Rest safe citizens of Ferguson, the Oath Keepers are on patrol!
On second thought… this is EXACTLY the wrong kind of image to be center state in Ferguson right now. I get it, there is civil unrest. A year ago there was looting and vandalism and riots. You want somebody to keep the peace. But this isn’t helping.
The reality as to what happened in Missouri a year ago are irrelevant at this point. The narrative is in control this particular train and has the throttle wide open going into a dead man’s curve. As far as the media and the public conscience are concerned there are only three important facts: dead black kid, white shooter, militaristic response by police to social injustice. Guess what, the media just can’t wait for you to take a shot at another unarmed black kid to use you as an exemplar of the “racist, paranoid, white assault rifle owner.”
Go away. I don’t care if you really were a Ranger or if you only played one online, you are fanning the flames and making the rest of us look bad. And before you call me a hypocrite, the Koreans on the rooftops during the LA Riots were defending their business, not patrolling the streets looking like a Blackwater contractor guarding a VIP in the Green Zone. Go home and get out of the spot light. I don’t want to lose my AR because you didn’t know when to leave yours locked in the safe.
Some of those guys were manning rooftops and have been credited by (black) shop owners with having prevented the arson of their businesses simply by their presence.
Miguel, you’re frank and ernest p. worrell, tell me about your AR if you built it, what type of trigger/lower parts kit you running on it
I’m not sure it makes a difference if they are there or not. The narrative wouldn’t change with them there or not; the proof is the media keeps saying the same old stuff in all situations regardless of the exigent circumstances.
And you also cannot sit by and do nothing when threatened regardless of how you think the media wants to portray it.
I’m sorry Miguel, but you’re going totally Bob Owens here. The Oath Keepers are there to protect the productive member of society. Please stop ranting every time someone carries a long gun in public. They are not OCTC. They are performing a legitimate function.
It wasn’t Miguel it was me. And no, I’m not going all Bob Owens. I’m all for the “because F you, that’s why” argument for way I feel the need to own ARs. I am a supporter of concealed carry. I can’t be more of an advocate for fun rights, which is why I agreed to write for Miguel.
But I recognize that with great rights comes great responsibilities. I recognize that our best ally and worst enemy is mass media and popular opinion. We (gun owners) win when we are polite, cordial, welcoming and friendly. We lose when we are jerks. When a concealed carrier shoots a robber and saves a store owner we win. When a bunch of guys go into a Starbucks with ARs and scare the soccer mom’s we lose.
When store owners were defending THEIR OWN STORES, on ther own property with long guns, that was good. I supported that and thought the gun community should show that, that is the purpose to own an AR. But what the Oath Keepers are doing here is not the same. They are on patrol. They look like every negative stereotype of the mall ninja. And with the whole country focused on Furgeson, they were yesterday’s (literally not figuratively) news of the day.
There are facts and there are optics. Optics cause a Twitter storm and media sensation before facts can even get checked. The Oath Keepers may have saved businesses and even lives but the optics were horrible. Every news feed I saw on Tuesday was “racist white guys with guns, motivated by right wing nut job Alex Jones, we’re intimidating black people.” True or not, it made gun owners look bad.
In this day and age, where one Twitter pic and a hash tag can ruin lives, start uprisings, and move mountains, you have to be an mindful of the optics as everything else.
My apologies to Miguel, I forgot that you have someone else post occasionally.
To you, J, my opinion still stands. The Oath Keepers were performing a legitimate function regardless of what a few morons on twitter posted. You’re completely out of line on this one.
This is what a well regulated militia looks like, Miguel. Yes, I know, the optics aren’t good, but they never will be. I supported the Korean shop keepers arming themselves, and I support the oath keepers preventing the looting of stores, and the shooting or protesters. Stop worrying about what the media thinks. They will never be behind us.
I gotta figure out how to make the Author’s name be on top or bigger.
1) I did not write this post, it was J Kb.
2) He did not consult with me which is part of our deal. He is free to post what he feels like re:guns and Second Amendment. Hot chicks and kittens must be pre-approved.
3) But for the hell of it, I do agree with the post. NOT HELPING. If you are parading the streets in your tacticool shit, you are just being a dick. And then comes their initial statements that they were there protecting journalists which has already been denied.
4) Now the new line is that they were there protecting the stores…so WTF are they doing “patrolling”?
You’re as wrong here as you were when you jumped on the MSM bandwagon that the bikers were the bad-guys in Waco. The Oath Keepers were performing a legitimate function. Full stop, end of discussion. Admit that you’re wrong and move on.
I agrre, btw, with you about the bikers in Waco. Total setup and railroading.
Maybe if J just puts -Written by J at the end because I can’t see any author name on the post
Fwiw, I’ve been looking over their site, and it makes for interesting reading. I did not expect to agree with much there, but I do, actually. Their membership requirements are narrow and make sense, as does the rest of the site. I went for information, but now I am considering applying for membership.
Also fwiw, I agree that we need to be less concerned about the Media, who will ALWAYS portray us as demonic shadows, and more concerned with saving lives and peacefully standing ready. And yes, I served as a Ranger wayyyy back in the 80s and currently serve as (among other duties) a Police Chaplain.
So why give the media ammunition to keep portraying us as “demonic shadows”? (Love that one:D )
I am going to give as example my county: Miami-Dade. Since I moved here almost two decades ago, I’ve been through 5 hurricanes of different magnitudes. Anybody remembers hearing about the widespread looting and general dislocation of societal order? No. Why? Bad guys knew they were risking the chance of being shot.
The Media knew damn well that people were armed. Stores had people inside openly carrying a gun in a holster, you’d drive by neighborhoods and see people sitting in their front lawns with long guns hiding under blankets or behind other items. And there were also the neighborhoods that displayed signs saying “You Loot, We Shoot.” that may have made it as a side interest blip.
All that, but nobody was parading with their guns even though most of the cops here would have not cared as we were making their lives easier. We accomplished what we intended to do and we did not have the bad optics that the Media and gun control groups could use to their advantage.
They media still has a gigantic megaphone, let’s keep it mute.
PS: We need a “Demonic Shadow” patch 😀
I’ll see what I can do…
Because regardless of how they spin it against us, the truth will out. One way or another, the truth always comes out. What the Oath Keepers did in Ferguson to help people will be talked about and spread by word of mouth if nothing else. Idiots will swallow the narrative without a thought, but those wiser will know better and investigate. Doing the right thing, whether it be missions work, soup kitchens, or defending the weak is always going to be the right thing. Standing by and tut tutting and sympathizing without action not only is NOT loving, it’s being accessory to evil. I respect what you guys are saying, but I cannot live like that. God Bless.
[…] Gun blogger Miguel Gonzalez notes that there was no conceivable upside to their presence, and the distinct potential for a catastrophic downside. […]
What is their authority? Are they just patrolling, or are they stopping and questioning people? If the latter, what actions are they taking, and on what authority? If they get hurt, who pays their medical bills? If they hurt someone else, who pays their legal bills?
I see no upsides and a bunch of downsides to this for the Oath Keepers themselves, without even considering the “optics.”
I spent 31 years interfering in other people’s problems. Now I stay out of them.
One account I have read, two of them were asked by a Dentist to keep his building secure. He gave them the keys, and they sat inside, ready but not leaving. An early arriving employee discovered them and was very grateful for their presence. I will try to find the link. Another story, again i will have to find the link, but it had a pic of a store owner hugging an OK and proclaiming him the hero who saved her shop from being burnt to the ground when looters approached. He evidently just stood on the roof all night, and when the looters approached, he quietly stood watching them notice him and then draw back.
Was that the one from last year? posted about that one. Again, it is not the defending but the frigging parading around that is sending the wrong message.
I’m torn by my disdain for the media and general respect for OK.
But I think I’m with you. There’s a world of difference between defending in-place and “patrolling”.
And while I wouldn’t put it past the media to take a picture of OKs moving to a place they were asked to be and spin it to look like they’re “patrolling”, I will say OKs do need to be more mindful of appearances.
Also, it is just me, or is that a booger-hook on a bang-switch in that picture? Because that would be … somewhat less that my idea of “professional”. And bad optics.
You know? Maybe OK as organization is not to blame. Every group will have its share of people without common sense.
CSGV is like the whole place, but that is another story.
I want to add that nothing in the article is convincing me that the Oath Keepers were actually patrolling. What seems likely to me based on all the other typical antigun twaddle and purposeful mischaracterizations in that NBC article is they were mostly likely milling about an area so it can be very loosely construed as patrolling and very easily spun that way to ratchet up the fear and lawlessness angles.
If they actually were patrolling, I will agree that it is a very fine line they are walking; I have a mixed opinion/feelings about if actually patrolling is a good or bad thing. I see the good side as it is along the lines of the intended purposes of a militia or defending a community at the true grass roots level. Good on them for taking action to help and protect honest people and do essentially what we/many of us talk about.
On the other hand, they have no actual authority and walking around/patrolling can be easily construed as instigating a fight or escalating a situation if it did come to shooting, and I don’t think they’d win that argument in court. Additionally if some stranger I did not ask to come shows up heavily armed, and not in a police uniform, and starts making demands of me or issuing commands to me, we are going to have a serious problem. I can see how that could drive a situation where nothing serious or bad is happening in that microcosm of time and space into the realm of solid animal waste hitting an air circulation device because a stranger shows up and begins trying to dominate the situation in a threatening manner in a highly charged atmosphere. I look at it this way, I’m an honest good guy derping around minding my own business trying navigate the sh!storm that is happening around me when a heavily armed non police stranger shows up; again the effect on me would not be positive and the outcome really depends on what the person tries to get me to do/not do.
However, again we must qualify that based on the NBC article there is no evidence I saw that the Oath Keepers were issuing commands or anything like that. I think they were just trying to be a deterrent and we are getting caught up believing “facts” from a biased news source.
I’m sorry j but you are wrong, my rights do not depend on the actions of others just mine.
To quote the mistress of snark “Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can’t own a gun? I don’t care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn’t. So piss off.” Tam
And I agree with that. The politicians pushing gun control, on the other hand, don’t. Look at NY, CT, and CA where bans on various guns came with requirements to sell them out of state or turn them over to police. I shouldn’t lose my guns because of some other idiot’s actions, but the disarmament advocates will come demand I hand it over anyway.
They have never stopped J
But sure, go and look at NY and CT.
What’s the percentage of compliance?
NY is what maybe 10% and CT is 12-15%
These are deep blue States with may issue permits and that is all they get!
Our best weapon is our refusal to comply with any more restrictions.
My question is, have these guys given a lot of thought to what happens if they pull the trigger? Since they’re not police or licensed security, and given the political climate, justified or not they could be looking at serious problems… as in, ‘witch hunt prosecution and lose the house to the civil case’ problems.
DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
It’s not just that they will get screwed by the law. It is that said case of an Oath Keeper shooting an “unarmed” (holding a rock or a glass bottle) *black* protester, with an AR-15 will turn into a media sensation that made the Trayvon Martin shooting look like a slow news day puff piece. Even if these guys weren’t looking for a fight, going out on the streets in full tacticool battle dress is looking for a fight.