Posted on 12/03/2014 6:16:57 AM PST by Kaslin
Last week, residents of Ferguson, Missouri might have noticed a strange sight amidst the scenes of burning buildings, overturned cars, crazed rioters, and police in full military dress. Standing stoically on the rooftops of buildings in areas threatened by prolonged rioting were men dressed in masks and camouflage, armed with buckets of water, fire extinguishers, and occasionally AR-15 rifles.
These men were not members of the Ferguson Police Department or the Missouri National Guard. They were members of the Oath Keepers, a nationwide collective of military veterans, former law enforcement officers, first responders and other concerned citizens who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. They were drawn to Ferguson to help protect the people and property of the town from the rioters and criminals, who largely had avoided being stopped by the police and National Guard troops.
While the appearance of the Oath Keepers came as a relief to citizens and small business owners affected by the riots, to the authorities they posed a threat. That’s right. Within just days of arriving, rather than being thanked by the police for volunteering to help protect lives and property, these law-abiding volunteers were ordered to get out of town, apparently for “operating without a license.”
Absurd as it is that a person would need a “license” to do nothing more than protect private property from wanton destruction -- especially when the police force’s apparent “best efforts” to do so were woefully deficient -- that is exactly how government views the right to self-defense in the Bizarro World of 21st Century America.
While the government’s assault on the principle of self-defense underlying the Second Amendment is nothing new, the degree to which federal and state officials misunderstand or simply choose to ignore the fundamental principle of self-defense, is truly disheartening.
Many people consider that the modern era of gun control began in the late 1960s following the assassination of Robert Kennedy; but it actually dates to 1934 when the Congress passed the 1934 National Firearms Act. Since that seminal event, a distinct anti-firearms philosophy has taken hold in large segments of society; one that considers personal ownership of a firearm not as an exercise of a God-given right to defend oneself, but rather as a direct threat to “public safety.” Adherents of this group-centric philosophy consider the right to defend oneself with a firearm as something separate from -- indeed, inferior to -- the collective responsibility of government to protect society. In this world view, “public safety” trumps both individual responsibility and individual liberty.
Employing footholds gained through advocacy in the legislative, judicial and executive branches at all levels of government, these anti-gun forces have worked steadily to transmogrify the Second Amendment into a public-policy commodity, subject to the at-will regulation of government officials. The ultimate goal of this movement is to empower government as the exclusive owner of the means to personal defense; thus relegating citizens to a position of absolute reliance on the government for their personal and property protection. It is all about Control.
The historically-sound notion that citizens possess primary responsibility for protection of their persons and property, is reflected not only in the clear intent of the Second Amendment, but as well in federal court decisions. For example, in 1981, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted in Warren v. District of Columbia, that “. . . government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” This assertion was reiterated a year later by the Seventh Circuit, in Bowers v. DeVito, when that Court held “there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state.”
Government, of course, wants to have it both ways. While accepting it is under no absolute obligation to protect citizens from harm (thereby avoiding liability for failing to protect against criminal actions), government officials constantly seek to acquire and maintain a monopoly of the means by which individuals are able to exercise their responsibility to protect themselves – that is, by remaining free to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Thus the bizarre spectacle of police in Ferguson rejecting efforts by citizens to protect lives and property when most critical to do so.
Unfortunately, the reaction by state and local authorities in Ferguson to citizen-based self-defense represents not the exception, but the prevalent view of “public safety”; and not only in the United States but throughout western society generally. It is, however, particularly discouraging that such a fundamentally flawed understanding of individual rights and constitutional history are run amuck here, in what Ronald Reagan correctly described as “the last best hope of man on earth.”
They are back on the rooftops and the police are standing down.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3233251/posts
Maybe other localities that see riots coming will learn the lesson: hire out the oath keepers (for a buck a day each - they aren’t there to make money) as se urity. These places will need to have some kind of association to do this, if something isn’t already in place, so as to combine the rights and power of all of them to resist both the statist and the rioters.
When seconds count, police are minutes away...
Common sense is outlawed in this utopia for fools.
(1) "We have no obligation to protect the citizenry."
(2) "We will do everything in our power to make certain you cannot protect yourselves."
(3) "We will force you to be dependent on us, even though you cannot depend on us."
bkmk
Oath Keepers involvement in Ferguson will, hopefully, be a good recruiting call.
When the day comes, and it will, the ‘establishment’ will find out what people all over the world have known instinctively for centuries, that a small force of guerrillas operating when and where they choose at targets of opportunity cannot be stopped by organized armies of either police or troops. King George found that out. King Obama will learn it too.
In the old west they used to call them a posse.
Now they’re called the Anti-Holders.
Founded by a libertarian Yale Law graduate, by the way. Just shows how it is wrong the stereotype.
Well put.
The conspirator in me is concerned that these oath keepers will be infiltrated by troublemakers who want to discredit them or worse, to endanger them.
The real threat is Eric Holder sending his racially charged race baiting minions to close with and destroy them... with the resulting political fallout. Then the country could be completely open to attack by rioters and looters from “Communities of Color”.
Selective enforcement of laws in an attempt to terrorize and cow the populace: That is the very definition of Anarcho-tyranny.
The National Guard were there but not allowed to protect property on Monday night after the grand jury verdict became public, on orders from the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.