Oath Keepers

Nowhere does that term appear in the article. Chuck Norris wrote the article.

Try to stay on topic gramps.

The inferred point of that thread reads here:

Norris pointed out that if police are expected to enforce the curfews, they too could become stricken with coronavirus

Now it is quite obvious – or it most definitely should be – that you came on this thread to chastise me and point out that I committed a wrong.

Definitely not true at all.

What I stated from the thread was what I believe the author (Norris) was trying to confer to the reader in that his concern about the officers getting this virus was of great concern.

What becomes of society when the officers are in a hold due to their inability to perform their duties as they become seriously ill? You have got to come to the realization that this virus spares noone regardless of their social standing.

Gatlin: Now it is quite obvious – or it most definitely should be – that you came on this thread to chastise me and point out that I committed a wrong.

Goldilucky: Definitely not true at all.

Okay – I can accept that.

Goldilucky: What I stated from the thread was what I believe the author (Norris) was trying to confer to the reader in that his concern about the officers getting this virus was of great concern.

Furthermore, officers [police] are already getting this virus and more will continue to do so eah day – as also will be the States’ National Guard called up and the U.S. Army personnel from the Corps of Engineers.

How much more under “Martial Law” – something I believe will not happen – can the virus be a threat than it is already” I will listen …

Goldilucky: What becomes of society when the officers are in a hold due to their inability to perform their duties as they become seriously ill?

Goldilucky: You have got to come to the realization that this virus spares none regardless of their social standing.

Realizing that the summary is used for most important emphasis of a point, I am therefore going repost for you here the last four sentences in this article authored by Carmine Sabia and then ask questions.

Is there any American freedom more fundamental than the right to worship when and where we want to?
No one is saying that some restrictions are not needed, but to many, it appears we have given the government too much power too quickly.
Americans are playing along for now, but the question is how much longer are they going to allow these infringements to stand?
And is the government going to “give” all of our rights back after the nation’s mayors and governors have spent a month acting as kings?
That should never be a question we have to ask in America.
But it may be the most important one.

Now, after careful consideration, will you please tell me if martial law is the primary concern expressed or is Norris’ “concern about the officers getting this virus” the primary concern of this article?

Then I will ask you again to explain to me why you felt me bringing up the Oath Keeps and their pledge to deal with martial law was uncalled for.

Rspectfully …

From Deckard's thread I did not conclude there was any mention of Oath Keepers.

The full op-ed by Norris makes no mention of it either.

Will coronavirus lead to martial law?

Gatlin is desperately trying to discredit Norris as well as the author who wrote about him.

Why? Who knows - but it is SOP for the disinfo-bot Tater.

What Gatlin is “desperately” trying to do is find out if the Oath Keepers are still active to “protect us.” And I figured if anyone would know, then you would.

Gatlin could easily look up that information on his own. We all know that.

Chuck's obviously suffering the latter stages

So says the leftist baby murderer. Sick.

Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.

They are right that statement. Those who disagree are like red coats.

Now, after careful consideration, will you please tell me if martial law is the primary concern expressed or is Norris’ “concern about the officers getting this virus” the primary concern of this article?

That is an easy one. From Deckards link to Norris's actual article. He says "most critical" So it is primarily about martial law.

And most critical of all, as I'm sure it is being pondered in the rooms of the White House as well as the corridors of Congress: How long can we allow Americans, who are a freedom-loving people and patriots, to be under "lockdown" in their own homes without working? Many scientists and specialists are even now calling the federal government to a five-week national lockdown? Do we expect the majority to simply comply? Will they have the resources and wherewithal to go the distance without resistance?

Do we not eventually expect small rebellions or even massive ones to occur in the not-so-distant future if growing requests for lockdowns and deprivations persist? And what will it take for state officials to tip over the morphing milieu of chaos to create the need themselves (based upon the pretense of protection) to call on military intervention and enact martial law? Does that really sound so far-fetched when freedom-loving Americans across our union are being asked to sacrifice their wages, their welfare and stay confined to their homes for weeks on end?

But Gatlin would find no humor in doing that on his own whereas he would fail to continually point out that you support this anti-government American organization associated with the militia movement and once viewed them as your almighty Savior.

Of course, to you they are anti-government - to you and the SPLC.

Any person or group who stands for the Constitution must be a suspected terrorist hell-bent on taking over the country, right?

Groups like Oathkeepers exist thanks in part due to cowering sheep like you.

As far as viewing them as my almighty Savior...Just more of your delusional bullshit.

I have no absolutely disagreement. Ergo, I am not “like a red coat” – Correct?

Well if you have absolutely no disagreement then the question is answered.

“… to call on military intervention and enact martial law? Does that really sound so far-fetched …”

It does to me.

Military intervention is now already occurring in numerous instances across the country without “enacting martial law.” There is evidence of this everyplace. Martial law has not been needed for military intervention.

I am in agreement with Marco Rubio on this.

Does this make me a “red coat?” 😊

Respectfully

WRONG …

Whew.

Thanks …

I am going to now become busy ...

Later ...

Now, after careful consideration, will you please tell me if martial law is the primary concern expressed or is Norris’ “concern about the officers getting this virus” the primary concern of this article?

Then I will ask you again to explain to me why you felt me bringing up the Oath Keeps and their pledge to deal with martial law was uncalled for.

From this article I sensed the primary concern was martial law.

I never said anything about bringing up the oath keepers as being uncalled for.

Who are the real oath keepers anyways? When the President shuts down the country due to dire situations like this, he has the power to designate such powers and duties to the governors of the United States to deploy troops (National Guards) to keep the peace.

Where have I ever said that the Oath Keepers are anti-government – Show me. You cannot – you definitely cannot because I have never stated that. You are of course right about the SPLC – Only saying that the Oath Keepers are anti-

Your quote:

You used to give me hell in those olden days for continuing to expose them for what they were and calling the attention to everyone that they had been labeled as one of the largest radical antigovernment groups in the U.S. at that time.

*****

Perhaps the most preposterous accusation is calling the Oath Keepers “anti-government”. When the organization was founded, only actual Oath Takers (law enforcement & military) were considered full members. By their very nature, the body of Oath Keepers was made up of men and women who still are or were EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I am the current Constable of Hood County, Texas – Precinct 2. I am a public servant OF the government. Neither I, nor the Oath Keepers as an organization, are anti-government. The U.S. Constitution, the document this organization holds as sacrosanct, is the foundational document of our GOVERNMENT.

The definition of Militia, according to Webster’s Dictionary is:

a. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b. a body of citizens organized for military service

2. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The Oath Keepers is not a militia organization. Most members of the organization could be considered as potential members of the Constitutional Militia, but it has no association to their membership in Oath Keepers. All able-bodied male citizens in our country make up the Constitutional Militia, to be called upon in times of need.

There are also many members of Oath Keepers that would NOT be considered potential members of the Constitutional Militia, because we welcome many disabled veterans and peace officers among our membership.

While the Oath Keepers, as an organization, is not part of the Militia, we don’t consider a legally organized militia as a negative. Militia is not a bad word. The founders considered the Militia as an integral part of the defensive structure of our nation.

hoodcountytoday.com/oath-...-an-insiders-perspective/

Furthermore, I must say that your “copy and paste” benign effort to defend the Oath Keepers

Merely injecting some facts into the mix.

I will still get back to you with a follow-up on the other post when I can find time – Be patient.

No thanks - you've completely taken over the thread with your own agenda.