Previous Post
Next Post


“It’s really a broad group of citizens, and I’m sure their motivations are all different. In many of them, there’s probably a sense of patriotism. But I think in most of them, there’s probably something that they probably don’t even recognize: that we have a moral obligation to protect the weakest among us. When we see these violent people, these arsonists and anarchists, attacking, it just pokes at you in a deep place.” – Sam Andrews in On Rooftops in Ferguson, Volunteers – With Guns [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It’s the sheepdog argument in real time. In a just and moral society those of us with the ability protect those without the ability. Anything else is a broken society that can’t survive.

    • Can’t or won’t’…

      I think people who won’t protect themselves are more of a danger to the the fabric of society than if strong people are unwilling to protect those people who won’t do for themselves.

      Enough strong people go off to fight for the weak and we will end up with the sissie left back at home doing all the breeding in passing on their sissy genetics :See Europe:

      • Almost everyone has the ability to protect themselves. With that said, even those that do (a business owner staying open and protecting himself with a rifle for instance) would definitely want and even deserve some help from his community. I think it’s great that civilians have stepped in when the police and national guard failed to protect people.

        • I’m good protecting the can’t folks who need help, the won’t folks… Well, Darwin has some interesting things to say about that.

      • 2 wars in a row that killed off all the strongest and bravest, those most likely to stand up against those who would mistreat the innocent. Were I of the tinfoil head covering inclination I would think it was progressive eugenics in action. A century of 4F’s breeding while coddled to the teat of the ever sprawling nanny state.

  2. Once again, anarchy is not what he’s talking about. It’s an absence of government, not rules. Nihilism is a more apt description. The scene he’s describing is people who have been made dependent on government, rioting because an agent of government killed one of their own, has been shielded by government rules, and is accountable to no one except government. Governments have killed billions of people to keep their power. In my opinion, governments are the problem, not the solution.

    • It’s what George Washington said.

      “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington

      For most of our history, government was used to oppress the poor and disadvantaged. Now, government stands by while some of those poor and disadvantaged act as criminals that riot, loot and burn and when law abiding citizens like The Oath Keepers go out to provide protection against these violent criminals, the feds are deployed with snipers pointed at them and are they are told to stand down or they will be shot.

      So the roles have been reversed. The government protects through inaction the violent criminal behavior of some of the poor and actively threatens violent death against some of the law abiding that are trying to protect against their depredations.

      I believe government has very much shown who is now the master and who is now the servant.

    • What government shielding? The Grand jury is comprised of about two dozen private citizens, volunteers no less, whose judgment could hardly be influenced by that maybe six dollar per diem they get.

    • …has been shielded by government rules…

      So, the Bill of Rights and other constitutionally protected natural rights, including due process/presumption of innocence and the right to be secure in one’s person without probable cause of having committed a crime, are merely “government rules”? Really?

  3. “So, where were the stupid Bundy ranch tea baggers in Ferguson, huh Mr. ‘Liberty or Death!?'”

    “Ummmm… ON THE ROOFTOPS. Where were YOU, exactly, Moonbeam? Oh, that’s right, you and your dweeby army of hipster douchebags were toting your frothy lattes through times square with your hands up. Got it.”

  4. “When we hear information that someone, or a group, is providing security without a license, our department has to investigate the issue,” a police spokesman, Shawn McGuire, said in an email on Saturday.

    For some odd reason that quote irritates the piss out of me.

    • “However when we receive reports that small businesses and big box stores alike are being looted and burned, while unprotected because unlicensed groups are afraid to stop them out of fear of being arrested, we have jacking off to do while sniffing our new MRAP and licking the sears on our M16s.”


    • +1

      Because daring to come to the defense of others – not to mention that these were volunteers doing this – is somehow a bad thing and requires a government permission slip.

      I guess they get worried when they think that people might realize that – gasp – a group of non-LEO citizens might provide better protection than the government.

    • That same quote ticked me off, too.

      I guess the government has to protect its monopoly — just imagine what might happen if people realized that they can protect each other without the government’s permission!

      Although on the whole, the article was a refreshing moment of sanity and fairness from the NYT. Much better than I expected.

    • Missouri is a State-preempted open carry State. Unless the owners/renters of the buildings in question file a complaint, on what basis do the police have authority to tell anyone that they can’t stand on a roof (with or without a gun)?

    • I agree, stand by and watch businesses looted and burned so as not to “escalate” the situation, but armed men peacefully helping local business owners and members of the community? We gotta do something about that!

    • Everyone will sleep a little easier tonight knowing that the Ferguson Police Department stands ready to prevent the horror of “…someone, or a group, is providing security without a license.” Way to go heroes!

  5. Consider this (from the New York Times), “But on Saturday, with the county police said to be threatening the Oath Keepers with arrest …”

    Why in the Hell would the county police threaten the Oath Keepers with arrest? They were there to stop rioters from destroying businesses. How is that an arrestable offense?

    And then we have this from the New York Times as well, “Yet, in the initial hours following word of the grand jury’s decision, the Guard played only a limited role. Troops protected a police command post and other facilities, but they were not posted along the main commercial corridors where property destruction was rampant.”

    So the National Guard made sure to protect government buildings and left the rioters to destroy the private sector. So much for the idea that government will protect We the People.

    And finally, this also from the New York Times article, “When we hear information that someone, or a group, is providing security without a license, our department has to investigate the issue,” a police spokesman, Shawn McGuire, said in an email on Saturday.

    Why in the Hell does someone need a “license” to secure a business from rioters?!?!?!?

    While the Michael Brown case appears to be lawful self-defense and a very poor case around which to rally, I can see why the people are fed-up with local government.

    • The Missouri authorities are teaching the people a lesson: Only the government may use force. This is a common goal of statists throughout history. Look at what is happening in Mexico with the “vigilantes” trying to protect themselves from the cartels, and look at how the NYT described the Korean shopkeepers in LA during the ’92 Rodney King riots: “snipers” – “vigilantes”. Finally, look at the cops in New Orleans during Katrina, going door to door to confiscate guns. The statists want a monopoly on force, especially self-defense force.

      We added the following statement (in caps) to the Idaho Constitution after seeing the NOPD in action during Katrina:

      Article I Declration of Rights Section 11. Right to keep and bear arms.
      “The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged;… No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. NOR SHALL ANY LAW PERMIT THE CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS, EXCEPT THOSE ACTUALLY USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY.”

    • “Why in the Hell would the county police threaten the Oath Keepers with arrest? They were there to stop rioters from destroying businesses. How is that an arrestable offense?”

      Reportedly, they were ordered to threaten the Oath Keepers by the Feds. No big surprise there.

      • I think fed intervention is likely. The local cops initially asked what they were up to, then left them to it. Only after it hit the news and there was time for fed (or some upper level) response did they start telling the Oath Keepers to cool it.

  6. Well said everyone. YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN. Molan Labe. And it’s going to get a lot worse. Anyone surprised isn’t paying attention.

  7. Sitting on your own front porch and defending your own neighborhood makes sense to me, but… well, the respose by local authorities was predictable. If a person wants to engage in this type of activity they better have a good lawyer and a big pile o’ cash IMO. Anyway, none of these guys had a dog in the fight so of course most will guestion their motives. I stayed at home but was ready to go if family and friends in Ferguson called. Really the situation is (now) under control but Monday’s clownshow is proof of the need for do-it-yourself security.

  8. Quotes of the day always make me brace for anti silliness. It’s refreshing ti read something that doesn’t make me want ti scream.

  9. The Bundy ranch was a transformational event in our modern history because various militias and the Oath Keepers managed a level of organization and cooperation that was completely unexpected by America’s elites. In doing this they badly humiliated the BLM, making its cops look like the thugs the government and media was trying to portray the Bundy defenders as being. This was a huge reversal of image, something that had never happened before. Similarly, the appearance of Oath Keepers in Ferguson is accomplishing the same thing. In saying “we have a moral obligation to protect the weakest among us”, Sam Andrews scored some major points that even the NY Times can’t disparage.

  10. The people of Ferguson have had more than enough opportunity to arrange for their own defense, in anticipation of the looming criminal savagery and inevitable government incompetence. If they refuse to make even modest preparations, then scew ’em. I reserve my assistance for people struck by genuine tragedies, not oblivious little piglets in straw houses.

    • To be honest, I’m ambivalent about it as well. These are business owners, they knew damn good and well what the local hood rats, let alone outside “community organizers” and race hustlers would gin up. I saw almost nobody, nobody take an active role defending what was theirs. So you gotta wonder. I was so hopeful that more would be doing it, god knows they have guns at home but the fear of the criminal retaliation is rather real up there. It’s like screwing with the Russians in Brighton Beach, or Italians in NJ. If you’re doing business there, you have to function in the swamp with uncivilized folk.

      That the Natty Guard wasn’t on every corner in Ferguson the night of the GJ announcement is gross negligence that is readily classed as criminal. Nixon needs to hang (politically) for this travesty. Every block, every corner. Any screwing around by the instigators, live ammo. Looters and arsonists will be shot. As it stands now, they won’t even be hunted down and charged. Let alone tried. Yeah, white privilege my ass. Hundreds of pieces of subhuman garbage looting captured on video. Hell, I could ID half of them with some footage and the FB facial recog program. Guess how many will? Zero.

      The complication of it all is the tightrope these business owners have. Doing business with the generally decent community and it’s small, but invested, number of filthy animals. If shop owner Shaniqua, shoots Tyrell looting her business, his cousin Tyrone is gonna come looking for her. And where will the cops be for her? Behind the line, fellating each other for officer safety. So, she has to survive in this semi-cesspool, with no real back-up. Same reason the store clerk didn’t just shoot that thug Brown like he should have. Much akin to prison, there’s retaliation to fear and the cops are useless to stop it.

      This will never happen much beyond Ferguson/STL City (with a few exceptions) because we simply won’t tolerate it. The sad part is that the folks in Ferguson are letting this happen simply because of not wanting to be seen as some Honkey-MF-Oreo-UncleTom by the percentage of criminals in their midst.

  11. The cops chased Oath Keepers off the rooftops in Ferguson and threatened to arrest them for practicing self-defense without a license.

    These were the same cops who shot Big Mike in self defense and started the whole blaze going.

    The hypocrisy is stunning, no?

    • lol – yes.

      But St. Louis County police shut down the group’s security efforts Saturday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. The Oath Keepers’ founder, Stewart Rhodes, told the newspaper that volunteers agreed to leave their posts after being threatened with arrest for operating without a license.


      Because you need a license and/or permit for everything. Including defending your property and person.

      • I hope I’m not being to obvious here, but exactly how hard would it be for these guys to obtain that license and then give their new and improved licensed services away for free? It’s probably more complicated than that, isn’t it?

    • That smacks of harassment, like when the police slap OCers with a disorderly conduct ticket for exercising their legal right to open carry.

      It isn’t as though these Oath Keepers are offering their services for hire, which would subject them to state licensing requirements.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here