No products in the cart.

News

The Police Can’t Save You!

Screen Shot 2016-04-26 at 5.00.14 PM

This week’s executioner style murders in Ohio, along with every mass shooting, so far this year, has only underscored the fact that the police simply cannot keep you safe in an active shooter situation. We must take action ourselves, by getting a conceal carry permit (if you are able) and more importantly get good quality training with your weapon! Just as you would learn to use and practice with any new tool. This is the first of many video shorts that I will be putting out a couple of times a week on current events and various news items. Watch for them only at oathkeepers.org.

Jason Van Tatenhove

jason@oathkeepers.org

If you believe in the mission of the Oath Keepers please join us today or donate today!

support-banner

Click banner to join Oath Keepers Click this link to donate today!

Get Storable food for your family and support Oath Keepers!

0

Stewart Rhodes

Stewart is the founder and National President of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump. He is a former firearms instructor, former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff, and served as a volunteer firefighter in Montana. Stewart previously wrote the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine. Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

5 comments

  1. Jason, there is just one thing wrong with your message. You see, no one who serves within our governments – state and general – were ever delegated ANY type of authority over Americans being armed in any way they wanted, with any type of weapon as long as they are trained on them and SAFE in their behavior, with as many weapons as they can get.

    Those who serve within our governments have NO LAWFUL authority over the American people and their choice of weapons or how they want to carry them.

    (Yeah, quotes again, please READ THEM.)

    Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

    The words ” not be infringed” makes it a forbidden to those who serve within our governments to have ANY say so.

    Version sent from the House of Representatives to the Senate Aug 14, 1888: “A well regulated Militia, being composed of the body of the people being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;” “Free State” in the language of the times referred to a free country; not to any governmental entity, but to the people themselves.”

    Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and EVERY TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, ARE THE BIRTH-RIGHT OF AN AMERICAN… THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.”

    You know how everyone talks about things being reversed, backwards? Well, gun control under the US Constitution is the people controlling what those in government are allowed to use and when they are allowed to use them. The US Constitution makes it very clear that those who serve within our governments are REQUIRED to use the Militias for:
    — Enforcing the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    — Enforcing and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protecting the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “suppressing Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon… If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION UNDOUBTEDLY IS, THAT THE PEOPLE, FROM WHOM THE MILITIA MUST BE TAKEN, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, AND THEY NEED NO PERMISSION OR REGULATION OF LAW FOR THAT PURPOSE”.

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    James Wilson, who had urged Coxe to write “An American Citizen IV,” contended that the
    Constitution already allowed for the ultimate force in the people: “”In its principles, it is surely
    democratical; for, however wide and various the firearms of power may appear, they may all be traced to one source, the people.”

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 28: “ there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms”
    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government… if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers… The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair… The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate… If their rights are invaded… How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized (being armed)!“

    Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.

    Bliss v. Commonwealth : “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”

    Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

  2. it seems that every time there is a mass shothing the attacker was on some kind of prescription drug.

    it will be impossible for police to get there before the attacker unless they got lucky.

    armed civilians can and have stopped this things from happening.

    they seems to happend more in the us, wich have lighter gun laws and also lots of legal drugs.

    they happend but with less frecuency in other countries with lighter gun laws, and large populations like canada.

    it has happened in countries with strict gun laws altough mostly for other reasons, like terorism.

    Apart from the mass shootings thing, I believe that a populations who surrender its weapons its left defenseles.

    1.- crime will get weapons anyway, and will carry weapons anyway, which citizen will not be able to.
    2.-in the case of strict gun control where no one carry weapons but the army, the population its left defenseless from the goverment, or from terrorism o any other intervention.
    3.-in the case of total disarmement the nation will become some other nation puppet.

    Since it seems that the only advange of a disarmed population will be to prevent murders, wich will happend anyway and an armed population could help also to somewhat prevent them, also a disarmed population will make it easier to enforce laws if needed be, and the fact that it will be impossible unless everyone disarms themselves we get that the advantages of an armed populations outweight the advantages of an unarmed population, from the citizen vs citizen, citizen vs goverment, goverment vs goverment point of view.

  3. I increase my safety by being selective with the type of folks I associate with. That tactic does not protect me from random violence, however. The prudent person prepares for eventualities and uses situational awareness to hopefully spot a threat before it can descend upon you unaware.

    Being prepared and aware is not a guarantee of 100% security and safety but it can sure tilt the odds to your favor especially when compared to the buffoon simpletons wandering through life staring at that portable electronic device firmly grasped by their clean, non-calloused girly hands.

Comments are closed.