[RegulatorCountry]

Companies hire private security all the time and they’re armed. This is no different. The objection is ideological, not legal.

[GeronL]

Now even defending businesses from looters is criminal I guess

[eartick]

“Companies hire private security all the time and they’re armed. This is no different.”

Big difference. There are license and training that go with private security firms. Not to mention the books and books of laws.....

Rhodes and company have had conversations about this. They ran into a brick wall when trying to operate down south

If you worry about the “legaleeze” it will eat you up and the FERAL Government will always win. You see, they make the laws to scare you with what dangers await you if you break the law. I worry about the dangers if I do not break some of them. You will sit back and opportunity will pass you by to advance on the enemy.

[tanknetter]

Companies hire private security all the time and they’re armed. This is no different.

There is a difference, and you point it out by using the word "hire" ... whereas these Oath Keepers were apparently volunteers.

There are a LOT of security firms, from mall rent-a-jerk firms all the way up to Blackwater/Executive Outcomes level organizations, making an absolute MINT off of providing armed protection in Ferguson.

"Volunteers" providing the services for free cuts into that business.

I'd bet it's no more complicated than that. I wonder how many of the security firms providing paid security services are unionized? Anyone recall from a while back about how some unions were targeting the Boy Scouts because the Scouts were stepping all over "union jobs" territory by their volunteer improvement work to public parks?