Oath Keepers’ Call for a HOT Civil War May Be Premature

Opinion

Oath Keepers Volunteers
Oath Keepers Volunteers

Fayetteville, AR – -(AmmoLand.com)- As the House of Representatives finally gets into serious motion investigating whether the executive branch has violated the law, members of a group that calls itself the Oath Keepers have declared that the United States is “on the verge of a HOT civil war.”

According to the group's Twitter account, the country is in the same condition that we experienced in 1859, and Trump supporters will not accept his removal from office through the process of impeachment. One member of the group, “AlkireMike,” said that if Trump calls them out, he will have an army at his disposal, adding the congressional actions to “an uprising of radical Islamic terrorists in this country” as examples of things that the Oath Keepers will not tolerate.

The Oath Keepers identify themselves as current or former members of the military or law enforcement who swore—or affirmed, presumably—to uphold the Constitution. With that in mind, I invite them to read said document, particularly Article I, Section 3, and Article II, Section 4. Impeachment is initiated in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 2), and the Senate holds the hearing to decide whether or not to convict a federal officer of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Misdemeanor in this case does not mean shoplifting or something similar, but instead refers to “ill-behavior, evil conduct, fault,” which has been a parallel meaning for the word since its origin.

All of this is to say that the process currently going on in the House of Representatives is according to the Constitution that the Oath Keepers claim to support. It is not a criminal proceeding, but is instead a performance review—the impeachment process does not invoke double jeopardy—with a high bar to cross before the person can be fired.

But America has a long history of violence to achieve political ends, having revolted from our mother country and then fought a civil war over our national identity. Nor are we strangers to individual violence against political rivals, as the assault on Senator Charles Sumner in 1856 illustrates. But as the Declaration of Independence suggests, if we are going to go down this particular road, we have to explain why we regard ourselves as justified in doing so.

In the Revolution, we made the argument that King George wasn't considering the rights of the American colonists, though we ignored the reasonable claim that we ought to pay for the protection we'd been given by the British army in the Seven Years' War—we call it the French and Indian War. The Civil War, about which the Oath Keepers seem to want a second chance—was a fight by the Union against southern conservatives who demanded that the government be too small to bring an end to slavery. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor and in several sites on 9/11, stirring us into action overseas. These are our good wars, the ones in which we have an easy time explaining ourselves—at least to ourselves. We have engaged in other acts of collective violence—Jim Crow and the Vietnam War come to mind—that were indefensible.

In the specific situation of what's going on right now in America, the Oath Keepers have not offered a sufficient reason to propose violence. No one's rights are being violated. We are not witnessing a case of the constitutionally defined process being tossed aside—by the Congress, anyway. And no, the will of the people is not being ignored, since any time we vote, we do so with the recognition that elected officials are subject to investigations, hearings, and potential removal if their behavior warrants that.

The Oath Keepers are only living up to the stereotype that gun control advocates have of gun owners: violent people itching to overthrow the government. This is not helpful either to the cause of gun rights or of the desire for good government.


About Greg CampGreg Camp

Greg Camp has taught English composition and literature since 1998 and is the author of six books, including a western, The Willing Spirit, and Each One, Teach One, with Ranjit Singh on gun politics in America. His books can be found on Amazon. He tweets @gregcampnc.

110
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
32 Comment threads
78 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
37 Comment authors
TheRevelatorHeed the Call-upras52I Am Become DeathWill Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Well, so much for “I Am Become Death” and his vow to have Ammoland delete his account. after further activity, looks as though he did see the replies and is not happy.

Now its time to wait and see if he will actually do what he said, or revert to snowflake mode and comment again. Perhaps slink away for now and return in a few months and hope people forgot about this. 🙂 Who knows.. My bet goes to his becoming a silent vote spammer out of spite since him wittle self was barrassed.

ras52
Member
ras52

“No one`s rights are being violated”. Ask Gary Willis. Ask anyone whose guns have been taken from them unlawfully.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Ras52

Yes. Have to love how when you do point out how it is a violation, they instantly concede the point and try to offer an excuse.

For Example:
“But its only temporary….If you can show you are innocent you can get them back.”

A liar and bad actor will always will always expose themselves if you just smile and let them talk. See the rage quit below for ancillary evidence below.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

So, I was Challenged, and I debated whether or not to give them a chance to respond to the evidence I presented to them on their statements before putting this up. I was asked to look something up, which I did before responding directly under his comment. However, it should bear witness that the speciffic quote chosen gives us a little window of evidence as to the one inviting it’s viewing. Often, a single quote may be given as an example of why someone wants you to believe they are right, but it is in inspection and comparison of the… Read more »

tomcat
Member
tomcat

Greg Camp has gone left on us again. I’m not keeping score but I know his leftist articles are way out in front of his conservative articles. All this is news to me, I have never thought of the Oathkeepers as a renegade outfit ready to fire the first shot. This article is a waste of reading space.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Ok, I wanted to give the author 24 hours to respond to my comments from yesterday before I presented this evidence to him. If Mr Camp wants to understand why I sucker punched him yesterday, here it is. On the question of Constitutionality. I love when people quote a section of the constitution to validate their argument, but they leave out every other part of it while trying to get you to look at the shiny bauble they just dangled in front of your eyes, hoping it will hold all your attention for as long as they wish to maintain… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Hmm. No takers.. 🙂

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

Not sure what that refers to. Reading is hard. Maybe he didn’t feel it. The “sucker punch.”

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@I am become death 1. Spotting areas of Bias in the article. 2. If reading is hard, a website centered on written articles and commentary is probably not within their habitat 3. Being new here, you probably wouldn’t know that the author has not been afraid to make his presence known in the comment section in the past, I know who it is, and that the “Sucker Punch” refers to undercutting him with some pretty resolute and inarguable facts, as well as flat out highlighting some of the bias.. With those three points, now you know and hopefully understand a… Read more »

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

Assumes facts not in evidence. But my time is short. Your ability to spot perceived bias is contingent on your objectivity. But we are all completely objective, depending on our bias. Factual inaccuracies are another matter.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@I am Become Death “Your ability to spot perceived bias is contingent on your objectivity” You chose the correct word, but make sure you are fully aware of what it means if you use it. Perhaps you have, perhaps you didn’t. Opjective: Remaining impartial while making decisions based on factual evidence and reasoning based off of it. Subjective: Relying on one’s on viewpoint or opinion as justification for conclusions. For example, The one I already listed, the conflict between the Title vs what was stated in the Article itself. While the Article did acknowledge the Oath Keeper’s statements as not… Read more »

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

The correct word for all here, myself included. and the author himself is “opinion.” Or assumption, even. I read very quickly, at one point in a previous comment, you stated in reference to me “you are new here.” No, I am not. An assumption you made, without evidence that is false. I may have been reading for months, quietly, not commenting. I have read the author’s posts before and gauged the responses. So “new” is only in reference to my responding. Intelligence is the goal of surveillance and I surveil it all before I employ my objectivity and decide to… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@I Am Become Death So objectively Speaking, you are new here(Commenting publicly), and only just recently introducing yourself to people here? 🙂 I worded it very specifically. I’m someone else who does not post without purpose and set reason, weighed and balanced by evidence. So the question is now, Now, I have not Doxed the Author’s handle, nor will I. If he wishes to make it known to others who he is he is willing to. However, since I’ve been here over 5 years, and know when I have talked to him in the past, have actually conversed with him… Read more »

Mikial
Member
Mikial

Greg Camp . . . one question. Are you a vet, and where and when did you serve?

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

Did you ask Trump the same question? Perhaps it’s not as relevant as you think.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@I Am Become Death
It should not be. I’ve seen many who claim to be vets who advocate and seek to force a tyrannical government on the entire country.

Anyone who seeks to use their time of service to entitle themselves to lordship over other men did not actually serve. To serve means to put others before self. Anyone who feels different is welcome to explain why John Kerry is a hero for his “Service”, or their own hypocrisy. I’ll let them choose.

The constitution is what is important, and defending it.

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

When Washington, a sitting president at the time, 1794, led a column of militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, he was defending the constitution and the government. The rebels, mostly veterans of the Revolution, had taken up arms against the Constitution and the government. Both sides staked out the rhetorical territory of patriotism and defenders of the constitution, of course. All sides to any conflict always do. And usually, each side has it’s own particular interpretations of history, the constitution, favorite alcoholic spirit, and more. It wasn’t until 1803 when Justice John Marshall set everyone straight in Marbury v.… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@I am Become Death Something I have written about numerous times here on ammoland over the past few years, Criticizing John Marshall for usurping authority he did not have. However, Marbury v Madison Is a mixed case. Where Marshall overstepped his bounds was that he took power for the supreme court to “Interpret” the constitution. What the court has the ability to do is look at Constitutional law and see if any act the Legislature passes, or any order of the President contradict it. It is the insertion of “Interpretation” which is wrong, and sought to give the Supreme court… Read more »

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

Opinion. Opine to your heart’s content. I think we are done here. Out.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@I Am Become Death. Ok, well if it was, you should be able to make an evidenced case as to why. If you don’t wish to, so be it. I will give you a question to think on however. If John Marshall was truly validated in his actions, ask yourself this. Why would a man who was present for the deliberation of the Constitution when it was Written, who had served under one of the Chief men who helped form that Constitution, and who if under later standards would have had to recuse himself for conflict of interest in that… Read more »

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

Allow me to remind, there is no mention of an Air Force, either. Nor privacy, no mention of privacy, no guarantee of privacy as an enumerated natural fundamental right. On constitutions, read Panel 4 on the Jefferson Memorial at Monticello. You can find it online.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@I Am Become Death On the air force, quite correct. The only military force presented in the Constitution as part of Governmental charter is the Navy I do believe. 🙂 On privacy however, not quite. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. The 4th Amendment states that people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that that right shall not be violated except upon due process of a warrant obtained based on probable cause and reasonable evidence to stipulate a search describing only the thing to… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Gotta love the stalker absentmindedly putting a -1 on this comment. Of course, if they truly hate the 4th Amendment or the constitution, why not display it publicly? 🙂

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Rev, Revisit the numbers. I think general opinion has changed.

Will
Member
Will

@WB,the moron is obsessed with thumb votes. But I’m glad the POS loves it !

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Will, I believe that you are right … and he has friends. I thought that I would engage in a little “Hogwarts magic” just for fun.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Wild Bill I could honestly care less about the vote itself. What I find humorous is that I know the exact person doing it. Someone so butt hurt and bent out of shape that he got caught engaging in hypocrisy, couldn’t own up to it, damaged his own reputation, and is so juvenile and petty that he makes it a point to attack any comment made regardless of topic. So I just have fun needling him. 🙂 After all, if they can talk about it openly because the idea that its obvious they are exposed…. I’m sure you remember the… Read more »

Will
Member
Will

@WB,that’s wonderful that he has friends. Everybody needs friends. Even Toto has friends on this site. Take care.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Wild Bill
I think you rattled him. lol

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

The Navy, you do believe? Not the Army, huh? Have any of you ever read the constitution, or just up and down votes on this backwater bubble of BS? You’ve probably never heard of it, the Army. If you were in it, it must have been the 60’s. If you can remember the 60’s you weren’t there. Privacy? And you say you are a strict originalist so you quote a clause in an amendment I know by heart and rote, like the entire document, yet you don’t understand or comprehend a word of it. Perhaps you turned into a “judicial… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

And there goes another idiot who made a fool of himself, hoping to get in a last word and faking a mic drop in hopes it will make him look good. Guess what, it doesn’t. What we have here is a fake who talked a big game and then tried to push his own opinion, failed and rage quit as a result. So he claimed to know the 4th amendment by heart, yet instead of arguing the 4th amendment text, or what the founders wrote describing what it applies to(After it was written), he instead tries to distract and jump… Read more »

I Am Become Death
Member
I Am Become Death

Not the army?

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@I Am Become Death Interesting that you would wait two weeks and come back to what is now an article no longer being talked on to try and start a conversation, but if you had legitimate reasons ok… No, the Army was not written into the Constitution because we the citizenry were supposed to be the Army, we are the “Militia” made up of every man of age and ability to bear arms for defense of our homes, state, and nation. That is the plain reading of the Constitution. The Founders had a substantial distrust of standing armies, and if… Read more »

Hydraulicpunch
Member
Hydraulicpunch

I can see the inevitability of this happening. Government and the mecia are so out of control and we have a population of misinformed and uneducated people. Watched this video ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aJh7Ye1Qvc8# ) on civil war and who would win and found it very interesting of how quickly our population could bring the government to it’s knees and with minimal bloodshed.

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

The video is a rather simplistic analysis making all the wrong assumptions to confirm a pre-existing bias. It completely ignores the lessons of the civil wars fought in the past 100 years, especially guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Take a look at how Nicolae Ceaușescu was taken down in Romania during Christmas 1989. Securitate snipers were shooting people in the streets indiscriminately for days, because they believed in the cause and had nothing to lose. Take a look at the Bosnian War with its ethnic cleansing and the snipers in Sarajevo. Take a look at the various versions of the Arab… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Hydraulicpunch I posted that video back around June or July here on ammoland as just a food for thought measure. Ironically, and Charlie Foxtrot if you go back and watch it again maybe it will have something you may consider, is the fact that the video looks at it from the position of citizens committing guerrilla warfare, not against citizenry but instead against infrastructure. It’s the same principle that we used against other major countries in the world wars. If you take out their means to refine fuel, power factories which make their weapons, cut off their ability to resupply,… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

I had a sentence that I cut out of my earlier reply before posting it. Here is the full context: “Civil wars are not about infrastructure. Civil wars are about ideologies and emotions. They are also about opportunists.” I distinguish between a revolution that overthrows a government and civil war. Political divide within the people (also within the government) can result in a civil war. Political unity among the people against the government can result in a government overthrow. I think people in gun and other forums are mostly arguing with their emotions and have no clue what the current… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charlie Foxtrot Ok, I’d like to ask you two questions then. In the American Revolution, was it just us vs the English? Or was it revolutionary separatists against the English, and against the Tories? See, the American revolution wasn’t just colonists here against the British over there, in many cases it was brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor, and at the heart of it all, English against English. Prior to the Revolutionary war, we were not a separate nation or a separate people. It was a people at war within their own nation, against themselves. That would qualify as a… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

It looks like you misunderstood me. It is not civil war or revolution. They are not exclusive terms. They just have different meanings. That’s why I distinguish between both. A civil war can certainly lead to a government overthrow or to one government overthrowing the other, but it is still a civil war and not a war of the people against an institution as shown in the video. The video is certainly not what happened in the American Revolution or the Civil War! They weren’t quick and with minimal bloodshed either, quite the opposite actually. My point is that what… Read more »

Hydraulicpunch
Member
Hydraulicpunch

In my mind infrastructure is what keeps us all fat and happy and it wouldn’t take much to throw a wrench in the gears for large population areas and create an immense amount of chaos. A for instance of major disruption in truck travel would immediately impact seven major industries, and would bring America to its knees within days due in part to “Just-In-Time” manufacturing, zero-inventory, and the fact that our modern way of life is entirely dependent upon unimpeded distribution chains. (Facts summarized from a report sourced from the newsroom of http://www.trucking.org) SEVERELY IMPACTED FROM TRUCK STOPPAGE: The Food… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Hydraulicpunch You are thinking on the right track with transport, but still limiting your thought. What are more people in the US connected to 24/7, and rely on day to day more than anything? Try and imagine what would happen if all of a sudden every single cell phone tower/broadcast points went down around the nation within a single day. Now imagine how most of the sheep react to being disconnected. If you can think of how they act when a fast food restaurant suddenly runs out of a special one day only item, try to imagine that would be… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charlie Foxtrot “The vast majority of civil wars, however, were bloody and messy, because there was political divide within the people that caused it and not the political unity against an institution, calling for a revolution.” Ok, but we did not have political unity during the revolutionary war. At the start, we had just about or a little over 3% of the populace behind the idea of overthrowing the British Government. It also took a full year from the time the fighting started for us to get fully into and behind the war. What let us take charge in the… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

As an addendum to the above While over the course of the war about 20% of the colonists remained “Loyalists”, it took a long time to win over the majority of the colonies’ populace to the cause of independence, and in all honesty the British certainly did their best to help give reasons for it. If our founders had been worried about not shedding blood or how messy it might be, how difficult or how long it might take then we wouldn’t be where we are today. When they fought, they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors.… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

@TheRevelator, can you articulate where we disagree here? I can’t! Yes, we did not have political unity during the revolutionary war. That was my point! Yes, it was messy and bloody. That was my point! Yes, that the American Revolution succeeded was rather miraculous and not a given. That was my point! Thinking that such an undertaking will be quick and with minimal bloodshed is quite naive! Thank you for agreeing with me on all these points! As for your last paragraph, I wasn’t lumping the “alt-right” in with the right. I was simply using the same argument the video… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charlie Foxtrot If you are truly in Agreement with what was said 1. Why are you trying to separate and redefine what constitutes a civil war or revolution when you are in agreement? If you are in agreement with what I said, then the idea you presented that one is bloody and messy and the other is a unified drive is nonsensical and moot. 2. Why did you try to argue with what you are admitting to agreeing with and saying at the time “You don’t understand”. 3. If you are in agreement with what I have written, then while… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

@TheRevelator, you seem to equal civil war and revolution. I don’t. I do not remember a civil war when the Berlin Wall fell, just a revolution! That difference is what you don’t seem to understand.

As for your last point, I disagree with the infrastructure argument in the sense that it assumes a populace rising up to overthrow the government in some unified fashion, which I think is not going to happen in the US. Therefore, assuming that such overthrow is quick and bloodless is rather naive.

Correct me if I misinterpreted your view.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charlie Foxtrot Now you are mischaracterizing what was said intentionally. Civil Wars and Revolution are not defined according to your whim. You also chose to not answer certain questions I asked you to answer. Would you like to state any reason why? 🙂 A civil war is nothing more than a war between citizens/subjects under the same national authority/government. It has nothing to do with Ideology as you wish to assert, it has nothing to do with combatant numbers, it has to do with allegiance and territorial boundaries. Whether you agree with it or not that is the defining attribute… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

I didn’t intentionally mischaracterize anything you said, since I specifically asked you to correct me if I misinterpreted your view!!!

The “quick and bloodless” comment is from the original post we have been discussing here all along and not from you!!!

Since you are now accusing me of lying, when I did no such thing, this discussion ends here. Good luck!

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charlie Foxtrot No, it doesn’t end there. You may choose to respond, or not to, but just because you wish to avoid further critique doesn’t give you authority to end any discussion outside of going silent. I’ve always been honest and fair with you, and that’s not changing now. The statement of what was mischaracterized was pointed out. Now here is the deal. From my first response to Hydaulicpunch, and in it where I cautioned you there was more behind that video than what you were getting, I specifically separated from his statement on “Quick and Bloodless”. When you began… Read more »

StWayne
Member
StWayne

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY — OathKeepers IS NOT calling for a civil war: they are merely making it clear where they stand on those political issues involving the unconstitutional overthrow of a duly elected president that the left is desperately trying to indict BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Anyone saying anything different is in service of the left’s ideology. I served with OathKeepers at the Trump rally in Minneapolis, MN. on Thursday 10 OCT 2019 at the Target Center, where President Trump and Vice President Pence were speaking. The only reason we were there was to support the police in a… Read more »

Core
Member
Core

Sounds more like and observation that the US is: “on the verge of a HOT civil war.” I tend to agree that we are headed in this direction sadly. I have sent communications to my representatives and legislators and petitioned them to take actions to stop the rhetoric. But the media has shown no intention on slowing the hypocrisy. What they do not realize is that there is a huge amount of US citizens like myself who support defending the US Constitution and the enforcement of Article VI (Supreme Law). My stance is that IF we do not start enforcing… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Yu lost my support with this part: “a fight by the Union against southern conservatives who demanded that the government be too small to bring an end to slavery.” That War of Northern Aggression was NOT about slavery nor was it a fight by the Union against Southern COnservatives. No, many of the sovereign states which freely JOINED the Union by ratifying the constitution long about 1789 or so, made the free decision to LEAVE that Union after a long train of abuses heaped upon them by their northern overlords. Look into the funny business the Northern states pulled regarding… Read more »

loveaduck
Member
loveaduck

Sorry, but one big element to the War of Northern Aggression was to eradicate slavery. Tell me again how the kind southern slave owners treated their charges/property with respect. Slavery was absolute evil. Were there other reasons, some not as good? Yes, for sure. And there is nothing in the Constitution against secession. So I see you as both right and wrong on this.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@duck, You should ask yourself where on the time line of the war between the states did the Emancipation Proclamation occur, and which states did the EP effect.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

I perceive two separate groups of people who threaten our nation. One group are the officials of our governments who are attempting to disarm our population. The other group is the portion of our population allowing the officials to do it. Those willing to secure our rights will not much longer be able to live with these two groups.

a.x. perez
Member
a.x. perez

Is Oath Keepers suggesting hot Civil War or are some people who may not even be members getting on their account and running off at the mouth about such a thing?

Stag
Member
Stag

Any “oath keeper” who is considering war in support of Trump is a moron. Trump is responsible for more gun control in his first two years than the previous two administrations. This war should be waged against every government employee, no matter their party affiliation, who has ever voted for legislation that violates the constitution or has ever enforced any law which does the same.

Bill
Member
Bill

It seems a little strange, in my mind, to chastise a group for showing strong opposition to unconscionable, partisan activity that happens to be allowed by the Constitution, while not well acknowledging a very wide variety of things that have been happening for a long time that clearly violate the Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendments, but also other parts, such as the original intent of the Commerce Clause, etc. So, everything is okay, and people just need to relax, right? As our rights are eroded, that can’t be any real concern, as long as it somehow fits within… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Bill, I love that first sentence. It is a really classic run on sentence!

Grim
Member
Grim

Seems oath keepers are not Constitutionalists so much as they are Trump’s army. Too bad!

Core
Member
Core

Seems you are a troll making this conclusion based on an observation? They have been around long before Trump was in politics. This type of apologetic thinking is what got our courts into the unconstitutional mess it’s in. I studied Oath Keeper’s a bit and they are mostly police and other civil servants that are protecting the US Constitution. They are very unbiased as far as what they support. When they go to a rally they are their to protect Human life and the freedoms mapped out within the US Constitution. We have to judged on actions not our fantastical… Read more »

Grim
Member
Grim

@core – always the weak ad hominem attack when you cannot refute with facts! It was an oath keeper member quoted in the article, you idiot, who conflated oath keepers with Trump.

gooder12
Member
gooder12

As a draft card carrying gun from way back I am still an Independent voter. Yep no left or right for me as I vote on the issues and the person, and never ever on A Party. We do need to take our government back, but let US do it for All Of US, not just one side or the other. That stuff reminds me of High School Gangs which I belonged to but grew out of. Free Ur Mind, Be Party Blind.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@g12, I know that phrase. Didn’t you used to go by some other name?

CDR-C
Member
CDR-C

“No one’s rights are being violated. We are not witnessing a case of the constitutionally defined process being tossed aside” – I disagree. Red flag laws, arbitrary bans on scary-looking firearms and sensible magazines, disparate impact (aka ‘unequal treatment under the law’) of well-placed violators (Hillary and her server) vs what ‘regular’ people would receive, sanctuary states / cities, refusal to cooperate with federal agencies, rampant states and localities allowing – and profiting from – sales of schedule 3 controlled substances (RICO should apply to those governments), judicial activism preventing the enforcement of immigration laws, federal agencies (IRS, DOJ maybe)… Read more »

JPM
Member
JPM

There is a difference between calling for violence and committing violence (civil war). The point is to warn, or to insight fear into the enemy (Democrats & Liberals) in order to avoid actual violence. The problem is that the Democrats and liberals are too stupid, arrogant and out-of-touch with reality to comprehend what real violence is like. If the threats or warnings are not heeded, and change is not undertaken, then the ONLY recourse is violence, which will be the last resort, but which will be absolutely and totally effective. To paraphrase Robert Heinlein; Violence, naked force, has settled more… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

I think that the “Oathkeeper” was simply making a common sense deduction. It has been obvious from the first day that Trump stepped into office that the Demoncrats were not happy with his win and have been doing everything they can to invalidate his election. They give lip service to the Constitution but ignore every provision as they can get away with it. I’m no fan of “big” government period, and I think the Constitution has been being ignored for generations in many areas, but to take an out of context statement of ONE “Oathkeeper” and suggest that all of… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

The COlonials KNEW for at least fifteen years that the “issues” with the British Crown’s management of the colonies, in violation of every one of the Charters issued by the King to the founders/pioneers of those thirteen colonies, WOULD eventually lead to open armed conflict. Paul Revere was about forty the night he took that famous ride mounted upon Brown Beauty. When he was sixteen, he began his career as a “disloyal subject” by bringing warnings to those the Brits wanted to unjustly arrest, so they could evade being taken captive and certain death. Sl he had been active in… Read more »

Ned2
Member
Ned2

Is this a New York Times article?

Mike
Member
Mike

Very dissapointed in Ammoland for publishing this tripe disguised as reason. The snarky leftist writing the article knows a lot less about Oath Keepers (I am a member) than he does about American history or the fight for liberty. OK’s abide by the law and expect others to as well. The attack on our constitution has been going on in this country over the past 3 years culminating in the attempted coup and travesty of Justice taking place in the House today. Granted, the Senate can deflect this attempt but I’m not so confident in that body to trust them… Read more »

MikeRoss
Member
MikeRoss

WTF? Read the whole Twitter thread, there’s no call for civil war. The only ones saying that are leftists deliberately misinterpreting a warning against civil war. Read the tweets, “What I said wasn’t “calling for civil war” or inciting one, as many on the left are now claiming. But it was a warning that they are pushing us towards one by their refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election and their attempt to overturn it.” “I’m not inciting a civil war. And I don’t want to see that happen. I AM warning that the political divide and distrust… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

The “GOVERNMENT” is the Constitution. We don’t want it overthrown. We want those who are empowered by it to FOLLOW it. PERIOD. They are the criminals and traitors for ignoring so much of it that it is pitiful. Start with the Dick Act that was an act of treason in 1903 as it pretty much eviscerated the 13 most important words in the whole Constitution. And the ONLY PLACE the word Necessary is used. Don’t know what it is? Figure it out! LOL!.

WhiteRose
Member
WhiteRose

Good day my brothers, & sisters….let’s hit the pause button a moment. I opine that likely most of our brethren merely want to be able to work, cloths themselves, and place food on the table for themselves and family. We all wish to be left alone to pursue our paths in this very short life period. That said it must be so dam clear that Trump got elected because of this period of our national footprint, which is on a rotting framework of elite corruption at our collective expence. We all recognise that our elective process is broken, that partisan… Read more »

Ned2
Member
Ned2

You’re a delusional moron.

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

The Constitution has been ignored for years. The average working stiff voted for Trump because they “believed” that he had their best interests at heart and still do. As far as I’m concerned…ALL POLITICIANS, except for a very small select minority, are PSYCHOPATHS in nature. They don’t give a damn about you, me, your wife, your dog or your cat. Given a chance they would stomp your face into the ground with their “law” enforcers, go home and say “What’s for dinner dear?”

OldDude49
Member
OldDude49

Dude… who picks the people we vote for? Is our political system compromised by the people picking who we the people vote for? Is it possible the voter base deep down inside are starting to believe the system is no longer supporting we the people? Could that be why Trump got elected? A old saying… just because something is legal does not make it RIGHT! Could the Oath Keepers see something that justifies the proceeding statement? The voting system in at least one state (Ca.) has been compromised radically and pretty much guarantees a one party rule system where none… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

You want to see who picks the people we vote for? Look up “The Elite, Bill Hicks” on Youtube.

hippybiker
Member
hippybiker

Get it straight, Gregg. The war of northern aggression was wagged against the south and it’s civilian population because the southern States wished to secede from the Union. Slavery was a political argument. The real reason was that the southern States were being strangled by unfair trade restrictions and massive tariffs by the north. Furthermore, dishonest Abe only freed the slaves In the Rebel States. In the rest of the country, it was business as usual. As a matter of fact, most of the biggest Slave markets were in the north eastern States, and only 1% of southerners owned slaves.… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

THUMBS UP x 21.

Will
Member
Will

@hippybiker,I will never know where that “Honest Abe” bullshit came from ! Lincoln was a total POS !

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

Apparently texts misconstrued the “Honest Abe” comment, it should have been written, “Honest? Abe?”, as in are you serious/telling the truth? I have mentioned that point about the Proclamation Declaration to many people that have only learned about it in school. Lincoln issued it with the idea that it would foment slave revolts in the Secessionist States. It had zero to do with freeing slaves, since as you stated, if that was the goal, he would have written it to apply to the entire nation and all of its territories, including slave-holding non-secessionist states, but he did not. When he… Read more »

Cyph
Member
Cyph

When I see Americans claim that slavery wasn’t a primary reason for the civil war, I see Americans just like the far left Social Justice Warriors. I see people that are so riddled with guilt and fear of the ramifications of the choices of their ancestors; but unlike the white-guilt riddled members of the far left, who feel they need to be punished for actions they played no part in, the far right idiots have chosen simply to pretend it wasn’t real (see no evil). I see the products of a decimated public educational system that has been de-funded to… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

My ancestors were not slave owners and I am from the North. Read and learn our history and the truth about the reasons for the Civil War. Look at the reasons Lincoln gave for attacking the CSA; it wasn’t because of slavery. Look at his Proclamation Declaration, who it affected, and his reason for issuing it. He issued it in the hope of fomenting slave revolts in the CSA. If he wanted to free the slaves, why did he only “free” the slaves in the area he did not have control of, instead of writing it to cover the entire… Read more »

Richard
Member
Richard

The Tariff of 1857 was passed by representatives from most all states, including the South, except Pennsylvania and perhaps a couple of others. in short, after 1857 ans until until 1860 the country experiences “tariff peace”. The punitive 70% Morrill Tariff of 1861 (signed by Buchanan just before Lincoln was inaugurated) would never have passed Congress if representatives from six southern states had not left Congress after their states passed Ordinances of Secession. In summary, tariffs were not a major issue when Lincoln was elected. The Slavery issue brought about the War. Read what Southerners themselves said at the time.… Read more »

Some guy
Member
Some guy

Were this an actual impeachment, I would agree that a call to arms was premature. This is not an impeachment, this is a coup attempt. Actually the second coup attempt in 3 years. This coup is based upon falsehoods cooked up by democrat/antifa traitors Schiff, Brennan,and the mysterious “whistlblower”. The previous attempt was based upon falsehoods concocted by DNC/antifa traitors colluding with the governments of England Austrailia, and Italy(an act of war).
In light of these facts, it is time to cut the treasonous democrat/antifa cancer from the body of America.

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

Yet, I don’t see you in the news “cutting the treasonous democrat/antifa cancer from the body of America.”

By the way, you are using the same language that was used by the Nazis and the communists. Both wanted to cut the cancer of society by committing mass murder.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Ilhan Omar, at a recent CAIR meeting, said “Burn America DOWN!”
Not one American cares.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

1. Bill Clinton sent his FBI murder squad to shoot, gas & burn alive American men, women, children and infants at a church in Waco. 2. Bill Clinton sent his FBI murder squad to Ruby Ridge to kill a family for cutting a barrel 1/4″ too short after an FBI agent paid Randy Weaver to do so. 3. All across the country anti-American totalitarian democrats institute unconstitutional ‘gun control laws’. 4. In Malheur Oregon, the communist democrats shot & murdered Americans. 5. The democrat’s fascist ‘antifa’ communist terrorists attack and beat Americans, drag people from their cars and beat them… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

The Oath Keepers distanced themselves from the Malheur Wildlife excursion. I am pretty sure you would have fitted right in with the rest of the crew that was there, numerous of which were FBI snitches and valor thieves.

Yes, LaVoy Finicum was murdered. The whole occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was a stupid idea and badly executed by people who had no clue. The locals did not want these idiots there.

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

Randy Weaver was a personal friend of mine (and still is for that matter) and we were visiting together at my home in Arkansas when he was living in Bergman. I asked him about the 1/4″ story and he said, “Hell no, I cut it off right in front of the hand guard”. So put that to rest.

Ej harbet
Member
Ej harbet

Pretty blatant violation of the nfa unless it had a 17.75″ handguard aka foreend,lol
Regardless what happened to the weaver family was a attrocity! Rrepeal nfa!

RoyD
Member
RoyD

I don’t see how Bill Clinton could have, “sent his FBI murder squad to Ruby Ridge to kill a family for cutting a barrel 1/4″ too short after an FBI agent paid Randy Weaver to do so.”, considering that the Ruby Ridge event happened months before Clinton even won the election much less assumed the position of POTUS.

RoyD
Member
RoyD

Perhaps you will someday realize the difference between making a case and slinging shit hoping it will stick. One helps you and the other detracts; at least when the audience has intelligent thinking skills. Perhaps this gives some insight into your opinion of the folks here at Ammoland.

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

Ok, to everyone, but most importantly the author…. Bias and opinion do not constitute facts. It is unfortunate that what I see here is a deliberate attempt to falsely identify what is being said. Note, the article at least did note that the Oath keepers did say America is on the “Verge”. The problem with that is that the author titled his article as saying they are calling for it. Unfortunately tensions in the country on both sides are very high, and very hot right now. Greg Camp, the way you presented this article was wrong and perhaps badly intentioned.… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

As an adendum, What I am criticising from the author is not holding people accountable for their own statements and words. Rather, it was the conflict between his title, the evidence he presented, and his ultimate argument.

Short form, he let bias creep in. If Greg does wish to clarify his statements, I welcome him to. No arm no foul. As it stands, if one wants to call out hypocrisy, you have to make sure your argument is entirely sound with no room for errors.

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

I don’t follow the cult of personality, as it has killed tens of millions of people in the last century. I follow the Constitution, independent of a Dear Leader’s hissy fits. Unless President Trump does something really stupid, he will be impeached, not removed and reelected. He will be the first President to be reelected after being impeached, showing that the House was wrong. Most people talking about civil war have no idea what it means. Are you ready to shoot your neighbors, friends and family members in the face? It won’t be glorious. It will be bloody, messy and… Read more »

TheRevelator
Member
TheRevelator

@Charlie Foxtrot.

I’m with you. Sadly, what I think happened here is a biased article was written(Towards Oath Keepers). I shall explain why shortly.

By the by, it’s interesting that some people who do follow the cult of personality stated that there was “no F***ing way they would not vote for trump, or stay home in 2020”, and just a few short days later were trying to make it look like they were tough on Trump, and he would pay a heavy price politically. Quite the flip flop, huh?

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Your democrat cowardice is immense.
You would gladly kneel to the tyrant. Maybe you will catch a stray at the onset.

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

LOL. Chest thumper! Loud mouths like you are typically nowhere to be found when the shit actually hits the fan.

Some guy
Member
Some guy

Stop wasting time addressing this piece of antifa garbage. STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

For the life of me, I read some common sense in your post and see all kinds of thumbs down, which I’m sure I’ll experience for this statement. Makes no sense. SOMEONE isn’t paying attention to the thoughts you are conveying.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@CL, Charlie wrote about three different things allowing everyone to find something to agree with and something to disagree with. Particularly his prognostications.

kali7595
Member
kali7595

“All of this is to say that the process currently going on in the House of Representatives is according to the Constitution that the Oath Keepers claim to support.” What is going on in congress is not according to the constitution. There has been no official inquiry/investigation called and that is because then the Dems would be cross-examined by the Republicans in the house and there would be forced transparency. They are holding a mock trial behind closed doors, not allowing the Republicans in the house to be part of the investigation, and are leaking bits of info to the… Read more »

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

Please show me the text in the Constitution that says that the House needs to have a impeachment inquiry vote? It doesn’t exist! The argument about the House investigation being unconstitutional is nonsensical!

The House is holding an impeachment investigation in secret and with selective releases of information. That is politically partisan and unfair, but not unconstitutional. The trial, by the way is in the Senate, not the House!

The House impeaching President Trump therefore means absolutely nothing!

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

You speak just like a communist democrat. You wet your panties and run away at the mention of a war to free Americans from the communist democrats.
You would be better served at Mediaite or in a restroom at Target.
“Charlie Foxtrot” the coward that has never been in the military.
It is to laugh.

Charlie Foxtrot
Member
Charlie Foxtrot

You speak like a nut job that doesn’t know what he is talking about! You go girl!

RoyD
Member
RoyD

Hey, CF, he has improved and I will settle for that. Maybe you have a short memory.

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

What am I missing?

Greg K
Member
Greg K

Saying, “Civil War is on the horizon,” is not the same as “Calling for Civil War.”

Greg K
Member
Greg K

Oath Keepers
‏ @Oathkeepers
Sep 30

“And I stand by my statements. What I said wasn’t “calling for civil war” or inciting one, as many on the left are now claiming. But it was a warning that they are pushing us towards one by their refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election and their attempt to overturn it.”