Not sure, no way to really know. No accountability. These kinds of forums are the only such that appear to have much traffic.
I've posted a thread here with my name as the username at the original Oathkeepers (OK) .ning site. I've chosen Laura Boatright because she is attempting to tell a member, Redleg, that the 2nd amendment wasn't what Oathkeepers was about. From what I understand OK wasn't going to take a defined positive stand on gun rights. OK stands for simply NOT following unconstitutional orders.
Me effort was to use the notion that discussion by civilians upon the principles of the constitution, the laws under it, interpretations with the 9th, 10,th and 14th amendments, Article V as a form of outreach by showing the publics grasp of the constitution to the Americans that had taken an oath and reinforce its value. In outreach, exercising ConstitutionalNatural law in basic discussion dealing with any issue that might universally effect our lives in substantial ways.
This is my post quoting Laura Boatright.
Above I started with "support and defend" and described the "termination of the constitution, and suggests that discussion of its principles would help focus military on the prioritys of their oath. Selectively below she instead uses antother aspect mentioned , "the nations function will increase when individuals are inspired by the principals of the nation",
Below my effort is deflected and Boatright goes into the usual pep talk.
Below I've copied and pasted a line from the mission statement which shows the mission is to "vastly increase their numbers."
Then there is the greek chorus effect of this kind of "drive by posting" that makes an air of frivolity.
Seems as simple reasoning and a basic question to begin with. No. not okay.
There was no support at that forum for any reasonable discussion upon the constitution. More to come.