Majority of Americans Want Militia Groups Outlawed

Are the ACORN operatives and the thirty-eight czars in the Administration and the fifth columnists within the leftist wing of the Congress some sort of freedom loving Constitutionalists, or are the Oath Keepers the true Constitutionalists and American patriots in this head to head comparison by CNN? Those of us who served in the armed forces and/or law enforcement (I did both) swore in very similar oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In the case of the armed forces, we also swore to obey [lawful] orders from the president. The implication was that the president’s orders be lawful, just as the orders from a superior officer must be … lawful. Are the president and his various unelected/unconfirmed czars fearful of some unlawful/un-Constitutional act being challenged by the military , law enforcement, and the American people? As an American citizen, I would hope that there are conscientious warriors and police in our midst to serve as the “first line” of resistance against a tyrannical move on the American people by a desperate and self serving government . It is not enough to say that there is no immediate and pending legislation to disarm the American people, spy on them, and ultimately launch into them with dictatorial might. All of those things were already proposed in one form or another, and are indeed being performed subtly by the thirty-eight presidential appointed czars that were never confirmed through the legislative process. It looks like the Obama government and its supporters in the Congress have formed their own thug regime answerable to no one. It looks like they are worried about how their actions will be viewed and challenged by a righteously distrustful citizenry.

There are a number of slants in the video which appear to be intentional. First of all, the premise of the Oath Keepers is valid in that the oaths taken support the *lawful* orders of the president - whoever he/she may be.

This is an important distinction in the oaths taken, as they limit obedience to those actions which are lawful by U.S. law and the Geneva Convention. Among several, there are two examples which remind that all of us of the need to be mindful.

1. The interment of American Citizens of Japanese decent during WWII.

2. The massacre at My Lai by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam.

Both of these are the results of following orders blindly. In the first one, American *Citizens* were jailed essentially because of their ethnicity: not for any illegal action(s). In the second, more than 500 *noncombatant* men, women and children were slaughtered . The foundation and premise of our legal system is the individual knowledge of what is legal and what is not. Jailing someone, or outright killing because of fear and nothing else is patently wrong and illegal.

Another slant is in the questioning:

"Should armed groups such as the Oath Keepers be outlawed in the United States?"

Per se, the Oath Keepers are not an "armed group". Mr. Rhodes is quite clear on this. Should individual members of the group choose to bear arms, that is an individual decision. Note that there are groups which do bear watching, but not solely because they are armed.

A study of 300 people out of 3,000,000 citizens? That's .01% of the population. Who would publish study results on a sample size that small? Obviously someone with an Agenda. It would be interesting to know the demographics of those that responded. If we're going to use this study, we must understand that 46% of the respondents don't feel any safer or less safe because of the militia existence. Also please remember that there is no right to feel safe in this country.

On a side note, no American could want militia's outlawed. Militia's are established by the Constitution of the United States. George Mason, one of our founding fathers, commented on the militia as follows. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." So those people that answered that militia's should be outlawed don't understand their role in our Constitutional Republic.

If I am extremist because I believe in and try to live my Oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, then I plead GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Don Earl: Have you served in the military ? I have (retired), and I did not forget nor forsake my Oath simply because of retirement . I took an Oath to the People and the Constitution, not the president. I swore to obey LAWFUL orders; not to enforce any political agenda. In fact, members of the Armed Forces have an absolute obligation to refuse to carry out unlawful/unconstitutional orders.

CNN, that bastion of honesty and politically neutral reportage, is about as honest and objective as a lynch mob, along with most of the so-called "mainstream media ". I'll make up my own mind, thank you very much, and do it with whatever factual data I research.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is nothing but a bunch of anti-gun race -baiting bigots, casting a racial aspect upon all facets of society (just like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP).

TSgt Bruce A. Beatty
USAF (Retired)
Oath Keeper
3%er

Open your mind and say "aaahhhhh".