....
All I'm really certain of is how easy it is for anonymous shadow snipers to impugn the character of men who stand behind their names--all in relative safety. If I'm going to pick who I'm going to put trust in, there's a pretty good starting indicator just by comparing the two.
Add to that the built trust I have with Stewart Rhodes based on my behind-the-scenes dealings with the man...
So, anon--you're great at pointing out objections. Got any solutions that are actually constructive as regards outreaching to those who will be ordered to enforce--or is your function here just to seed doubt?
Just what exactly is your agenda, and why should we believe you?
Anon's post is utter nonsense. How in the Hell does he equate affirming that one will keep his Oath with perjury?
A military court martial is going to charge its people with "affirming the Oath". C'mon!
Anon #2 is, I think, not a friend of free men nor their defenders. I would label him an enemy. Worse, his rantings make him sound like a federally employed enemy of freedom. He hit all the points of coercion those who do not keep their oaths have been spouting for a long time now.
MBV: David raises very good points in counter to Anonymous (aren't these critters always?). But here is my ad seriatim response:
"Oath Keepers makes it easy for the FEDGOV, by keeping a list of members (at $30 a pop), that can be subpoenaed. Stupid.... Each person on that list who is on active duty can arguably be prosecuted for perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury, or anything else they can throw at you. When active duty members swear an oath, it is very specific: (1) to protect the Constitution against all enemies; AND (2) to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. That oath has to be repeated at the time of promotion or re-enlistment. If you join Oath Keepers today, and you swear that oath tomorrow, a military court martial can nail you for 'intent to commit perjury", 'conspiracy to commit a crime', etc."
MBV: Oh, please, please, Brer Fox, don't throw me in dat briar patch! I await the first court martial with great delight. There is no way in the world that DOJ will want the DOD to persue this. The resultant publicity will do more to populatize the Oath Keeper idea than anything else the government could do. Talk about "stupid."
"And you're certain that this project wasn't some put-on to shake out the tree and see what fell out?"
MBV: Yes, I am. And I'm with David on this -- "anonymous" assholes have no standing to criticize.
"You know one of the favorite tricks the Federal agents use to ensnare the stupid: use a an undercover operative to "suggest" illegal activities to a group (e.g., a militia, a peace group, etc.) and then nail the group for "conspiracy" to engage in the illegal activity originally suggested by the undercover agent. Hmmm...."
MBV: Stewart has done a great job, as far as I can see, with keeping the OK on message and crystal clear on its mission statement. There is another "favorite trick of federal agents" -- trolling psywar posts on the 'Net to attack anonymously without attribution better men and ideas than them.
Mike Vanderboegh
When two oaths conflict ("(1) to protect the Constitution against all enemies; AND (2) to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them.") a person has to determine which one gets priority. Even disliking the Constitution as I do, I think Oath Keepers chose the correct oath to keep in case of conflict.
Anonymous (2) said:
"When active duty members swear an oath, it is very specific: (1) to protect the Constitution against all enemies; AND (2) to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. That oath has to be repeated at the time of promotion or re-enlistment."
Please allow this simple but important correction. and (2) to obey the LAWFUL orders of the officers appointed over them.
Any order which contradicts the first part of the oath does not fulfill the second part. This is worded this way to prevent the "I was only following orders" defense (see: Nuremberg Trials).
You guys are something else...Look, I'm not a troll and I'm not one of the enemy. I put down my concerns as I had them, no further agenda than that. Save your ammo for when it counts...
As to a solution -- don't keep lists. Oath Keepers can be what it is, and remain what it is, without having to keep lists of "members". Outreach doesn't require lists of names, and donations can be made anonymously. I am a Constitutionalist, but I don't sport bumper stickers, or go putting bulls-eyes on my back. Like our Founding Fathers, I ain't putting down my name on a list until the point-of-no-return has been reached (e.g., the Dec. of Ind.).
If I'm being paranoid, alright, then I'm full of it. In my view, only time will tell if such a high degree of caution is warranted.
Part of the reaction is seeing someone anonymously dismiss something some of us believe in as "stupid." That doesn't win friends.
Stewart has built a good thing--and something that was not here just a short time ago. Plenty wish to tear it down, and they are resorting to lies to do it. So if you're not one of the enemy, you might want to reconsider an approach that helps them do that.
Personally, I'm grateful to the few who will stand up and put their name behind their conviction, especially those among the guards and warriors.
If you don't think now is the time, I disagree. When will that time ever be? But I do understand why most will not.
I encourage more to do it, to have a personal public stake in this--it in fact helps define level of commitment.
I'm tired of citizens being afraid of their servants. How can we ever expect the servants to fear such timid masters?
And if it results in a round up list, consider this: any administration so monstrous as to do that is hardly likely to be stopped by men who will not stand up and be counted while the going is relatively easy.
What will someone who fears engaging now do when the risk becomes real and deadly? Will they suddenly find their spirit then?
I don't believe it. It's simply inconsistent with everything I've ever observed about human nature.
Most wore the stars and got in the cattle cars, and listened to counsels of caution.
Your site is one of the reasons I began to re-evaluate my views on (among other things) guns and the relationship between citizens and the State.
You don't disappoint: I will think on the points you made above.
Purging the Oath Keepers sounds like a fine way to increase the percentage of younger, conscienceless killers in your stormtrooper army. Isn't this mentioned on the evil overlord TO-DO list somewhere? No court martials are needed. The military is a government agency, and it doesn't have to obey rules. They changed the rules for being homosexual, and they can change the rules for being OK.
"What will someone who fears engaging now do when the risk becomes real and deadly? Will they suddenly find their spirit then?"
There are other approaches to patriotism besides that guy in the Norman Rockwell painting standing up to object in the town meeting. For example, that German woman who smuggled a thousand Jewish children to freedom; she wouldn't even appear on your radar. You've seen the numbers of background checks for gun sales increase by millions in the last couple years, but there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of publicly engaged people. Do you believe that only the publicly engaged people bought guns? Or are some people changing their mindset without changing their public posture?
"I don't believe it. It's simply inconsistent with everything I've ever observed about human nature."
Ah, but did you successfully predict the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union, or the peaceful fall of the Berlin wall? Could you be missing something in your analysis?
If I could figure out what you're talking about, I might be able to formulate a response.
MY "stormtrooper army"? Huh?
As far as that "peaceful collapse" goes, I note the KGB guy is still in charge.
As for those predictions anon mentioned I predicted them in 1972, if we would just let their own weight crush them. We did and they fell.
Of course, Reagan's foreign policy of piling on weight didn't hurt, but I said almost 40 years ago, that what happened is what would happen.
Nobody listened then and now they deny they ever heard me say it. It must be awful to be so egocentric that nothing exists outside one's own skin. Because everything, I mean everything, is then a threat to that ego.
Post a Comment