Posted on 03/08/2009 7:01:47 PM PDT by Travis McGee
Add me!
I remember my oath. I wasnt too young to understand the oath or what was meant by it.
I’m not sure how I feel about these gentlemen, but I do like the ideals they support. Hopefully their moral fortitude will not be tested, because I have no desire to have to fight on my own soil.
For later, and thank you.
Therefore — we are ALL members of “Oath Keepers”.
Roger that!
>Hopefully their moral fortitude will not be tested, because I have no desire to have to fight on my own soil.
Agreed... but on the other hand, it would be far better for fight, sweat, bleed, and cry for our own morals than for an ungrateful population (there are some). Don’t you agree?
Consider, for example Kleagle Robert C. Byrd ('Rat, WV).
Amen!!
LOL. That’s the person I was thinking about when I wrote that line. Imagine Byrd vs. Keyes. There’s no doubt in my mind that Byrd would receive 90% of the black vote. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know.
As much as I appreciate their effort here, I know it’s a useless gesture. If ten soldiers in a company are “Oath keepers” the other 90 will just shoot them. If 2 cops on a SWAT team are “Oath keepers” the other officers will kill them on an op and pin it on the person whose house they’re kicking the doors in on.
No, when it comes time to be “Oath Keepers” there will not be enought to work “within the system” at least not overtly. IMO, I’d rather see these folks just walk away from their organizatins en masse. Because WHEN the government ORDERS them to do these things, the vast majority of the organization will, no questions asked.
Its not the ungrateful population that these people are talking about fighting, but the duped members of our military who do not understand the oathes they took. It would be a fight against my own brothers with whom I’ve bled. Therefore the best way to defeat any kind of military use against Americans it to educate the military about our oath.
I spoke to a few officers about that today to test the waters and I was pleasantly surprise at how much they agreed with the Oath Keepers.
I agree. But that is also why I like the premptive nature of the 10 statements made by Oath Keepers. It puts the peculiar nature of the potentially tyranical decisions directly into discussion re: The Rule of Law.
For Example:
General, the President has ordered the US Military into New Orleans to restore order in the wake of the most recent disaster. One of the directives is to confiscate all weapons. This is in violation of the October 2008 agreement between the City of New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin and the National Rifle Association. Is that directive a "Lawful Order?"
Regards,
TS
...I had a little talk with my 1sg. He seemed of the opinion that, since we wear the uniform, we cant “say anything bad about the president”.
>Is that directive a “Lawful Order?”
What does the 2nd Amendment say?
Do you think that's what the General will tell the reporter and his/her troops? Do you think that's what the General will say to the Lt.General in Homeland Security who issued his orders? Do you think that when the 25 year veteran of our Nation's finest who's been leading our troops in combat against our nation's enemies his/her entire career has one or more of them hurt or killed by a citizen that he/she won't order the confiscation of weapons? And, then use whatever force they deem necessary to accomplish their mission and defend their troops?
I'm just askin'.
I also think that if there is one part of our society in which oaths will be honored the US Military IS that place. It's something that I think the Politicians better think about.
Semper Fi,
TS
I’m not saying they won’t, I’m just saying “What does the 2nd Amendment say?” In other words, “you can tell your men that raping and pillaging are ok, but are they, really?”
There’s a difference between moral and legal... and also what is REALLY legal and what people THINK is legal. If “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is the supreme law of the land, then are the laws prohibiting guns at schools, in federal buildings, in state buildings, in national parks (etc) legal? (Granted, a convict of the judicial-system has his right to bear arms suspended while he is a prisoner, but he still has a right to self defense, right?)
And also, what about “felons”, namely, “ex-felons”. To my mind it seems like they’ve either served-their-time/paid-their-debt-to-society or they have not; why should we disallow them the right to keep and bear arms if they HAVE paid their debt? (Or does a collection agency have any right to keep harassing you after you’ve paid the bills in question?)
We cannot speak badly about the President, according to army regulations, to the public. Hoever as private citizens we can, so as long as we are not in uniform we should be good to go.
The truly scare thing is that some won’t sign a compact like this.
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.