9
9
0
For this question I am not talking about the term it self, but rather the group, Oath Keepers (http://www.oathkeepers.org). If yah, are you a member and/or why do you support them? If nah, what makes you say so?
Update: I am not sponsoring nor trying to promote Oath Keepers on Rally Point. This question is not an invitation to join Oath Keepers.org. I am just curious about everyone's opinions about the group itself. This is merely a question I posed as a way to gain insight into how other service members and veterans see the group.
Update: I am not sponsoring nor trying to promote Oath Keepers on Rally Point. This question is not an invitation to join Oath Keepers.org. I am just curious about everyone's opinions about the group itself. This is merely a question I posed as a way to gain insight into how other service members and veterans see the group.
Posted in these groups: 
Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 32
17
17
0
I've met several. They get VERY close to "enemies...domestic" in just about every conversation I've had. Paranoid, uneducated "Constitutional Scholars" who think violence is an acceptable strategy to forcing their particular brand of freedom (which is oddly limited to their opinions, religious beliefs and ideology) on the rest of the country.
So no.
So no.
(17)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT Kevin Brown, What I mean is they firmly believe that their particular political ideology is so correct that it would justify armed insurrection, circumvention of the Constitutionally outlined avenues to effect political change and some rather novel ideas on what constitutes freedom. In essence, they would fall under domestic enemies that we all swore an oath to defend against (oh the irony!).
I've heard that many chapters aren't like that, and that may very well be true. However, I find narrative moving in those circles a little concerning. Paranoia, a sense that they "speak" for a vast majority of the country (The most recent number being 87%) and a constant consumption of ideologically driven media are pretty common themes.
If they were ideologically neutral, I would be slightly more comfortable with the idea, but they are decidedly not and any change they brought about would be decidedly disenfranchising for a large portion of the country.
I've heard that many chapters aren't like that, and that may very well be true. However, I find narrative moving in those circles a little concerning. Paranoia, a sense that they "speak" for a vast majority of the country (The most recent number being 87%) and a constant consumption of ideologically driven media are pretty common themes.
If they were ideologically neutral, I would be slightly more comfortable with the idea, but they are decidedly not and any change they brought about would be decidedly disenfranchising for a large portion of the country.
(4)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
The problem with the Oath Keepers has always been that there is absolutely NO vetting of anyone who has wanted to join. On it's face, with it's pledge to (continue to) uphold the Constitution and disobey orders that actually are contrary to the Constitution, it started out well. Without vetting however, ANYONE could join and even after I did, it soon became apparent that the recruitment goal was about money, and in hindsight, not surprisingly so! So I had said goodbye to them a long time ago.
They should have required, at least a DD Form 214 (redacted SSN, etc), or a photo-copy of police credetials or some sort of evidence that would have kept out the nut cases.
They should have required, at least a DD Form 214 (redacted SSN, etc), or a photo-copy of police credetials or some sort of evidence that would have kept out the nut cases.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
No. Everything I've seen or heard from them is the very brand of tyrrany they claim to fight against. They're paranoid beyond delusional.
(11)
(0)
10
10
0
I'm voting "nah", but I do have mixed opinions.
On the one hand, I support their core ideal that they will not break the oath to defend the constitution, and therefore would not support the disarming of American Citizens, or the stripping of any of the other rights granted by it.
On the other hand, I've seen some really backwards ways of claiming to support the Constitution that border on, if not outright contradict, the very ideals of the Constitution.
Overall, I arrived at "nah" because for them to be taken seriously, they would need to unify, organize, and 100% fall in line with the Constitution for them to be anything other than a potential danger to the very Constitution they swear to uphold.
On the one hand, I support their core ideal that they will not break the oath to defend the constitution, and therefore would not support the disarming of American Citizens, or the stripping of any of the other rights granted by it.
On the other hand, I've seen some really backwards ways of claiming to support the Constitution that border on, if not outright contradict, the very ideals of the Constitution.
Overall, I arrived at "nah" because for them to be taken seriously, they would need to unify, organize, and 100% fall in line with the Constitution for them to be anything other than a potential danger to the very Constitution they swear to uphold.
(10)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google