Home | About | Donate

White Guys Toting Loaded Assault Weapons Roam Streets of Ferguson and It's All Cool


#1

White Guys Toting Loaded Assault Weapons Roam Streets of Ferguson and It's All Cool

Providing what every racial tinderbox in America needs, a group of heavily armed, cartridge-strapped, bullet-proof-vested, white militiamen, aka Oath Keepers, took to patrolling the streets of Ferguson amidst protests marking one year since the killing of Michael Brown. Police arrested 150 peaceful protestors - including three journalists, several black men they pepper-sprayed, manhandled and (mistakenly) accused of being armed, and the girl above - but left the white guys alone.


#2

It seems the Ferguson police are ambivalent. Should they continue with their routine extremely violent racism arresting every black male or female they don't like for whatever bizarre 'reason', or should they allow KKK or SS type self-annointed "oath keepers" whose oath is only to themselves, to roam the streets armed to the teeth, so it is even easier for the Ferguson police to practice their routine ordinary extremely violent racism arresting every black male or female they don't like for whatever silly nonsense idea - in the community these police have spent decades assuring that racism will be enforced with the arms of whomever the police arm and with whatever arms and for whatever unknown reasons or silly ideas they can concoct?


#3

I think it made abundantly clear, given how these same Oathkeepers went to protect the Bundy Ranch AGAINST the police just where these racists are coming from with their "right to bear arms". Blacks with guns would be shot on site.

These Oathkeepers ARE very much like those first Militias that existed several hundred years ago , that being formed as Militias to keep the Blacks in their place. Another thing I find so very interesting is people like Sean Hannity. I watched him give an editorial where he suggested blacks to blame for being shot because they would not immediately obey Police orders while In another Editorial on the Bundy Ranch he was ranting about how Bundy and the armed oathkeepers with him were defending their constitutional rights against an oppressive government.

This example should make it abundantly clear , even to the most stubborn of peoples that this 2nd Amendment does nothing to defend "The Constitutional Rights of Americans" and in fact is still being used as a tool of oppression through the threat of violence.


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#5

The "Oath Keepers"! From the country that gave the world the Keystone Cops. I hadn't appreciated that the Keystone Cops movies were a Reality Show.


#6

yo Barack what a big difference having a black man as pres. just proves that its the power behind the throne that runs things.i cant wait to see what happens when Hilaryous gets in- an all feminist round up? no jobs for women? homemaker or die vigilantes?

amerika land of the free to be incarcerated (more than any country in the world) and home of the brave s.s. fascist nazi gestapo brown shirted heavily armed ferguson subhuman stasi tonton macoute thugs. (did i miss anything?) NOTE: THESE ARE NOT POLICE.THEY HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO BE CALLED OR CONSIDERED "POLICE".


#7

Where is the DOJ? Are they going to flee the brownshirts like they did in Nevada?


#8

These are paramilitary types right out of the ranks of the army and the police. They're untouchable. And they're out there ostensibly only to protect businesses and residential buildings from looters and arsonists. The problem is that it's probably a matter of time before someone is shot and killed by these "defenders of the Constitution", and then what???


#9

These same white guys have shown up at women's healthcare clinics. Many moons ago I came in contact with these types. They are ignorant, insecure, fat bellied bullies who are armed and get their rocks off shoving women around. That is until our men showed up and then these butt heads quickly slunk away.
This is in your face racism and misogyny, which go hand and hand. Those who ‘choose’ to ignore this treatment of their fellow citizens do so at their own peril.

I do not give a flying fk if you are a liberal, a progressive, or a peace –loving kissy-kissy face pacifist or whatever. If other white, Hispanic or purple people do not start standing by our black and brown brothers and sisters in these horrific struggles…then we will all go down.

This is our country and no armed unbadge bully in the presents of law enforcement is going stand there and intimidate me. This is my country too! You can only die once, so what are you going to stand for while you are alive? What will you allow to happen to others? Quit quietly just sitting on the sidelines. That is what they want.

If they bring a gun....you bring a German Shepard...or a savage Chihuahua. Plenty of dogs in the dog pounds need the work. You want people to get involved....Wait until they see dogs getting shot.


#10

Bringing a loaded semi automatic to a rally is advertising the intent to use. I am wondering what will happen when the inevitable shooting occurs.


#11

Not so. They were formed for defence.

Prince Estabrook was a full member of John Parker's militia company, and one of the 39 who turned out that morning of 19th April in time to meet, and be shot at by, the 700 Redcoats quick-marching to Concord.

One of Washington's staff wrote that "there are in the Massachusetts regiment some Negroes [and] such is also the case with the Regiments from other colonies [such as] Rhode Island has a number of Negroes". Estimates are that 5-8% of the Continental soldiers (i.e. the Regulars) at the Battle of Monmouth were Black. A French officer noted in a letter that most of the Rhode Island regiment seemed to be "Negroes or Mulattos" and that they looked just as tough and determined as the Whites.

Many Black folk got effed over after the war, denied the freedom they'd been promised, but some Black folk did okay...especially if they'd been born free, as Agrippa Hull was.

Hull served through the war, the last 4 years as an orderly to Gen. Tadeusz Kościuszko. Then, his Honorable Discharge signed personally by Washington, he settled in Stockbridge and became a landowner, militia member, and solid citizen. He was one of the few Revolutionary soldiers to live long enough (he died in 1848, aged 89) to have his photo taken: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e0/70/bb/e070bb4f313f8eda6caea4738a7588ff.jpg


#12

Amin to that.


#14

I expected as much from you given your history if pretending slavery never existed in the 13 colonies and your prefence to believe that those "founding fathers" were merely concerned about "liberty and jutice'.

Militias predate the revolutionary war. They go right back to your Pilgrims getting off thier boats and slaughtering the natives. They extend to Militias used to patrol plantations in the south prior to the revolution and used to hunt down and capture run away slaves. They were also used to make raids into Spanish owned florida for slaves , those first raids made against the First nations peoples and the latter made to recapture "escaped property" right up to and after the US revolution.

That these armed militias were later used against the British does not demonstrate in any way shape or form that they were formed because OF the british.

If you look to latter history, that being when the West settled , those settlers went out armed and willing and ready to kill to wrest lands away they deemed their own by natural right. They even came up into Canada and formed themselves into a militia during the Gold Rush on the fraser River because the Chilcotin dared to refuse them onto their lands.

Those "settlers" that than went into texas used much the same tactics, killing the Inhabitants then claiming that the Government of mexico (which had banned slavery in Texas) was interfering with their own rights to own slaves. (yes contrary to what your books say texas Independence from mexico was also motivated in part out of the desire of those "patriots" to exercise their right to own slaves just as the Southern Colonies would only enter the Revolution against the crown on the condition that slavery be enshrined in the Constitution,)


#16

Yes and it seems to me that "pick and choose" is also predicated upon the skin color of the person in question.

This should not come as a surprise given Thomas Jefferson , in writing all men are created equally , owned slaves and did not believe they warranted any rights. As "patriots" and "defenders of the consitution" they are every bit as phony as Barack Obama being a man of peace.

It interesting to note that the First gun laws in the 13 Colonies were passed in 1640 and prhibited any black from owning guns. These laws extended well past the American revolution and were not removed due to the second amendment.

This did not extend to just guns. Laws were passed that called for the lashing of any black in posession of a gun, club or sword or any such weapon that can be used to defend himself. That second amendment was intended to ensure only whites were armed.


#17

Are you nuts?

It's even more interesting to research that claim and find it bogus. See Breen, T.H. and Innes, S. "Myne Owne Ground" : Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676


#18

Virginia was a SLAVE state. Thomas jefferson owned SLAVES in Virginia. Any source that tries to pretend there freedom for blacks in Virginia is bogus. Where there blacks that had at some point been freed? Yes as there was in virtually every state but that does not translate to Virginia being a free state.

Further to that and the issues of Militias it was the Virginia militia that George Washington headed when he was still fighting for the british crown and it was with that Virginia Militia that he came to be known as "destroyer of towns" by the first nations peoples. These Militia members were a murderous lot who would go into battle wearing boots made out of the First nations peoples thye had murdered so do not give me this bogus claim that Militias not formed until they were used to fight the british.

You have ever been an apologist for slavery in the USA.

http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm


#19

I totally love you for this post. No need to get a restraining order or anything, I'll stop at that...:) Nice work.


#20

You don't read very well, do you. I said they were formed for defence. Whom were they defending against? As I didn't think I needed to specify, at the start they mostly defended against the Americans, first when they got stroppy at the way the Europoids claimed to own the land forever rather than just while they were using it, and later when some sided with the French and made raids from Canada during the so-called French & Indian War.

The slave states got crazy early, forbidding enslaved people and Americans from having arms. But ill-doers never feel safe, so pretty soon they forbid even free Black people and friendly Americans from arms.

Virginia was probably the craziest, but there was plenty enough blame to go around.

And of course, since ill-doers never feel safe, they always try to game the system when they get into trouble: when Whites were in short supply during the Revolution, rather than quit revoluting they did recruit and arm Black folk and Americans, promising them freedom if they survived, money for all the Redcoats they killed, and support on the public nickel if they were disabled.

But Prince Estabrook was one of the very few who got anything for the sacrifices they made: he was one of the 39 Lexington militia who turned out in time to meet the Redcoats on 19th April '75, was wounded in the exchange of fire, served in the militia through the war, did get his freedom at the end, lived the rest of his life uneventfully, and was laid to rest in a churchyard along with the White militia who served with him.


#22

Good lords. Just because there an exception or two you can dig up, it does not take away from the fact that the Militias in the Colonies were originally formed to kill indians and supress slave revolts , long before they were used against the british.

The Colonists were slave owners and they massacared the natives. That is a simple fact.

There were also Jews that served in the German Military. It hardly means this proves the Germans were not Anti_semitic and that some of those that served in the German Military might have recieved honors it hardly takes away from the nature of that fascist Government and its rulers.

The first slave rebellions in the colonies date back to the 17th century and were dealt with by Militias. Their purpose was to maintain white power and laws were passed throughout the Colonies that forbid Blacks from owning weapons. Your exceptions do not take away from that.

And no those Militias were not formed for defenseThe french and Indian wars were over who would control the Ohio. The French were not settling it. The Colonists in the 13 colonies WERE. The Tribes in that region were not resisting French expansion, they were resiting the enroachemnt of settlers form the colonies into those regions. Yes you can come up with some examples where Native tribes might have fought alongside the British rather then the French but that demonstrates nothing. All those Militias were defending was what they thought as their god given right to take the lands of the Ohio as their own.

In fact in the Declaration of independence one of the grievances made was regarding the crowns decision to change the nature of their dealings with the Native populations and to turn over the Governence of the Ohio territories to what had been New France . Mr Jefferson implied these lands belonged to the colonists by right and based that right on those colonists wanting that land as being English.


#23

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.