# Civil war



## Fear-No-Evil (Jul 21, 2012)

As most of u know are gun rights maybe
Takin away... I think something like that
may begin a civil war. I know I'm not going to
give up my guns till I'm in a body bag.
I just want to warn u about what may 
be to come and I would like to hear what
u have to say.


----------



## Billyboy (May 3, 2011)

Oklahoma, along with 21 other states, have passed or have pending sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment of our constitution. As I understand it, the 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution. When a state claims sovereignty, it basically is a notice to the Federal Government that whatever mandates they are trying to impose are beyond their scope of constitutionally delegated powers. Apparently, some folks are thinking that the federal government is taking too many liberties with the constitution. For the same reason we are free to express our opinions in accordance with our 1st amendment rights, our right to bear arms is protected by the the very next amendment. (Interesting that they are the first two) If the Federal Government tried to repeal either of these amendments; I know 22 states that would fight for their constitutional rights. Perhaps, that will be the invisible parallel in your civil war. I don't see it happening.


----------



## iceeyes (Jun 25, 2012)

Would u happen to have a list or resource that's names the states that have said this?


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Billyboy said:


> Oklahoma, along with 21 other states, have passed or have pending sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment of our constitution. As I understand it, the 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution. When a state claims sovereignty, it basically is a notice to the Federal Government that whatever mandates they are trying to impose are beyond their scope of constitutionally delegated powers. Apparently, some folks are thinking that the federal government is taking too many liberties with the constitution. For the same reason we are free to express our opinions in accordance with our 1st amendment rights, our right to bear arms is protected by the the very next amendment. (Interesting that they are the first two) If the Federal Government tried to repeal either of these amendments; I know 22 states that would fight for their constitutional rights. Perhaps, that will be the invisible parallel in your civil war. I don't see it happening.


The states are correct but passing that won't protect them from an over-reaching federal government.

I think the federal government will wait until after the collapse and most Americans die off on their own before they impose a ban on guns.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

I can picture a scenario where a dirty bomb is detonated in an American city, and the resulting action by the federal government is to ban private gun ownership.


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

There are about 55 million gun owners in the USA. It would be just about impossible to make them all give up their firearms. 

Just saying....

Jimmy


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

I have wondered about this concept myself. While watching coverage of the Syria situation, the perceived insanity of it, and the (MSM's?) apparent incredulity with it all, what would the people of the US expect our own gubt to do in the same situation? My feeling is they would react in the exact same way. This would prove to everyone, although I doubt they would see it this way that those in power are not concerned with the well being and satisfaction of the citizens with the state of affairs and by extension the gubt itself and those in power and the job they are doing, but only with their own well being and their position in power. In theory, if those in power saw that those they rule over were unhappy with them, the honorable thing to do would be to step aside if they really are these altruistic people that they should be. Just the idea of that is laughable, no?
I would hope it would come down to (a non violent?) secession instead of an outright rebellion. A 'civil war' if I am reading your meaning correctly (a violent uprising/secession?) would be horribly one sided if it came down to it and the military was willing to fire on its own citizens, which is up for debate.
In an academic sense it would be interesting to see how it would play out. To be in the middle of it, not so much.
Just for the sake of discussion, lets say the Confederacy decides to secede. Militarily it would be suicide. The optimal process (call me a dreamer) would be if the US decides to 'invade' and instead of trying to fight back, the South decides to lay down their arms and not play that game. If by saying 'We are not going to play by your rules' the South forces the US's hand by essentially forcing it to take over the Confederates state/national governance, it would find an ungovernable populace and would have to make concessions which in essence would be a stricter adherence to the original Constitution anyway. If it did not it would become a military occupation in every sense of the word and would be devastating for both sides.

I've thought about this too deeply already, please carry on.
Not gonna happen. The sheep are still asleep.

"What do you get for pretending the danger's not real
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream."

Pink Floyd- Sheep


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Fear-No-Evil said:


> ... I know I'm not going to
> give up my guns till I'm in a body bag...


EIther way you no longer have your guns.

I'm not trying to stir anything up and this isn't directed at you, Fear-No-Evil, it's just that I've seen this statement/claim many times and am taking this opportunity to reply.

First, it doesn't really matter how many guns are out there or how many households are armed. The question is, how many are willing to defend the constitution up to and including giving their lives. I guarantee it will be a much smaller number.

You won't give up your guns. Really? Really? Are you willing to put you and your family through a Waco "experience"? Yeah, a couple guys with guns come to take your guns you might win. But when a few hundred show up with auto weapons, hummers, bradleys, rockets, grenades, helicopters, etc. then the "body bag" scenario is the only way left for it to play out. This isn't Red Dawn. It's not PAW fiction.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting we just roll over if some ban/confiscation ever occurs, but the lone wolf, from my cold dead hands, attitude isn't going to work if they really want them. We need to make sure that it never happens. If it does I fear the vast majority of owners will give in, especially after a couple of high profile raids are shown on the MSM. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you aren't still a sheeple.


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

CulexPipiens said:


> EIther way you no longer have your guns.
> 
> I'm not trying to stir anything up and this isn't directed at you, Fear-No-Evil, it's just that I've seen this statement/claim many times and am taking this opportunity to reply.
> 
> ...


So you say you are not stirring up anything, REALLY? REALLY? You just slapped me and I'd be willing to bet a BUNCH more people. You just pretty much called a large group of gun owners/US citizens, cowards.

If that is the case than why even worry about it. Let's just call up King BO and say you know what, we gun owners have just decided that it's just a shame for you to have to go to all the trouble to root us out and take our guns, so we SHEEPLE will just give them to you.

You make the other statement that is underlined, but offer no conclusion, no way to "Make sure it never happens". Just make the statement and call us a bunch on sheeple.

I concur that a large portion of gun owners would give 'em up. But you know even if 90% of them gave them up, that still 5.5 million owners, not guns, but owners. Iraq has less than 5 million population. They kept the best military in the world, in a bind for nearly ten years.

Do you not make some assumption that those [Quote "especially after a couple of high profile raids are shown on the MSM" end quote] might have an opposite effect on a equal number of gun owners? Body bags??? Really? Really? That wouldn't piss you off and make you mad enough to do what needs to be done? You may be right, you may be a sheeple for sure. Even a million pissed off, hard core gun owners is a HUGE undertaking for the military/LEO community.

And actually saying something about "Red Dawn" is not a fair comparison. I suspect that an invading country's military WOULD have a very hard time... Red Dawn had nothing to do with gun confiscation. I have to presume we are all just armchair warriors according to you, with statements like that. If that is the case, what is the use of our prepping for disaster of any sort?? Why bother owning firearms??

From the tone of your comments, sounds like it would be better just to give in to the guberment and let them take care of us. Heck why bother with the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Shoot we won't ever do anything to guard them, so lets just give them up.

Now I'm not trying to stir anything up, but it does seem that this is kind of response that you were looking for.

I await your reply, as I'm sure hackles will be raised....

Jimmy


----------



## Oldpagan (Jun 5, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> EIther way you no longer have your guns.
> 
> I'm not trying to stir anything up and this isn't directed at you, Fear-No-Evil, it's just that I've seen this statement/claim many times and am taking this opportunity to reply.
> 
> ...


Some times you just have to decide what hill your going to die on for your beliefs, I choose this one. I took an oath to uphold the constitution both in the military and as a police officer and I intend to do so. A person of honor would much rather die for their beliefs than live as a coward. Don't presume to paint everyone else with your choices.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Jimmy24 said:


> So you say you are not stirring up anything, REALLY? REALLY? You just slapped me and I'd be willing to bet a BUNCH more people. You just pretty much called a large group of gun owners/US citizens, cowards.
> 
> If that is the case than why even worry about it. Let's just call up King BO and say you know what, we gun owners have just decided that it's just a shame for you to have to go to all the trouble to root us out and take our guns, so we SHEEPLE will just give them to you.
> 
> ...


Get a grip. There's no need to get mad when we're trying to have a reasonable discussion.

It wouldn't be that hard for the government to confiscate guns if they're willing to be as brutal as necessary to accomplish it. They bring in Russian soldiers through the UN. People who won't give up their guns are dealt with in either of two different ways: They call in air strikes and kill every man, woman, and child in that area. Or the Russian soldiers go house to house at 3:00 in the morning. They separate the men from the women and children. They kill all the men. They do whatever they want with the women and children. Men who are willing to die for a cause would be much less likely to do so if it their wives and children would be raped, tortured, and murdered.

Or the government uses large numbers of heavily armed men to make 3:00 AM raids on houses. When they find guns all the people in that house are executed. Or they're sent to FEMA camps. It won't take long and people who have guns will voluntarily give them up. In fact, most people in that neighborhood would get rid of their guns immediately after that happens to a family in that neighborhood.

There's no way an armed uprising would be successful against the government. Not if they're willing to be as brutal as necessary to put it down. An opposing force wouldn't have a command structure or secure communications. This isn't 1860 anymore when the a group of people could be close to as well armed as the government. That was the beauty of gun ownership when the country was founded: A group of citizens could be almost as well armed as the government, with the exception of not having artillery.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Jimmy24 said:


> I concur that a large portion of gun owners would give 'em up. But you know even if 90% of them gave them up, that still 5.5 million owners, not guns, but owners. Iraq has less than 5 million population. They kept the best military in the world, in a bind for nearly ten years.


It sounds like you're agreeing. 
Do you think 5 million people in Iraq engaged the US military? How many do you supposed actually fought against the US?


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

*Gentlemen.we all enjoy comparing how shiny our steel balls are, but talk is cheap.99% of us will fold like a wet newspaper if your kid is sick or starving, so why not hand in a couple of shiny pretties, and maybe a couple they don't know you have to look honest, maybe a couple of flea market junkers and SIT on what you really need?*


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Pretty much everything I buy is through a dealer. Not the way one should do it.


----------



## Oldpagan (Jun 5, 2012)

Magus said:


> *Gentlemen.we all enjoy comparing how shiny our steel balls are, but talk is cheap.99% of us will fold like a wet newspaper if your kid is sick or starving, so why not hand in a couple of shiny pretties, and maybe a couple they don't know you have to look honest, maybe a couple of flea market junkers and SIT on what you really need?*


Magus, I have no kids, my wife is of the same opinion, and my balls are not steel or shiny, what I do have is enough age to not care about life over freedom. Death is but a transition.


----------



## Billyboy (May 3, 2011)

iceeyes said:


> Would u happen to have a list or resource that's names the states that have said this?


Here are a few lists:

Infowars

Ron Paul


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

Jimmy24 said:


> There are about 55 million gun owners in the USA. It would be just about impossible to make them all give up their firearms.
> 
> Just saying....
> 
> Jimmy


Balderdash.

Everyone under 18 no firearms.

Everyone under 21 no firearms

No one that has subscribe to "banded" magazines, like NRA Rifleman.

No one on the Federal "no fly" list.

A little at a time so before the large majority of the 55 million sheep are no longer armed.


----------



## Billyboy (May 3, 2011)

Immolatus, your scenario is very plausible, unfortunately. For America to do this would be the death of our county and all that we stand for. … Rock on, Floyd!!! 

CulexPipiens, I respect your opinion of what you would do in a military confiscation. And really, who knows what any man (or woman) would do in a life threatening situation. I would like to think that I would stand up for my personal liberties as well as the liberties that my child will or will not lose so that they may or may not be forced to live in a military state. 
To make a comparison of someone’s resolve to Waco is somewhat unfair, in my opinion. Their outcome was sad and an abuse of power, however, the Davidians had called attention to themselves with a long history of strange behavior (by anyone’s standards) with corpse abuse, axe murder, and child molestation. Certainly, not things most of us are involved with. 
I do also respectfully disagree that the vast majority will give in. Passion is powerful emotion. Passion for you freedoms, your country and its constitution, and the world you leave for your child can be the highest passion for many people. American men and women willingly put their life on the line everyday in our military for lesser causes, but in the name of protecting our liberties. If the scenario were to happen, I see a fair amount of current military choosing we, the people. 

Oldpagan, Thank you for your service…it is because of people like you that I was able to sleep at night. I state 'was' because it may not be like that for long.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

LazyL has a point, it could be done insidiously and slowly, whittling everyone down to a nub.
Billy, the Sheep quote is too easy... (I just saw The Wall tour in DC, absolutely incredible)

Jimmy, i respect your passion, but I think (far be it for me to put words in anyones mouth) CP was making a valid point and not necessarily calling you out. Its easy to sit here and talk a big game (with my shiny steel ones) but much much different when the SW4T team is at the door. This is not directed at you, its just being realistic.


----------



## Jezcruzen (Oct 21, 2008)

If people in this country did fold as some of you predict, then I would say we would get exactly what we deserve - enslavement. No one who has ever lost freedom ever got it back again in their lifetime! Maybe our grandchildren will one day have enough and find the courage to take back what we cowards lost. That is.... if we are cowards. I don't know. Maybe we'll find out.

If I remember correctly, only 3 % of the population fought King George. Twenty percent supported them. Twenty percent remained neutral. The remainder sided with the English, at least tacitly. 

The federal government has absolutely overreached. They have resources and assets spread thin all around the world. Sure, they could mount a raid against a reported gun owner. (They apparently like raw milk producers better!) But they do not have the resources to mount raids wholesale. Besides... it is the feds. They haven't exactly been a shinning beacon of brilliance, have they? I think people tend to assign to them magical powers that simply do not exist.

What if people just said 'NO!'? What could the feds do? Answer - nothing!


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

It won't be the feds, IMO. It'll be the state and locals along with your neighbors turning you in.


----------



## oldasrocks (Jun 30, 2012)

Oldpagan said:


> Magus, I have no kids, my wife is of the same opinion, and my balls are not steel or shiny, what I do have is enough age to not care about life over freedom. Death is but a transition.


Totally agree and am likewise. Old, no kids etc.

Don't forget that a few million civilians have had military training also. We don't have to play by the rules either like the Indians, terrorists or others. Being a poor man I've had to sell all my weapons to buy groceries and pay the rent but I have friends who have an extra one or three.

Another thought: How many American soldiers could kill Americans?


----------



## oldasrocks (Jun 30, 2012)

tenOC said:


> It won't be the feds, IMO. It'll be the state and locals along with your neighbors turning you in.


Why would the neighbors turn you in if the Russians or ? were the ones invading?


----------



## Billyboy (May 3, 2011)

tenOC said:


> It won't be the feds, IMO. It'll be the state and locals along with your neighbors turning you in.


If suddenly our 1st amendment right was repealed would you be one of those telling those (whom you thought to be in authority) the 'he said - she said' thing? Or were you just giving a scenario?

I have to have more faith in my fellow Americans. Reducing us to high-school antics would be a real eye roller for me and I hope it would never come to that. Thank goodness there were people who manned the Underground Railroad, hid Jews during the Holocaust, and who risked their entrails being burning to help us succeed from tyranny. I am very happy and proud that most of my neighbors are of that ilk.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Jimmy24 said:


> So you say you are not stirring up anything, REALLY? REALLY? You just slapped me and I'd be willing to bet a BUNCH more people. You just pretty much called a large group of gun owners/US citizens, cowards.
> 
> If that is the case than why even worry about it. Let's just call up King BO and say you know what, we gun owners have just decided that it's just a shame for you to have to go to all the trouble to root us out and take our guns, so we SHEEPLE will just give them to you.
> 
> ...


Wow... wasn't meaning to stir up such a hornets nest... nor did I say what I would or would not do. Just putting forth a little cold water on the cry of "From my cold dead hands" that gets tossed around sometimes. As another posted said (paraphrasing), when your kids are sick or starving you'll do what you have to even if that means turning in something. Granted not everyone has a family and or kids/grandkids.

And no, I did not offer another option, to your underlining of my statement, because, frankly, I have not developed an option that would be guaranteed to work.

Of course, to come out in a public forum and say "If the gov does X then I will darn well do Y" is a great violation of Opsec too.

Suffice it to say, that my comments were directed at discssion and are not disclosing my specific response one way or another. Heck until the day and particular conditions actually are here no one know what they will do regardless of what they say. But I also do feel your throwing out the fact that, yes a few really will go down in a "blaze of glory" does not mean that your actions and viewpoint speak for the 55 million gun owners. If a vast majority did resist then that really would have a chance at succeeding.

I'll be happy to address your response in detail though. 

>>So you say you are not stirring up anything, REALLY? REALLY? You just slapped me and I'd be willing to bet a BUNCH more people. You just pretty much called a large group of gun owners/US citizens, cowards.

I called no one nothing. I simply said that I believe a sizeable number really would roll over. If you're one of them, then you're a coward. If you're not one of them then you'll either be a domestic terrorist, martyr or hero... depends on who writes the history books when it's all over.

>>If that is the case than why even worry about it. Let's just call up King BO and say you know what, we gun owners have just decided that it's just a shame for you to have to go to all the trouble to root us out and take our guns, so we SHEEPLE will just give them to you.

Now you're just putting words out there that I did not say.

>>You make the other statement that is underlined, but offer no conclusion, no way to "Make sure it never happens". Just make the statement and call us a bunch on sheeple.

Well, how do we make sure it never happens? Does anyone have THE answer? Does anyone know what will prevent it from happening? Do you know what the "other side" is thinking or planning? And again, if you would turn them in, then perhaps sheeple fits. Otherwise go back a couple of questions and we'll see if you're a hero, martyr or terrorist.

>>I concur that a large portion of gun owners would give 'em up. But you know even if 90% of them gave them up, that still 5.5 million owners, not guns, but owners. Iraq has less than 5 million population. They kept the best military in the world, in a bind for nearly ten years.

OK, so now you just agreed that many would give them up.. .and would that not be a sheeple approach? By that statement you're calling 90% of gun owners sheeple. That is a pretty big slap. So, why are we debating this?  But seriously, 5.5 million is sizeable but also scattered all across the US vs. an organized military with communcation systems, command structure and bigger toys. Iraq? or did you mean Afganistan? After all a few decades ago Afganistan also fought the soviets to a stand still.

>>Do you not make some assumption that those [Quote "especially after a couple of high profile raids are shown on the MSM" end quote] might have an opposite effect on a equal number of gun owners? Body bags??? Really? Really? That wouldn't piss you off and make you mad enough to do what needs to be done? You may be right, you may be a sheeple for sure. Even a million pissed off, hard core gun owners is a HUGE undertaking for the military/LEO community.

Waco. So, what was our response to those body bags? Did we get pissed off? Did anyone do what needed to be done? What was it that needed to be done? How about fast & furious or any of the other more recent stunts. Has anyone done anything meaningful about those? Just what should that meaningful response be? And once more, a million scattered around with no coordinated "focus" can, at best, use hit and run tactics. That might very well be highly effective or a couple of helicopters with infrared and night vision could park themselves a few miles away and just keep picking you off in the darkness. Or as another poster said, just bomb the whole area. Spin it on the MSM as a "terrorist compound".

>>And actually saying something about "Red Dawn" is not a fair comparison. I suspect that an invading country's military WOULD have a very hard time... Red Dawn had nothing to do with gun confiscation. I have to presume we are all just armchair warriors according to you, with statements like that. If that is the case, what is the use of our prepping for disaster of any sort?? Why bother owning firearms??

I think Red Dawn is fair. And unless you've fought your own government, then in this case, you are an armchair warrior. Military experience in another country against hostile forces, I believe, would have limited application to a civil war, especially when you don't know if your fellow american is friend or foe. If they'll shelter you or turn you in. Our troops have that problem still today. Is that guy/car coming towards me friend or foe?

>>From the tone of your comments, sounds like it would be better just to give in to the guberment and let them take care of us. Heck why bother with the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Shoot we won't ever do anything to guard them, so lets just give them up.

No, the tone of my comments was, once more, to say that there are a lot of words flying around but until we've are actually in a civil war, they are just words. Maybe some of my assumptions would be wrong, maybe not.

>>Now I'm not trying to stir anything up, but it does seem that this is kind of response that you were looking for.

No, actually I was looking for a healthy discussion and many of your responses are helping to invoke just that with myself and other posters.

>>I await your reply, as I'm sure hackles will be raised....

Nope. No hard feelings or raised hackles. After all we're all entitled to our opinions and I really really do hope that it never gets to the point that we each have to take this from a mental exercise to practical application.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

oldasrocks said:


> Another thought: How many American soldiers could kill Americans?


I don't know how many. I don't fear the military like I do the local wannabees. Would some people/soldiers like to kill some urchins in the ghetto? Some gang members?



Billyboy said:


> If suddenly our 1st amendment right was repealed would you be one of those telling those (whom you thought to be in authority) the 'he said - she said' thing? Or were you just giving a scenario?
> 
> I have to have more faith in my fellow Americans. Reducing us to high-school antics would be a real eye roller for me and I hope it would never come to that. Thank goodness there were people who manned the Underground Railroad, hid Jews during the Holocaust, and who risked their entrails being burning to help us succeed from tyranny. I am very happy and proud that most of my neighbors are of that ilk.


Ever been to a neighborhood association meeting? And if you have, have you ever spoken with some of them about their specific desires for the neighborhood? You wouldn't imagine just how juvenile and morally bankrupt people are. They let their lust for money or frustration over a pet peeve lead them down the slippery slope. 
If you know of a neighbor who will cheat on their spouse, well, let me say it this way. If you know people, you know some who will cheat. And some will turn you in to the police for having something they don't want you to have. Especially if they don't/can't have it. Maybe they think they'll get a special relationship with the police for preferential treatment. Maybe they're just gossiping. Just don't let anyone know.

Don't forget that there are a LOT of medicated Americans today.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Billyboy said:


> Immolatus, your scenario is very plausible, unfortunately. For America to do this would be the death of our county and all that we stand for. &#8230; Rock on, Floyd!!!
> 
> CulexPipiens, I respect your opinion of what you would do in a military confiscation. And really, who knows what any man (or woman) would do in a life threatening situation. I would like to think that I would stand up for my personal liberties as well as the liberties that my child will or will not lose so that they may or may not be forced to live in a military state.
> To make a comparison of someone's resolve to Waco is somewhat unfair, in my opinion. Their outcome was sad and an abuse of power, however, the Davidians had called attention to themselves with a long history of strange behavior (by anyone's standards) with corpse abuse, axe murder, and child molestation. Certainly, not things most of us are involved with.


Thanks Billyboy, but I think my original post was not written as well as it could have been as a number seem to think I'm advocating turning them in. I'm not. Just saying that until we're in that situation and actually have to decide, it's all just speculation.

I know a few gun owners who'd definitely turn in if the government said to. I know at least one that would probably go the "cold dead hands" route and I know a few who would have to weigh their decision at that point in time.

If you have no family and have strong convictions, great! But those with a familly have more to risk/lose. Can you better protect your family by keeping them and fighting back or can you better protect them by turning them in?


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Oldpagan said:


> Some times you just have to decide what hill your going to die on for your beliefs, I choose this one. I took an oath to uphold the constitution both in the military and as a police officer and I intend to do so. A person of honor would much rather die for their beliefs than live as a coward. Don't presume to paint everyone else with your choices.


Couldnt have said it better. At least I wont be the only one.


----------



## hillobeans (May 17, 2012)

To be honest, I would most likely turn mine in. It would be a lot harder to protect my two little boys if I was dead or in jail. I also wouldn't be interested in turning my gun on fellow Americans who are just following orders.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

hillobeans said:


> To be honest, I would most likely turn mine in. It would be a lot harder to protect my two little boys if I was dead or in jail. I also wouldn't be interested in turning my gun on fellow Americans *who are just following orders.*


Just following orders? How about if the orders included taking your children away from you so that they could be indoctrinated in "correct" ideology? How about following orders to insure that you no longer practice your religion? The hypotheticals can never end but the point is that illegal orders, orders which directly violate constitutional rights, rights which pre-date the existence of government and which most certainly pre-date the existence of the US government are not, and cannot, be lawful orders.

The Nuremburg Trials settled the question of a soldier's duty when given illegal orders.

Your other point about the trade-off between family welfare with you in jail versus you bending over and succumbing to an illegal violation of your rights is a pragmatic decision to which there can never be a universal correct answer.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

Aren't Ya'll getting a little worked up here over something that hasn't and isn't likely to happen?

Let's all just wait for the Russians to start coming door to door before we decide to overthrow the government .

I was a Deputy Sheriff and I can not fathom myself or any officer I ever worked with doing anything like going door to door and conficating citizens weapons. Besides it would be a violation of the Constitution and KY law.


----------



## Zanazaz (Feb 14, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Just following orders? How about if the orders included taking your children away from you so that they could be indoctrinated in "correct" ideology? How about following orders to insure that you no longer practice your religion? The hypotheticals can never end but the point is that illegal orders, orders which directly violate constitutional rights, rights which pre-date the existence of government and which most certainly pre-date the existence of the US government are not, and cannot, be lawful orders.
> 
> The Nuremburg Trials settled the question of a soldier's duty when given illegal orders.
> 
> Your other point about the trade-off between family welfare with you in jail versus you bending over and succumbing to an illegal violation of your rights is a pragmatic decision to which there can never be a universal correct answer.


Good point, and one I was thinking about myself. First they take your firearms, then they could come and take your food to reallocate to those not prepared. What could you do? And when they come for you and your wife and kids? WHAT COULD YOU DO? You think you will be safe after you turn in your firearms??? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Good luck for those of you who would do that.

It's best to take a stand when you are best able to do so.


----------



## dirtgrrl (Jun 5, 2011)

I had a neighbor turn me into the city because my new gate was 4" too tall. What makes you think that someone won't turn you in for food for their kids? If they pry your gun from your cold dead hands, you're still cold and dead, and no help to any one. You died a meaningless death. The enemy won.

Adjust your tinfoil hat, get a grip, and live to fight another day.


----------



## Zanazaz (Feb 14, 2012)

BillM said:


> Aren't Ya'll getting a little worked up here over something that hasn't and isn't likely to happen?
> 
> Let's all just wait for the Russians to start coming door to door before we decide to overthrow the government .
> 
> I was a Deputy Sheriff and I can not fathom myself or any officer I ever worked with doing anything like going door to door and conficating citizens weapons. Besides it would be a violation of the Constitution and KY law.


Another good point, but if the discussion can remain reasonable, there's no reason not to discuss a scenario no matter how unlikely it is to occur. :dunno:

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, just follow the rules. If someone's post upsets you then take a break. Come back later and read it again. I've made that mistake so many times it's not even funny. Don't respond immediately if you're angry. Just my opinion, and not aimed at anyone on this thread.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

dirtgrrl said:


> I had a neighbor turn me into the city because my new gate was 4" too tall. What makes you think that someone won't turn you in for food for their kids? If they pry your gun from your cold dead hands, you're still cold and dead, and no help to any one. You died a meaningless death. The enemy won.
> 
> Adjust your tinfoil hat, get a grip, and live to fight another day.


It's not as simple as a Mexican stand-off though, with you shooting it out with the police coming to steal your weapons. People are smarter than that. Now we're talking insurgency tactics and asymmetrical warfare which shift the costs onto government and make the policy of oppressing people a very costly policy to implement and with the casualties being the agents of the oppressors, the agents don't have much enthusiasm for the task knowing that in their downtime, when they least expect it, they'll pay the price for being the hammer of oppression on innocent people.


----------



## hillobeans (May 17, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Just following orders? How about if the orders included taking your children away from you so that they could be indoctrinated in "correct" ideology? How about following orders to insure that you no longer practice your religion? The hypotheticals can never end but the point is that illegal orders, orders which directly violate constitutional rights, rights which pre-date the existence of government and which most certainly pre-date the existence of the US government are not, and cannot, be lawful orders.
> 
> The Nuremburg Trials settled the question of a soldier's duty when given illegal orders.
> 
> Your other point about the trade-off between family welfare with you in jail versus you bending over and succumbing to an illegal violation of your rights is a pragmatic decision to which there can never be a universal correct answer.


We are talking about a (highly unlikely) run on guns, right? Because if we are going to enter some fictional version of America where soldiers are coming to kidnap my kids for "indoctrination", I would probably have to reneg on my post.....

You are damn right there's no universal correct answer to the trade-off between family welfare with me in jail vs. me "bending over and succumbing to an illegal violation" of my rights. The answer I gave was just that, mine. I wasn't speaking for you. I would rather make my stand through legal and political avenues then to go out in a blaze of glory, leaving my kids fatherless. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.


----------



## zracer7 (Apr 17, 2012)

tenOC said:


> It won't be the feds, IMO. It'll be the state and locals along with your neighbors turning you in.


Unfortunately the holocaust is a good example. Jews were found by door to door searches but also by neighboring Jews seeking leniency or refuge. Jews renounced their religion, turned each other in, and other means to keep themselves safe. Of course there were a vast amount of Jews that stood before the face of evil, looked the nazi and the eye and told them I am a jew and I don't care what you do to me I stand by my beliefs. How does that translate to the second amendment? Your neighbor with tell the govt you have guns so they can feed their kids, people will turn in their guns without elrebellion and the few die yards that stand by the second amendment will fight for what they believe in and tell the govt to go to hell. Such is the repetitive cycle of human history.


----------



## zracer7 (Apr 17, 2012)

zracer7 said:


> Unfortunately the holocaust is a good example. Jews were found by door to door searches but also by neighboring Jews seeking leniency or refuge. Jews renounced their religion, turned each other in, and other means to keep themselves safe. Of course there were a vast amount of Jews that stood before the face of evil, looked the nazi IN the eye and told them I am a jew and I don't care what you do to me I stand by my beliefs. How does that translate to the second amendment? Your neighbor WILL tell the govt you have guns so they can feed their kids, people will turn in their guns without QUESTION and the few die HARDS that stand by the second amendment will fight for what they believe in and tell the govt to go to hell. Such is the repetitive cycle of human history.


Wow I REALLY hate autocorrect. Sorry guys i am on an iPhone. Read above for corrections.


----------



## lefty (Sep 29, 2011)

FYI

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-22-17-33-46


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

zracer7 said:


> Wow I REALLY hate autocorrect. Sorry guys i am on an iPhone. Read above for corrections.


 I was wondering what an elrebellion was.. figured it was some new word I'd have to go look up!


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Zanazaz said:


> Another good point, but if the discussion can remain reasonable, there's no reason not to discuss a scenario no matter how unlikely it is to occur. :dunno:
> 
> Everyone's entitled to their opinion, just follow the rules. If someone's post upsets you then take a break. Come back later and read it again. I've made that mistake so many times it's not even funny. Don't respond immediately if you're angry. Just my opinion, and not aimed at anyone on this thread.


Excellent post, and one that hits home with me. I have been guilty of responding in anger on more than one occasion and have honestly been trying to cool down before responding, because quite a lot of the posts lately have been reduced to "pissing contests" and I have added fuel to that fire.

I no longer intend to get involved in arguements on here, I will state my opinion, say everything I intend to say on the subject, maybe tell you what I will or would do and then move on.

I now see absolutely no reason to start name calling, bashing, or any other negative behavior just because someone stated their thoughts or opinion.

Now my take on the subject.

It will only take a few raids on private citizens for the word to get out and spread like wildfire. Once the word has spread, guess what will happen?

Up will pop the many Militias that we currently have flying above and below the radar ( I believe that the average Joe would be amazed at the number of Militias we have in the U.S.) and start TCB'ing. I have said this before and will say it again and again, there would be a guerilla war in this Country the likes of which the World has never seen. Any army or agency that are the ones taking part in stripping us of our Freedoms and Liberties, would very shortly be very afraid to even move out of their staging areas because almost everything they touched would either sting, bite, burn, or blow them straight to hell.

Don't think any of what I just described will happen?
Well you might want to re-think that position.

We as a people (even if it's just us 3%) have very short fuses when we believe we are being totally wronged or believe that our way of live is in jeopardy and will only take so much before we explode into action.

Yes I believe that there will be some that gladly give up their guns and then slither away. Yes I believe there will be neighbors that turn their neighbors for whatever reason or gain.

Yes there will be folks with "shiny steel balls" and a belief that we will not be taken over from within, that will stand and fight, and more that likely end up in one of those "body bags" when/if the roundup starts.

When that starts happening and the word gets out then you will see that those few brave souls that had the "shiny steel balls" to stand up and die for what they believed in, will not have died in vain. :rantoff:


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

When the "roundup" starts we let it go too far,you will have news of the roundup because your cell phone won't work and the net will be down and your local radio station will likely be playing "best of" on Rush and Hannity that day.


----------



## ComputerGuy (Dec 10, 2010)

Magus said:


> When the "roundup" starts we let it go too far,you will have news of the roundup because your cell phone won't work and the net will be down and your local radio station will likely be playing "best of" on Rush and Hannity that day.


Don't think so. They will be playing some great Obummer speeches on how to use executive orders and MSNBC will be in the background.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Oldpagan said:


> Magus, I have no kids, my wife is of the same opinion, and my balls are not steel or shiny, what I do have is enough age to not care about life over freedom. Death is but a transition.


All I'm suggesting is buying yourself time,note I said "Sit on what you need."
Like a sniper rifle and a few pounds of plastic and a silencer" you know, basic necessitates.

Hell, one determined guy with a wrench and a putty knife can play hell with them just by switching the road signs and removing the scan stickers.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

ComputerGuy said:


> Don't think so. They will be playing some great Obummer speeches on how to use executive orders and MSNBC will be in the background.


Could well be, but I guarantee the social networks will be gone.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

No you more than likely won't hear about it on the idiot tube or on the net or radio, where the word will get out is after a Freedom loving neighbor see's the act go down on one of his friends or neighbors and alerts his friends, then the ball starts rolling from there. We all have our own ideas about what can or could happen and the way it will go down and the American people's response to it should it happen. 

Some folks on here talk about the lack of communication between people of like mind. Well don't believe that for a second, there are ample means of communication in place and the word will spread very rapidly and the 3% or 4%, or even 10% of True Freedom Loving Americans that are willing to act and aren't computer commando's will act and it will be down and dirty with no quarter asked or given. 

Some folks on here seem to quickly forget what a large percentage of Americans are really made of, they seem to forget about the courage and quality of the Men and Women who helped win our Independance and have answered the call to arms in every war since then.

There have been and still are (IMO) millions of freedom Loving Americans that have been and still are ready to fight for what they believe is right.


----------



## oldasrocks (Jun 30, 2012)

You're forgetting about CB radios (could be jammed) and HAM operators out there.

I can imagine the military would have its hands full from gangs in the cities and Cartels from the south.


----------



## ComputerGuy (Dec 10, 2010)

Magus said:


> Could well be, but I guarantee the social networks will be gone.


No there will still be Facebook. Of course there would only be one page!! "turn in your neighbors has over 1 billion likes"!


----------



## PrepN4Good (Dec 23, 2011)

oldvet said:


> I have been guilty of responding in anger on more than one occasion and have honestly been trying to cool down before responding, because quite a lot of the posts lately have been reduced to "pissing contests" and I have added fuel to that fire.


Amen, oldvet. I had to remove myself from the CO shooting threads because my eyes were starting to bleed.  Life is too short.



oldvet said:


> Up will pop the many Militias that we currently have flying above and below the radar ( I believe that the average Joe would be amazed at the number of Militias we have in the U.S.) and start TCB'ing. I have said this before and will say it again and again, there would be a guerilla war in this Country the likes of which the World has never seen. Any army or agency that are the ones taking part in stripping us of our Freedoms and Liberties, would very shortly be very afraid to even move out of their staging areas because almost everything they touched would either sting, bite, burn, or blow them straight to hell.


I hope with all my heart that you are right. However, will enough people (a) even realize what is going on, and (b) remember the 6 million Jews (and others) who allowed themselves to be systematically exterminated with barely a fight? Since I'm a born pessimist, I'm prone to think the answer to the latter question is "no."


----------



## Zanazaz (Feb 14, 2012)

From some of the responses to the original post, it's apparant that some of the forum members are willing to turn over their firearms to protect their families. That's all well and good, but how far are you willing to go to protect your family?

For example, you've already turned in your guns. You feel safe, you've got food, a home, etc. "They" come back, and ASK you if you know anyone else with firearms. Chances are you do know fellow preppers with firearms. What do you do? "They" imply that things will go better for you and your family to cooperate once again. Again, I ask, WHAT DO YOU DO? I think I know the answer...

That's why OPSEC on this forum is so important. There are more and more of you on this forum I WOULD NOT TRUST, EVER. Be very careful of what info you post on this forum.



> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Billyboy (May 3, 2011)

ComputerGuy said:


> No there will still be Facebook. Of course there would only be one page!! "turn in your neighbors has over 1 billion likes"!


:beercheer: Too funny! Of course Facebook will still be around, Thiel was at this year's Bilderberg meet. LOL


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

tenOC said:


> It sounds like you're agreeing.
> Do you think 5 million people in Iraq engaged the US military? How many do you supposed actually fought against the US?


Exactly my point. No doubt a large amount would be willing to give them up. That's a cold hard fact. But even at 10% of hard core firearms owners, that is a LARGE amount of people with firearms. That is about the population of Iraq. No of course all the Iraqs didn't fight. That's the point. Maybe a hundred thousand carried on a guerilla war and see how that went.

You consider 5 million spread out over a country as large as ours. They would never get all the guns.

JImmy


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

BillS said:


> Get a grip. There's no need to get mad when we're trying to have a reasonable discussion.
> 
> It wouldn't be that hard for the government to confiscate guns if they're willing to be as brutal as necessary to accomplish it. They bring in Russian soldiers through the UN. People who won't give up their guns are dealt with in either of two different ways: They call in air strikes and kill every man, woman, and child in that area. Or the Russian soldiers go house to house at 3:00 in the morning. They separate the men from the women and children. They kill all the men. They do whatever they want with the women and children. Men who are willing to die for a cause would be much less likely to do so if it their wives and children would be raped, tortured, and murdered.
> 
> ...


You are welcome to your opinion, as he has said. And I have mine and as I read it, it's a pure insult. So I will treat it as such. I don't think I'm alone either. We will never agree on that point. It was a decent conversation until his post.

Regardless if it were to ever happen, if you don't know what you'll do, then your a lost cause. If one treats a hypothetical senario with such unconcern, it will end badly if that senario were come to furition

Your opinion and his are the types that scare me to death.

Lack of a set will be the end of us.

Jimmy


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

Magus said:


> *Gentlemen.we all enjoy comparing how shiny our steel balls are, but talk is cheap.99% of us will fold like a wet newspaper if your kid is sick or starving, so why not hand in a couple of shiny pretties, and maybe a couple they don't know you have to look honest, maybe a couple of flea market junkers and SIT on what you really need?*


I have none to give up, they were lost in a float trip....:gaah::beercheer:

BTW, do you include yourself in that 99%??

Jimmy


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

TheLazyL said:


> Balderdash.
> 
> Everyone under 18 no firearms.
> 
> ...


Everyone is intitled to their opinion.

Jimmy


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

CulexPipiens said:


> *Nope. No hard feelings or raised hackles. After all we're all entitled to our opinions and I really really do hope that it never gets to the point that we each have to take this from a mental exercise to practical application*.


On these points I do agree with you. :2thumb::surrender:

On all the rest we will have to agree to disagree. :dunno: :beercheer:

Jimmy


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Jimmy24 said:


> On these points I do agree with you. :2thumb::surrender:
> 
> On all the rest we will have to agree to disagree. :dunno: :beercheer:
> 
> Jimmy


Agreed!

:surrender:


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Well maybe I am just old and set in my ways or just to Damn stubborn or foolish to change my mind at this stage of the game, but I will just be Damned if I will give up even one "old safe queen" or that $20.00 .22 I might have bought at a yard sale.

Yes it might be safer to hide your "real stuff" and give them your trash guns, however "they" aren't as stupid as some folks think. If you have purchased some of your "good stuff" from a dealer and "they" grab the 4473's and see what you have bought, do you honestly believe that "they" will buy into the story that you lost, sold, gave away, or had all of your guns stolen? If you honestly believe that "they" will buy that story then I wish you all of the luck in the world when you tell them that and then have to deal with what will follow.

I have said this before and I will say it (hopefully) one last time. I am 65 years old and have lived a good long life, I have basically accomplished my goals in life, raised my children, served my Country, provided a good retirement income for my Wife and myself and have stood tall and faced any and everything thrown at me "face on" and handled the situation without ever giving in or up and I have never "hit my knee's" except to pray and I will just be Damned if I will start now. I am not afraid to die for what I believe in and *I know *that there are *Millions* more in this Country that feel the same.

*NO!!!* I will never willingly give up my guns to anyone that attempts to take them by force. Yes the term "from my cold dead hands" means exactly that to me.

You can agree, disagree, call me a liar, call me a computer commando, or say whatever you want because it won't change how I think and feel about standing up for what I think is right.


----------



## lotsoflead (Jul 25, 2010)

The best and safest way to discuss guns on an open forum is to not discuss guns.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

lotsoflead said:


> The best and safest way to discuss guns on an open forum is to not discuss guns.


At one point in time a year or so ago, I would have agreed with you, but now I am beyond worry or care about what "Big Brother" thinks. "They know who has the guns and what most of us that have them think. I am no longer paranoid about what "Big Brother" will do, because I have come to terms with what my reaction or actions will be in the event "they" attempt to stomp all over me or mine and I am very content with my decision.

lotsoflead this is not aimed at you nor is it meant to offend you or anyone else, it's just how I feel, and my feelings on being paranoid is that it is a total waste of time, energy, and accomplishes nothing more than driving someone crazy or giving them undue stress.

I will not knowingly or deliberately compromise mine or anyone elses OPSEC or COMSEC, but I will tell you just exactly how I feel.


----------



## lazydaisy67 (Nov 24, 2011)

Ok, I don't have any shiny ones, so forgive me if I'm out of line by posting in this thread, lol. I keep thinking back to Katrina. First the storm, and pictures appearing on the news of the damage. Then all of a sudden we're watching looters, figuring that's par for the course. But then, and here's where it started to be like watching a science fiction movie, we're watching the military in conjunction with National Guards and police going house to house and taking the guns away. The law abiding citizens were left with no way to protect themselves. Maybe some of them had something stashed away behind a tree somewhere, I don't know. The point is, a lot of us sat in our livng rooms and watched it like it was just another news story. I'm guilty myself. I shook my head and thought "Wow, that really sucks for them." I don't recall seeing any militias showing up to stop the military from taking guns. I don't really recall too many people protesting about any of that at all. I do remember seeing lots of stories about movie stars donating time, money and laundry soap to the Red Cross and FEMA (when they got there). Of course, afterwards we hear all kind of horror stories about the police raping women, and stealing things out of people's homes and yada, yada. We're still just sitting in our armchairs and saying "Gee, that was really bad down there." No militia showed up to keep the peace or be watchdogs for the citizens. Some regular Army guys and Guards were interviewed saying "You never thought you'd be doing this in America." But guess what? THEY WERE FOLLOWING ORDERS!!! I'm not necessarily scared of the 30-40 and older crowd of regular military and guards. I'm terrified of the 18, 19, 20-somethings with little to loose, BIG shiny ones, a big weapon and 16 years of experience playing Medal of Honor and Call of Duty on Playstation.
My point is, we have been given a great opportunity to actually witness what it could be like. Katrina should be a lesson learned for all of us. Never underestimate how bad it could be.


----------



## Zanazaz (Feb 14, 2012)

Katrina was a huge surprise. What happened after was even a bigger surprise. Slow response by FEMA, etc. Gun seizures? Probably never crossed anyone's mind, and by the time people hear about it? Then it's too late. It takes time to mobilize a response. So I don't think Katrina is a good example. Now of course we know the FEDGOV may seize guns during a major emergency/disaster, so you need to plan what to do if it happens in your area.


----------



## urbanprepping (Feb 21, 2012)

Immolatus said:


> I have wondered about this concept myself. While watching coverage of the Syria situation, the perceived insanity of it, and the (MSM's?) apparent incredulity with it all, what would the people of the US expect our own gubt to do in the same situation? My feeling is they would react in the exact same way. This would prove to everyone, although I doubt they would see it this way that those in power are not concerned with the well being and satisfaction of the citizens with the state of affairs and by extension the gubt itself and those in power and the job they are doing, but only with their own well being and their position in power. In theory, if those in power saw that those they rule over were unhappy with them, the honorable thing to do would be to step aside if they really are these altruistic people that they should be. Just the idea of that is laughable, no?
> I would hope it would come down to (a non violent?) secession instead of an outright rebellion. A 'civil war' if I am reading your meaning correctly (a violent uprising/secession?) would be horribly one sided if it came down to it and the military was willing to fire on its own citizens, which is up for debate.
> In an academic sense it would be interesting to see how it would play out. To be in the middle of it, not so much.
> Just for the sake of discussion, lets say the Confederacy decides to secede. Militarily it would be suicide. The optimal process (call me a dreamer) would be if the US decides to 'invade' and instead of trying to fight back, the South decides to lay down their arms and not play that game. If by saying 'We are not going to play by your rules' the South forces the US's hand by essentially forcing it to take over the Confederates state/national governance, it would find an ungovernable populace and would have to make concessions which in essence would be a stricter adherence to the original Constitution anyway. If it did not it would become a military occupation in every sense of the word and would be devastating for both sides.
> ...


In Syria gun ownership is outlawed. And also owning a knife larger than 3 inches in illegal. This I know because my neighbor got just got his family out of Syria. 
They were never allowed to own. 
When a government fears it people that is freedom
Our will take our guns it would be suscide to them.


----------



## lazydaisy67 (Nov 24, 2011)

I think we kind of need to know who "them" is first. If we're talking about our own military, our government would probably be hard pressed to get all of them to comply with orders against the American people. If, however, our government tells the U.N. that their citizens are getting unruly and they need troops, well then all bets are off. Some guy from Europe wouldn't have a problem shooting an American citizen if they weren't following orders. 
Let's see.....how chummy are we with the U.N. right now? Just thinking out loud. Again, I think the best policy, and I live this in my life every single day, is to prepare for the absolute WORST case scenario and pray like mad that it never, ever happens. But never convince yourself that it COULDN'T happen. It can, it has and it could.


----------



## wolven (Sep 7, 2011)

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Bruke


Categorys of the population

1. Most people are pacifists at heart. Not everyone, but not too many people believe that they should stand up and stop someone when they know they could just walk away without any problems. Thats why America is in the mess it is. How many people out there do you know who don't vote, just say "Oh well, there is nothing I can do about it", or "its not my problem". They may have guns but not much backbone, they'll just give them up

2. Then there are those who wish they could do something but don't because they don't know where to start or are afraid of getting involved and getting hurt or labeled as a disenter. They may not want to give up their guns but will if faced with a potential personal threat.

3 Then there are the criminals . No need to say more about them.

4. Then there will be folks like me, I have some guns that I will turn in but I wont give them all up. I'll have some that I can keep hidden real well, like most of the smart ones out there will do. Pretend to be the sheeple and put my plan in place. Fortunately I live in the hills of Wild and Wonderful West By God Virginia and most of my neighbors and relatives ane hard nosed country boys and we will band together. I would have no problem shoting my enemy and that would be someone trying to deny my right to Keep and bere Arms. I may be short, fat and a woman but I come from a long line of folks who fought in the military to keep this way of life. I myself served in the military and have a strong sence of keeping the American way, but I am not blind to the way the Government is trying to control its citisens by taking away our rights left and right. Sorry about that got on a soapbox for a while there

5. Then there are those who will shot first and start a small waco.

Who is to say what way is best. Not everone is of the same mind and can only deal with who and what they are. That is what makes America Great...


----------



## kappydell (Nov 27, 2011)

I have only one reply to those who think 'banning guns' is the answer. It won't work. Why? Human nature. Proof? Cocaine. Illegal to sell, possess or use, yet it is all over the place and has flourished. As long as people don't mind breaking a few laws, guns are here to stay. Interesting post.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Zanazaz said:


> Katrina was a huge surprise. What happened after was even a bigger surprise. Slow response by FEMA, etc. Gun seizures? Probably never crossed anyone's mind, and by the time people hear about it?


Nothing that happened regarding Katrina was a surprise to me and, in fact, I predicted much of what transpired to my friends as Katrina was shaping up.

Take a city with:

1.) high poverty rate,
2.) a large portion of the population displaying social dysfunction,
3.) a high murder and crime rate, and
4.) corrupt local government

and I knew that the stragglers left behind would be mostly black, mostly poor, mostly dysfunctional, and that those in power in the city would be pretty incompetent at forming up an orderly response because they had achieved their positions through cronyism rather than competence.

FEMA and its dysfunction were a surprise to me but what FEMA was dealing with could have all been avoided if the authorities and citizens at the local level were more competent.

Compare Katrina to the Grand Forks floods in the 90s or the wildfires of recent times which are striking solid middle class and higher neighborhoods and examine how people react to the disasters that befall them.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Jimmy24 said:


> I have none to give up, they were lost in a float trip....:gaah::beercheer:
> 
> BTW, do you include yourself in that 99%??
> 
> Jimmy


No wife, no kids, nothing to live for.I'm looking up OldVet and a few others and see what kind of mess we can make.I'm in the "psychopath looking for an excuse" percent as CNN would say.

I'm a firm believer in terrorism, its purpose is to terrorize.what kind of morale will the UN bluetips and the traitors in our own forces have when they find their buddies dressed out like hogs in the woods? or when everything they touch poisons, explodes, or bites them?

[A]
NONE.we will win.if only 10% of us fight, we win. if we get ahold of just one nuke, we win.groups and militias there are plenty, but its the angry loners that do the most damage, angry loners like out of Vietnam and the first gulf war that are trained will be the cutting edge in this war, they are untraceable and leave no trails.for all anyone knows they already have bodycount and the corporate news wrote it off as a lone nut, not related to anything...until they get 100 a day that is.


----------



## Billyboy (May 3, 2011)

Magus said:


> ....we will win.if only 10% of us fight, we win. if we get ahold of just one nuke, we win.groups and militias there are plenty, but its the angry loners that do the most damage ...


Just curious...for the sake of conversation...What exactly would you win, esp. w/a nuke? And would this be the way 'you' would govern the rest of us Americans left?


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Billyboy said:


> Just curious...for the sake of conversation...What exactly would you win, esp. w/a nuke? And would this be the way 'you' would govern the rest of us Americans left?


Are you really serious with these questions?

If you are then are you one that will roll over and take whatever bone the PTB decide to throw at you?

I will speak for myself only and say that WHEN WE WIN by whatever means necessary the Country would be governed according to the Constitution by individuals that we would elect and by then would know that "we the people" would be watching their every move and would make them accountable for their actions.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Deleted.......


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

deleted........


----------



## Billyboy (May 3, 2011)

oldvet said:


> Are you really serious with these questions?
> 
> If you are then are you one that will roll over and take whatever bone the PTB decide to throw at you?
> 
> I will speak for myself only and say that WHEN WE WIN by whatever means necessary the Country would be governed according to the Constitution by individuals that we would elect and by then would know that "we the people" would be watching their every move and would make them accountable for their actions.


Yes, I am serious and please do not assume how I will react with anything....please. I've had a direct family member fight in EVERY war and police action this country has engaged in since it's inception. I am a very proud Daughter of the American Revolution. On my other side I have uncles that endured 'reeducation camps' and POW camps, aunts that have been raped and maimed, my grandmother was beaten and stabbed for medicine and food after watching my other uncles tortured and killed....So please do not assume how I will react if me or my loved ones are threatened.

I asked (as I stated before) for the sake of conversation. It was a theoretical question meant to engage serious thought. If you have read any of my prior posts you would see that I am all for fighting for my rights.

Using a nuclear devise implies detonation on U.S. soil. Many innocent Americans would be lost along with the land and its after affects for years. I don't see how that would be in the best interest for America.

Secondly, historically with revolution against a government there are many opposing factions or militia (if you will) that scramble when the regime topples, leaving uncertainty and unrest for the remaining citizens. My question was asking how (once won) would a terrorist-type (not my words) party govern in the aftermath. Would people then fear this type of regime, because they were quick to destroy innocents.

It was and is a serious question...for the sake of conversation and speculation, ONLY.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

In a situation where there is a revolution if the gov't loyalists push too hard, its not like the revolutionaires wont know where the other guys families live to in turn commit atrocities on them.

Sound familiar?
No?
It should.

Why do you think in the American Revolution a signifcant portion of the US population had to flee to Canada?

It was to escape the revolutionaries atrocities.


So if in a Science Fiction world, jackbooted thugs were to start raiding at 3 am and killing families, the american people will not be helpless because they will figure out who raiders families are and can return like with like...


----------



## goshengirl (Dec 18, 2010)

I have ancestors who were loyalists during the Revolution - hopefully no one here will hold that against me.  They were part of those that fled to Canada and were given land up there by the crown. They fled because of the things done to them by revolutionaries. My great grandmother (many generations removed) had her ear cut off by her neighbors while her husband was away. Two others were invited to a neighbors house for a meal and were murdered. Another took an axe to the face and bore the disfigurement for the remainder of his life. 

Now, I may not agree with my ancestors politics, but the point is this: if neighbors will maim and kill neighbors, then neighbors will easily turn in/rat out neighbors. I believe it will happen again. I think about stuff like that whenever I take target practice in the woods....


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Billyboy said:


> Just curious...for the sake of conversation...What exactly would you win, esp. w/a nuke? And would this be the way 'you' would govern the rest of us Americans left?


Ever realize what would happen if we nuked the north pole? the whole sh1thouse would flip out through space.everybody out of the pool....or else!

Me govern? billybob,you do NOT want me in charge.I'd introduce the world to a kind of "racism"Hitler would have wept at the beauty of.I do not discriminate by the color of a person's skin, but that under 80 IQ crap has got to go!Sterilize them, then treat them nice.in a generation the morons are gone, no suffering or messy mass graves for the world to cry over and point at either.I'd get rid of this "party" horse crap too, let a candidate stand on merit alone.

No Billybubba,I'm a fighter, not a leader.I'd blow this entire planet out of space and watch it freeze or burn than be a drone minded slave.pick up your sword and go!lest someone like me actually DOES get that nuke.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Magus said:


> I do not discriminate by the color of a person's skin, but that under 80 IQ crap has got to go!


One of my favorite charities: Project Prevention

They pay drug addicts to get sterilized.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Ain't that nice, how much? I got one I'm not using.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Magus said:


> Ain't that nice, how much? I got one I'm not using.


$300 is the offer.


----------



## Zanazaz (Feb 14, 2012)

Magus said:


> No wife, no kids, nothing to live for.I'm looking up OldVet and a few others and see what kind of mess we can make.I'm in the "psychopath looking for an excuse" percent as CNN would say.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in terrorism, its purpose is to terrorize.what kind of morale will the UN bluetips and the traitors in our own forces have when they find their buddies dressed out like hogs in the woods? or when everything they touch poisons, explodes, or bites them?
> 
> ...


Wow, never thought I would say this, but despite our political and religous differences, I would rather fight a guerilla war along side you than with most any of the other people on this forum. :2thumb:


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Billyboy said:


> Yes, I am serious and please do not assume how I will react with anything....please. I've had a direct family member fight in EVERY war and police action this country has engaged in since it's inception. I am a very proud Daughter of the American Revolution. On my other side I have uncles that endured 'reeducation camps' and POW camps, aunts that have been raped and maimed, my grandmother was beaten and stabbed for medicine and food after watching my other uncles tortured and killed....So please do not assume how I will react if me or my loved ones are threatened.
> 
> I asked (as I stated before) for the sake of conversation. It was a theoretical question meant to engage serious thought. If you have read any of my prior posts you would see that I am all for fighting for my rights.
> 
> ...


If you re-read my post, you will see that I didn't assume anything. I simply asked you a question, and that question was basically if you would roll over and turn in your guns and accept whatever the Gov. did to you.

I also said I was speaking for myself when I answered your question about what type of Government I would have running this Country.

I am sorry if I offended you as that was not my intent. My intent was simply to ask a question, get your answer and then answer one of your questions. I realize that your questions were not asked of me, but I responded as if they were.


----------



## lefty (Sep 29, 2011)

goshengirl said:


> I have ancestors who were loyalists during the Revolution - hopefully no one here will hold that against me.  They were part of those that fled to Canada and were given land up there by the crown. They fled because of the things done to them by revolutionaries. My great grandmother (many generations removed) had her ear cut off by her neighbors while her husband was away. Two others were invited to a neighbors house for a meal and were murdered. Another took an axe to the face and bore the disfigurement for the remainder of his life.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> people do not realize how violent and intense things were leading up to the war


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Bobbb said:


> $300 is the offer.


Nah, my goobers are worth 1500$



Zanazaz said:


> Wow, never thought I would say this, but despite our political and religous differences, I would rather fight a guerilla war along side you than with most any of the other people on this forum. :2thumb:


*Bows*one day we just might.but don't be too sure about politics,I don't drink anybody's kool-aid but my own.I'm just as likely to spit it in the face of 0bombo as I am oven Mitt.


----------



## Billyboy (May 3, 2011)

oldvet said:


> If you re-read my post, you will see that I didn't assume anything. I simply asked you a question, and that question was basically if you would roll over and turn in your guns and accept whatever the Gov. did to you.
> 
> I also said I was speaking for myself when I answered your question about what type of Government I would have running this Country.
> 
> I am sorry if I offended you as that was not my intent. My intent was simply to ask a question, get your answer and then answer one of your questions. I realize that your questions were not asked of me, but I responded as if they were.


My apologies, oldvet. I took it to mean that if I was seriously asking the questions then I would be one that will roll over and take whatever bone the PTB decide to threw at me.

And I agree with you, I would hope that we could get back to our constitutional republic as our forefathers intended.

I was just speculating a scenario for the 'after we win'. Would be susceptible to parties wishing to impose tyranny again?.... and I sort of got one opinion to that.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

oldvet said:


> Excellent post, and one that hits home with me. I have been guilty of responding in anger on more than one occasion and have honestly been trying to cool down before responding, because quite a lot of the posts lately have been reduced to "pissing contests" and I have added fuel to that fire.
> 
> I no longer intend to get involved in arguements on here, I will state my opinion, say everything I intend to say on the subject, maybe tell you what I will or would do and then move on.
> 
> ...


This pretty much sums up my feelings on this discussion. Good job.

Back to how many would stand or band and fight? Look at the middle east right now. There are not huge organized armies keeping the NATO forces at bay. There are random raiding parties of a few men stopping the advancing hoards. Sure they pick them off one by one but have they gone in IN FORCE and routed these few men out? Nope. Take the case of the 'evil doers'. NATO had a hundred thousand forces looking for how many&#8230; A few hundred 'evil doers'? And they are still there, NATO did not even get them all after ten years!!!

One of the things that will be taken into consideration is that the local militia, be it one man or a hundred, have home field advantage. We will know the territory we are fighting in, the invaders will not. Sure there will be the drones all over and random bombings but we will hold out, count on it. After reading this thread there are many like myself, older, single and will be pissed off. Put a few folks likewise minded together in an area and see what kind of hoards we can keep at bay.

As far as going house to house, word will get out mighty fast after they start this, be sure of it. This isn't Katrina where we are waiting around for handouts. This is where we are waiting around, prepared for what is going to happen.

Now, American soldiers, local law enforcement or foreign troops? I can't see American troops doing a door to door thing. Even if they started, after a few of them drop due to local resistance they will rethink their strategy. They will be worried about THEIR families and if this is happening to them.

Local law? Nawww. Most have too big a stake in the community and would worry about their families.

Foreign troops? This would piss off a lot more folks and we would have a much better resistance.

As far as the see something say something crowd, yes. There will be many, many of them and they will be the biggest obstacle to overcome.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Billyboy said:


> My apologies, oldvet. I took it to mean that if I was seriously asking the questions then I would be one that will roll over and take whatever bone the PTB decide to threw at me.
> 
> And I agree with you, I would hope that we could get back to our constitutional republic as our forefathers intended.
> 
> I was just speculating a scenario for the 'after we win'. Would be susceptible to parties wishing to impose tyranny again?.... and I sort of got one opinion to that.


"No harm no foul" just a misunderstanding from both of us and again I did not mean to offend. I do see that we more or less think alike.

I honestly and truly hope that if we were actually involved in a Civil War neither side would use nukes, because it would be devastating for both sides.

I can see where someone else that wanted to "rule" America would try to slick talk his/her way in while pulling the wool over people's eyes just like Castro did in Cuba.

Hopefully there would be enough of us Freedom loving individuals left with the "smarts" to see through some "two bit dictator" and allow him/her to take a "dirt nap" or "sleep with the fish".


----------



## LongRider (May 8, 2012)

hillobeans said:


> To be honest, I would most likely turn mine in.&#8230;&#8230;.l. I also wouldn't be interested in turning my gun on fellow Americans who are just following orders.


This has to be one of the most heartbreaking posts on the entire thread. Especially because I have no doubt that you truly believe it is the just and honorable thing to do. Have you considered that tens of thousands have already sacrificed their lives? That tens of thousands have already grown up without fathers so that you could be free to make that choice? That by submitting to tyranny you would condemn your children to a life time of servitude? Or that eventually your children will have to be the ones to fight and die in your stead to be free because you choose not too?

Because I suspect that you are honorable man, I seriously doubt that you would want to condemn your children to such a fate. Americans turning on each other in mortal combat is as repugnant a nightmare as any I can imagine but if it must come, I pray it is in my lifetime so that my children will not have to endure that horror.



dirtgrrl said:


> If they pry your gun from your cold dead hands, you're still cold and dead, and no help to any one. You died a meaningless death. The enemy won.
> 
> Adjust your tinfoil hat, get a grip, and live to fight another day.


To think there are those who believe that sacrificing their lives for liberty and freedom is a meaningless death is also heartbreaking. The reality of any war is that there will be those who will die. While the goal of every warrior is to make the enemy die for their beliefs the fact is the good guys will die as well. There is nothing meaningless nor foolish about being ready to die fighting for freedom and liberty.



BillS said:


> There's no way an armed uprising would be successful against the government. Not if they're willing to be as brutal as necessary to put it down. An opposing force wouldn't have a command structure or secure communications. This isn't 1860 anymore when the a group of people could be close to as well armed as the government. That was the beauty of gun ownership when the country was founded: A group of citizens could be almost as well armed as the government, with the exception of not having artillery.


I whole heatedly disagree with this statement.

Of course among us we have fear driven spineless limp wristed anally receptive cowards who would happily bow down live on their knees polishing the knobs of their chosen masters in exchange for some comfort and safety. But they, by no means represent that majority of Americans

I will start by pointing out that you are sadly mistaken if you believe that all US Military and LEO personnel are traitors or goose stepping robots. Our warriors have each sworn to defend the Constitution. They would not all blindly follow orders to level their weapons on their family, friends and fellow citizens, the very people they have given an oath to protect and serve. May I suggest that you take a look at the *OATH KEEPERS* an organization of retired and current active duty military and law enforcement personal who have taken a stand to uphold their oath no matter what. Including the refusing to obey unlawful orders. As defined here *Orders Oath Keepers Will Not Obey*. So that even among the rank and file that you imagine will fight against the American people there will be those who stand up and do the right thing because this is not Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or China where soldiers are programmed to blindly obey their master.

Add to that the fact, that dedicated men committed to fighting in defense of their homes, liberty and freedom will never be defeated by an organized professional military force no matter how well trained, equipped or large it may be.

That was proven in 1776. The colonial army was in fact a rag tag haphazard assortment of hicks, country bumpkins, pudgy shop owners, academia's and intellectuals. While the British Army was arguably the best trained and disciplined Army on the planet. Equipped with state of the art firepower and not just with superior artillery. Contrary to your implication, they were by no definition equitable forces. The revolutionary army was hopelessly out gunned, under armed, out numbered, untrained and poorly equipped. Yet we prevailed against the most powerful nation and army of the time.

We learned that lesson again in Vietnam, and again in Iraq. The Soviets learned it in Afghanistan and the IRA has proven to the English that an occupied people will fight as long as needed to obtain their liberty. Do you think our wars will ever be over in Iraq or Afghanistan without out the cooperation of the people there? Which is why we now fight to win hearts and minds, as well as territory. We know that without the hearts and minds of the indigenous population in agreement with our goals we can never ever win a lasting victory. Why would the American people be any different, if civil war breaks out here? The American people are the greatest most freedom loving people on earth. Each generation throughout our history has proven our willingness to stand up and fight against tyranny. Why would we not do for ourselves what we do for others around the world? Why would We The People not stand up for Our Own Families, Our Own Communities, Our Own Nation, and stand against tyranny and oppression?

As long as we stand up we will never be defeated. No matter how big or powerful those who would oppress us imagine themselves to be.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

LongRider said:


> I will start by pointing out that you are sadly mistaken if you believe that all US Military and LEO personnel are traitors or goose stepping robots. Our warriors have each sworn to defend the Constitution. They would not all blindly follow orders to level their weapons on their family, friends and fellow citizens, the very people they have given an oath to protect and serve. May I suggest that you take a look at the OATH KEEPERS an organization of retired and current active duty military and law enforcement personal who have taken a stand to uphold their oath no matter what. Including the refusing to obey unlawful orders. As defined here Orders Oath Keepers Will Not Obey. So that even among the rank and file that you imagine will fight against the American people there will be those who stand up and do the right thing because this is not Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or China where soldiers are programmed to blindly obey their master.
> 
> Add to that the fact, that dedicated men committed to fighting in defense of their homes, liberty and freedom will never be defeated by an organized professional military force no matter how well trained, equipped or large it may be.
> 
> ...


Thank you for pointing this out. I sometimes feel as though there are only a handful of us on this site with this mentality.


----------



## mercygirl87 (Feb 21, 2011)

Jimmy24 said:


> So you say you are not stirring up anything, REALLY? REALLY? You just slapped me and I'd be willing to bet a BUNCH more people. You just pretty much called a large group of gun owners/US citizens, cowards.
> 
> If that is the case than why even worry about it. Let's just call up King BO and say you know what, we gun owners have just decided that it's just a shame for you to have to go to all the trouble to root us out and take our guns, so we SHEEPLE will just give them to you.
> 
> ...


I guess I am behind on some of these posts due to too much working, but Jimmy, your the man. I love your thinking!!


----------



## mojo4 (Feb 19, 2012)

Only around 4% of the colonial population fought against the british. And they won! If it ever gets to this point everyone must decide if they are willing to sacrifice their and their families lives to retain their freedoms. Not everyone who says they will fight will fight and not all who say fighting is futile won't fight. Its a lot of sacrifice and hopefully enough Americans will be willing to make the sacrifice or we will be finished.


----------



## ComputerGuy (Dec 10, 2010)

To even think about something like this pains the heart. I served this country with all my heart, for over 30 years. I continue to serve daily and to think that what I belived in, The concept, everything is GONE for the most part. Prostituted by politicians who think of themselves and that I must maybe give my life up because a bunch of other people cannot fathom what they are given because they have no concept onb what the idea of Life, Liberty, and the Constitution means to them.

I am more than willing to give some tough love to those who do not understand it.

Maybe it is time to see lines of people marching to showers. How horrible a thought.

I just don't know what to do anymore... Seeing a blind allegiance to a person instead of our concept.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

ComputerGuy said:


> . . .The concept, everything is GONE for the most part. Prostituted by politicians who think of themselves and that I must maybe give my life up because a bunch of other people cannot fathom what they are given because they have no concept onb what the idea of Life, Liberty, and the Constitution means to them.


Individual politicians, and even politicians as a group, are not really the problem for politicians are simply symbols for ideologies and movements and parties that elect them. When we see a politician who is "thinking of himself" what is actually going on is the politician doing something that benefits himself PLUS a whole bunch of his supporters.

The root problem here is a fractured society. Liberals love diversity. Well, this is what happens with diversity - difference emerge and sometimes those differences are so profound that the differences swamp any common ties.

AMERICA as a concept held dear by people and filling a central aspect of their lives only has meaning when all the people in society share the same vision. Diversity introduces the notion that all ideas are ok and all ideas are equal and it purposely seeks to destroy common ties amongst peoples because those common ties lead to uniformity and we all know that uniformity is boring and that DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH and if you don't know that then off to the re-education camp for you.


----------



## LongRider (May 8, 2012)

Turtle said:


> Thank you for pointing this out. I sometimes feel as though there are only a handful of us on this site with this mentality.


Boy do I understand that feeling. But the post got three likes so are at least five of us liberty loving fools left. From some of the other posts I suspect there are more. :beercheer:


----------



## Theriot (Aug 17, 2012)

Zanazaz said:


> Katrina was a huge surprise. What happened after was even a bigger surprise. Slow response by FEMA, etc. Gun seizures? Probably never crossed anyone's mind, and by the time people hear about it? Then it's too late. It takes time to mobilize a response. So I don't think Katrina is a good example. Now of course we know the FEDGOV may seize guns during a major emergency/disaster, so you need to plan what to do if it happens in your area.


We are still no better off. Most of the same people don't have any plans if it happens again. The poor still won't leave because they want to stay a protect their thing. There were busses for days removing people before it hit and they stayed behind. Don't blame them they knew what would happen when they left. They would be let back in while the scum just did what they want. So many guns were stolen for stores and home that were never recovered. I can promise you they won't leave again. The sad part is you would think maybe they are at least putting away some food. I asure you they aren't.

The excuse I heard why those guns were taken was that some of the law enforcers were from places like New York where you can't own guns. They weren't sure about the laws here. Bull sh-t.

Before you give up your guns keep in mind that the thugs won't. What will stop them from walking right in your home after the goverment moves to the town. Nothing. There won't be a cop or MP down every street. You will become prey. As soon as the good guys leave who just want your guns to help protect people. The guys that don't know you or care about you will just walk right in with no worries and occupy your home and how will you protect your family.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

If the government were to try massive gun seizures, the ONLY way they could justify it at the outset would be to declare martial law. Then all bets are off. Word would spread like wildfire, I don't doubt that for a second. Sure lots of chicken sh!ts would give up their stuff, many wont. Once the word got out of Citizens being killed, that would definitely change the attitude of many folks who would at this time be considered sheeple.

The American way of life is unique in the world. Too many people have forgotten what it means to be a real Constitution loving red-blooded AMERICAN!! That is a truly sad thing.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution, I was NEVER relieved of that oath. I am the father of two wonderful children, my son is 18 and my daughter is gonna be 6 in a few months. I would not be able to look them in the eyes if I just rolled over and surrendered THEIR freedoms without a fight. If I died defending the very HEART of the country that I love, then it would be worth it. I am and always have been a fighter, I am well trained and pretty good at it, if I say so myself.

I don't fear death, I fear living in a world without freedom!!!

And I believe with all my heart that there are MILLIONS of people, active military, former military, law enforcement and others who feel the same as I.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

continued...

I have absolutelty no doubt of the fact that in an all out government grab that the citizens of this great country would come out on top. I don't think any UN forces would stand a sliver of a chance. They would be decimated. In this day and age of the internet, discussions like this are going on all the time, It's not like there is only 5 guys up in the hills saying yall just aint takin my guns! Many many gun owners are already of the mindset. 

But for now, the only thing we can do is to get the gun-grabbin liberal sum-beeches the hell outta office!! VOTE! Contact your congress critters and tell them if they keep trying to chew away at the Constitution, then they are OUT!!! If they cannot uphold their oath of office then they gotta go!! Not saying it'll work, but should we just throw our hands up and quit?

If you are not fighting for your rights NOW you probably wont be fighting for them later!!


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> continued...
> 
> I have absolutelty no doubt of the fact that in an all out government grab that the citizens of this great country would come out on top. I don't think any UN forces would stand a sliver of a chance. They would be decimated.


You don't have any doubt? Well, I have plenty, so you're welcome to a nice heapin' portion of mine.

We know that people will do atrocious things to other people if the social pressure on them is strong enough.

We know that the principal factor which keeps soldiers in battle is the camaraderie with their fellow soldiers and not wanting to let them down. What soldier is going to turn on his squad and shoot them down when they are out executing the orders given to them by their superiors, even when those orders are to strip Americans of liberty? Most military people have had to face orders that simply didn't make sense to them and trust that the "thinking" was done at a higher pay grade.

If you have civilians shooting down American soldiers, it's a good bet that many of those soldiers are going to rally around the unit.

That's one side of the coin, the other side is that you have nearly a third or so of the nation who actively want everyone disarmed. Then you have who knows how many who won't toe the line when push comes to shove and will allow a raping of their liberty.

The UN is a bogeyman - they're not even minor players in such future events.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

pandamonium said:


> continued...
> 
> I have absolutelty no doubt of the fact that in an all out government grab that the citizens of this great country would come out on top. I don't think any UN forces would stand a sliver of a chance. They would be decimated. In this day and age of the internet, discussions like this are going on all the time, It's not like there is only 5 guys up in the hills saying yall just aint takin my guns! Many many gun owners are already of the mindset.
> 
> ...


Excellent, excellent posts and I totally agree with you . Good on ya. :2thumb:


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Bobbb said:


> You don't have any doubt? Well, I have plenty, so you're welcome to a nice heapin' portion of mine.
> 
> We know that people will do atrocious things to other people if the social pressure on them is strong enough.
> 
> ...


You know Bobbb I along with every other person that has served or is serving this Country in the Military, took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

I believe in that oath and hold it close to my heart and as far as I know no one has ever relieved me of that oath.

I have absolutely no doubt that I would turn my weapon on any member of my unit that was violating that oath by murdering fellow freedom loving Americans that refused to give up their rights and made the decision to defend them.

I don't give a tinkers Damn if you are wearing a uniform or not commiting "murder" and calling it following orders just dosen't stand with me and again, Yes I would do any and everything in my power to stop it.

I am also of the notion that the vast majority of the members of the Military would tell TPTB to stick those orders where the "Sun don't shine" and would stand down.

Our troops today are not the same type of "conscripts" like the German, Japanese, and yes even the Russian troops of WWII were, they (for the most part) blindly followed orders and murdered Millions of innocent people.

I would put heavy money on the fact that at least 3/4 of the troops today would "stand down".


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Great posts guys. I hope the day never comes when I see our government trying to take away the 2nd Amendment...


----------



## stayingthegame (Mar 22, 2011)

the trouble is that there will always be those who are willing to give up their freedom for security and will sell out others for a few dollars or a free meal. THOSE are the ones I am afraid of.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

oldvet said:


> You know Bobbb I along with every other person that has served or is serving this Country in the Military, took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
> 
> I believe in that oath and hold it close to my heart and as far as I know no one has ever relieved me of that oath.
> 
> ...


 Very well said, oldvet. Thanks.

Bobbb, you can doubt all you want. That's on you. I have faith in the American spirit. The same one that made this country great! I believe this spirit lives. Yeah, it has been dumbed down by our governments liberalisms. BUT, I was amazed at how quickly the same spirit exploded after 9/11. I know the situations are not the same, but it did show me that the American spirit still lives!! And THAT SPIRIT is what will make all the difference.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

stayingthegame said:


> the trouble is that there will always be those who are willing to give up their freedom for security and will sell out others for a few dollars or a free meal. THOSE are the ones I am afraid of.


 Sure, but as soon as people realize who the rats are, the rats will be made examples of. IMO, that rat should fear ME and those LIKE me!! That ratting crap would not go on long....

If this scenario were to come about, I truly think it would be a war zone. Everywhere. In order for the feds to find the "rebels" they would have to round up all the "non-rebels" so they know whoever is left are the combatants. Not sure if that is how it would pan out, but if all of us knuckle draggin red-neck gun totin types took off the camo and put on shirts with sleeves we could try to blend in with the libs! I doubt everyone will just keep on goin to work and watching American Idol or the Simpsons, while raids are going on and battles being fought. How long do you think folks would be ok with being "detained, for your safety". The liberals who, right now preach about gun control would be crying about their Rights! "You can't keep me here! I know my Rights!!!" butt-holes

No, I have no doubt. I think half of the active military and a large portion of LEOs would join in the battle to keep America free. Which is what this type of fight would be. Our entire way of life is pivotal on the 2nd Amendment. Our founding fathers were NOT fools! There are plenty of quotes out there explaining that, I am sure you have seen most, so I wont put any up.

No, forcefully disarming the American Citizens on a national basis would just never work and our government knows it.

The same reason holds why these United States will NEVER be successfully invaded by an outside force.


----------



## flpresson (Apr 27, 2012)

As I read through this thread, I find myself believing, that what I must remember is; there is already a plan, a schedule, and players in place, to carry out the collapse of our country. That group that oversees all things global and pulls the strings. This is not a "all of a sudden" event. It is calculated and the infrastructure is being built, even as we discuss now, to carry this off. Let those who have ears and eyes...hear and see! 

I will try my best to keep my guard up, my coffers under wraps, and my hardware "non existent". Posture in low profile and always asking God for guidance and wisdom. 

I thank God for our founding fathers and patriots who made the choice not to turn on each other, but were bound together for the greater good and those generations to come. I hope many of us will have the grace given to us to endure the same. 

God is still in control!!


----------



## musketjim (Dec 7, 2011)

tenOC said:


> It won't be the feds, IMO. It'll be the state and locals along with your neighbors turning you in.


I agree. In NAZI Germany people feared the banker, butcher or whoever was suddenly given a uniform and a little bit of power as much as they feared anything else. As far as gun confiscation, New Orleans folks didn't have any problem as we saw after Katrina. It's easy for me to sit and postulate about what I'd do while I'm sitting at my laptop and the grandkids are watching Nick Jr. I've shot and trapped a lot of critters over the years but I don't know if I could put one between a cops eyes. I hope it never comes to that. Police and military need to look into Oathkeepers. I'm retired military and I know the pressure tha can be put on in the course of your career for the sake of your career.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

oldvet said:


> I have absolutely no doubt that I would turn my weapon on any member of my unit that was violating that oath by murdering fellow freedom loving Americans that refused to give up their rights and made the decision to defend them.


Well, Oldvet, it seems that you're the needle in the haystack. Don't National Guard members take the same oath?

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, *National Guard* troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." *Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force*; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, *she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.*[77][78] Even *National Guard troops, armed with assault rifles*, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave​


> I don't give a tinkers Damn if you are wearing a uniform or not commiting "murder" and calling it following orders just dosen't stand with me and again, Yes I would do any and everything in my power to stop it.


We see, with troubling regularity, that the police kill armed homeowners who are reaching for their firearms in the midst of a middle of the night no-knock raid on the wrong address house. I've never heard of another police officer turning his weapon on the police officer about to fire. Even after police malfeasance, those officers who took oaths seem to regularly form a Thin Blue Line and with their actions and inactions work to protect the police officer who has down wrong by simply following the orders given to him by his superior.



> I am also of the notion that the vast majority of the members of the Military would tell TPTB to stick those orders where the "Sun don't shine" and would stand down.


We'll just have to disagree because I see no evidence in support of your position other than you believing that "the righteous cause" and the path to it are clearly obvious to everyone in the military.


----------



## LongRider (May 8, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> We know that the principal factor which keeps soldiers in battle is the camaraderie with their fellow soldiers and not wanting to let them down. What soldier is going to turn on his squad and shoot them down when they are out executing the orders given to them by their superiors, even when those orders are to strip Americans of liberty?


Why do you assume that men and women who have already put themselves in harms way is service to this nation and the Constitution of The United States, many who have dedicated their lives to service would become goose stepping traitors?

Do you know ANY soldiers who have made you reach that conclusion? Please do take the time to look at and read the Oath Keepers website. Beyond them and there are many who are not openly active members but for whom this is a very real and often discussed topic. It may surprise you but men and women who forfeit their own rights and liberties so that they may protect and defend yours have an acute appreciation of freedom & liberty. A deep abiding respect and understanding of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend with their lives. Men and women who have put themselves in harms way, who have been injured wounded and maimed, who have watched their most beloved brothers in arms dying in horrific agony in defense of OUR Constitution, Liberty and Freedom. What makes you think they would betray that sacrifice because of some order from a political hack or yuppie prep school graduate with tin bars? I seriously suggest you get to know some of these men and women before you accuse them of being willing to commit treason or of being traitors to Our Country.



Bobbb said:


> Most military people have had to face orders that simply didn't make sense to them and trust that the "thinking" was done at a higher pay grade.


Of course they have obeyed stupid asinine orders the military is after all a bureaucracy, filled full of pencil necked paper pushers who hand down asinine orders, that those on the ground must follow. But don't you think these men and women know the difference between stupid and treason? Do you think that today in Iraq or Afghanistan they would follow orders to fire on unarmed civilians? Or to rob and pillage those villages? Probably not. So why do you think they would betray their own fathers, mothers, brother sisters wives and children? Do you think our warriors are STUPID? That they do not understand that the line has been crossed when they are deployed on US soil against American citizens.
I do not know what motivates your low opinion of our fighting men and women. Maybe, blind acceptance of some Hollywood movies distorted portrayal of our Military as brain washed automatons? Whatever it is I suggest that you get to know who it is you are talking about. You will discover that our Military personnel are not a pack of clueless idiots. They are in fact some of the best and brightest our nation has ever produced. That especially among the career soldiers they are fully aware how their service can be abused. That this very topic has been the subject of much personal soul searching and discussion. That the vast majority are fully aware that they have sworn an oath. An oath that most have already put their lives on the line to uphold and are fully committed to never betraying that oath. It is one that they live by each and every day. With their lives, they have and will defend the Constitution and the American people against all aggressors foreign and domestic.

If any order is ever given to commit treason it will not be a matter of the lone soldier turning on his squad or team. Rather it will be a matter of the entire squad, team, division turning their weapons on the jerk offs who issued the order for them to betray the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. Against those who would order them to level their weapons on their mothers fathers brothers sisters their fellow Americans that they have sworn and protect.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Bobbb, in order to avoid any present or future arguements/pissing contests I will simply agree to disagree with you and move on.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

LongRider said:


> Why do you assume that men and women who have already put themselves in harms way is service to this nation and the Constitution of The United States, many who have dedicated their lives to service would become goose stepping traitors?
> 
> Do you know ANY soldiers who have made you reach that conclusion? Please do take the time to look at and read the Oath Keepers website. Beyond them and there are many who are not openly active members but for whom this is a very real and often discussed topic. It may surprise you but men and women who forfeit their own rights and liberties so that they may protect and defend yours have an acute appreciation of freedom & liberty. A deep abiding respect and understanding of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend with their lives. Men and women who have put themselves in harms way, who have been injured wounded and maimed, who have watched their most beloved brothers in arms dying in horrific agony in defense of OUR Constitution, Liberty and Freedom. What makes you think they would betray that sacrifice because of some order from a political hack or yuppie prep school graduate with tin bars? I seriously suggest you get to know some of these men and women before you accuse them of being willing to commit treason or of being traitors to Our Country.
> 
> ...


All I can say is Man you have said it all and said exactly what's on most if not all of the vet's minds that are part of this forum, and also I bet the vast majority of civilians and LEO's on this forum feel the same as you and I do about our duty to uphold the Constution and to do what is the right, moral, and honorable thing.
:congrat::2thumb::beercheer::congrat::2thumb:


----------



## GaryS (Nov 15, 2011)

I think the concern some folks have is rooted in the survey discussed in this article. It certainly concerns me.

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm

FWIW, I'm retired military, NRA lifetime member and disenchanted Oathkeeper member.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

LongRider said:


> Do you know ANY soldiers who have made you reach that conclusion?


Oh please. Did you not read about what happened after Katrina? Did you read about any of those soldiers disobeying their orders, taking actions to stop their fellow soldiers from executing their orders, being court martialed for disobeying an order, turning on and firing upon their fellow soldiers who were executing the order? I sure didn't. I read about soldiers following the orders that they were given.



> It may surprise you but men and women who forfeit their own rights and liberties so that they may protect and defend yours have an acute appreciation of freedom & liberty. A deep abiding respect and understanding of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend with their lives. Men and women who have put themselves in harms way, who have been injured wounded and maimed, who have watched their most beloved brothers in arms dying in horrific agony in defense of OUR Constitution, Liberty and Freedom.


Don't you just want to puke when you come across a liberal who is putting on airs about how he has reached a higher plane of existence and is now more enlightened, more intelligent and more morally sophisticated than the rubes in the rest of America. You're doing the same thing here with your romantic portrait of veterans and how they are virtuous fighters for liberty and have a deep and thorough understanding of what liberty means and how it must be defended. One in four soldiers, according to GaryS's link is willing to fire upon American civilians who don't turn in their weapons. Another 1 in 5 disagreed with this course of action in the abstract but many would likely follow orders if they faced court martial or felt that their own conscience was putting their fellow soldiers at risk. Your best argument lies with the 4 in 10 who strongly disagreed. From within these ranks you have the best chance of finding the soldiers who will choose imprisonment, choose fragging, choose mutiny and choose desertion rather than carry out such an order and notice how every choice available to them also runs counter to their code of honor, thus presenting them with choosing the best of the worst options.



> I do not know what motivates your low opinion of our fighting men and women.


Dude, you're acting just like a liberal when I pop his thin bubble of higher enlightenment. I have a high opinion of the military, I have a realistic position on the military and on human nature. You're the one who is putting forth an idealistic perspective on the moral superiority of people who are, or were, part of the military.



> You will discover that our Military personnel are not a pack of clueless idiots. They are in fact some of the best and brightest our nation has ever produced.


Please don't argue against a strawman of your own creation. I have written nothing which disparages the intelligence of the men and women in uniform. My own writing on this very board clearly shows that I recognize that the military is staffed with people who are more intelligent than their civilian peers.



> If any order is ever given to commit treason it will not be a matter of the lone soldier turning on his squad or team. Rather it will be a matter of the entire squad, team, division turning their weapons on the jerk offs who issued the order for them to betray the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.


How can you write this with a straight face? You have the actions in New Orleans being noted just a few comments up and those actions utterly refute your safe-within-a-bubble fantasy regarding the virtue and moral clarity and integrity of all the people in the military.


----------



## Zanazaz (Feb 14, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Oh please. Did you not read about what happened after Katrina? Did you read about any of those soldiers disobeying their orders, taking actions to stop their fellow soldiers from executing their orders, being court martialed for disobeying an order, turning on and firing upon their fellow soldiers who were executing the order? I sure didn't. I read about soldiers following the orders that they were given.
> 
> Don't you just want to puke when you come across a liberal who is putting on airs about how he has reached a higher plane of existence and is now more enlightened, more intelligent and more morally sophisticated than the rubes in the rest of America. You're doing the same thing here with your romantic portrait of veterans and how they are virtuous fighters for liberty and have a deep and thorough understanding of what liberty means and how it must be defended. One in four soldiers, according to GaryS's link is willing to fire upon American civilians who don't turn in their weapons. Another 1 in 5 disagreed with this course of action in the abstract but many would likely follow orders if they faced court martial or felt that their own conscience was putting their fellow soldiers at risk. Your best argument lies with the 4 in 10 who strongly disagreed. From within these ranks you have the best chance of finding the soldiers who will choose imprisonment, choose fragging, choose mutiny and choose desertion rather than carry out such an order and notice how every choice available to them also runs counter to their code of honor, thus presenting them with choosing the best of the worst options.
> 
> ...


Sheeesh. *Katrina was a localized event.* I wrote in an earlier post in this thread that in my opinion Katrina is not a good example to be spouting off about. When it comes down to a TOTAL GUN BAN and SEIZURE then I think things are going to be very different. Very, very different...

I'm not sure I would believe any surveys either, those can be manipulated, and misinterpreted. They can also be heavily biased depending on who is conducting the survey.

At this point, I think I'm wasting my time, and will take the same action as oldvet, and agree to disagree with you.

In conclusion, some politicians may fear firearms, but they should fear trying to disarm United States citizens even more.


----------



## GaryS (Nov 15, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> Oh please. Did you not read about what happened after Katrina? Did you read about any of those soldiers disobeying their orders, taking actions to stop their fellow soldiers from executing their orders, being court martialed for disobeying an order, turning on and firing upon their fellow soldiers who were executing the order? I sure didn't. I read about soldiers following the orders that they were given.


Not 100% true, but with all the changes in our country in the past three years, I would hope there are more "oathkeepers" then SSGT May in all branches of the service.

http://www.examiner.com/article/oath-keeping-national-guardsmen-refused-katrina-gun-confiscation


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

Back when this country was still fighting in Viet Nam, Capt. Callie ordered his troops to fire on helpless Vietnamese civilans. It was a national news event. 

Every American was told all about this illegal order and who the troops were that participated in it.

What they were not told by the news media was who stopped the fireing on the civilians.

Another American officer saw what was taking place and ordered his chopper to decend and hover over the offending troops and under the threat of the door gunners fireing on them , they stopped.

In warfare, it is not unusual for someone to go overboard or go beyond the rules of war but in the U s Military, there is always someone to stop an illegal order from being carried out.

Fireing on civilians is always illegal and I trust the men and women of our military to control them selves when they are ordered to act against the Constitution they are sworn to defend.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Most of those VNam troops were drafted.None here can say what they would do unless they were there,imo.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

BillM said:


> Fireing on civilians is always illegal and I trust the men and women of our military to control them selves when they are ordered to act against the Constitution they are sworn to defend.


Have you checked out the fall-out that falls on civilians from our drone strike policy? The remote pilots and those in command above them seem to be giving fire orders which result in plenty of civilian casualties.

It really is a "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin" distinction between firing on civilians and firing on a combatant knowing that in order to kill the combatant far more civilians are going to die. If one can't develop a moral justification to fire on civilians then claiming that civilian casualties are unavoidable in order to kill a combatant becomes a distinction without a difference. Yet the latter happens regularly and I hear of no soldiers or airmen refusing to execute their orders.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> Have you checked out the fall-out that falls on civilians from our drone strike policy? The remote pilots and those in command above them seem to be giving fire orders which result in plenty of civilian casualties.
> 
> It really is a "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin" distinction between firing on civilians and firing on a combatant knowing that in order to kill the combatant far more civilians are going to die. If one can't develop a moral justification to fire on civilians then claiming that civilian casualties are unavoidable in order to kill a combatant becomes a distinction without a difference. Yet the latter happens regularly and I hear of no soldiers or airmen refusing to execute their orders.


 "Collateral damage" in war on foreign soil is NOT the same as American troops following illegal orders and firing on American Citizens. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Will it happen? I'm sure it will, but not much. I don't think Katrina is an equal case in point either. First it was a localized event. Second, I wont say all but most of the troops, (leos, guard, etc) believed they were on a rescue mission. Didn't really turn out that way, sad to say.

No one can see the future, but I believe in THE HEART OF THE AMERICAN SOLDIER.

Bobbb, I am curious, what branch of the military did you serve in that gave you the opinion that our soldiers would fire on and kill American Citizens?


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> . . . that gave you the opinion that our soldiers would fire on and kill American Citizens?


What happened in the US between the years of 1861 and 1865? Is American sense of brotherhood now so strong that American turning on American is not imaginable? I can imagine it just fine under the right circumstances. You, apparently, believe that this is unimaginable while conveniently discounting history which shows that it did happen.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Again, apples and oranges. 

Civil war, both sides military.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong here. You give the impression you believe the US Military will just open up and mow down civilians just cause they are told to. 

Straighten me up here.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

pandamonium said:


> Bobbb, I am curious, what branch of the military did you serve in that gave you the opinion that our soldiers would fire on and kill American Citizens?


And you never answered the question.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> Again, apples and oranges.
> 
> Civil war, both sides military.


Everything seems to be apples and oranges with you. Kent State soldiers shooting on unarmed student protesters doesn't apply. Katrina doesn't apply. Direct surveys of servicemen doesn't apply. Current practice of drone pilots firing on targets when they know full well that innocent civilians will die also doesn't apply. Civil war doesn't apply.

Oh, BTW, there were plenty of civilian casualties during the Civil War, which means that some soldier was inflicting harm on a civilian.

We now have policy which allows the military to kill American citizens overseas without charging them and bringing them to trial. I haven't heard of any soldiers refusing orders to kill Americans, even American teenagers:

The teenager, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver in 1995, and his 17-year-old Yemeni cousin were killed in a U.S. military strike that left nine people dead in southeastern Yemen.

*The young Awlaki was the third American killed in Yemen in as many weeks.*​
Yeah, yeah, I know the routine already - the assassination of al-Awlaki, the father, and the assassination of al-Awlaki the 16 year old high school student with no known reports of terrorist crimes is also an apples-to-oranges situation. Why? I have no clue but I suspect that you're going to retort that being accused of terrorism or having a family member who is accused of terrorism is sufficient reason to be assassinated by American soldiers. If that's the route you want to take, then it's not a far step away to make the claim that those who resist being disarmed during a national emergency are also a threat to national security, you know, the exact same argument that was made during the Katrina aftermath and which was enforced by American citizens in the National Guard.

Every example I've tossed out is directly applicable to the question at hand but you want to trot out the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy in order to preserve your fantastic vision that American servicemen are not mere humans, but have evolved into super-human paragons of idealism.

No True Scotsman:

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.



> Maybe I'm reading you wrong here. You give the impression you believe the US Military will just open up and mow down civilians just cause they are told to.


No, not at all. Things are not that black and white. If these issues were that black and white then we'd never have lines being crossed. If things were black and white and so clearly identifiable to all soldiers then we wouldn't have seen gun confiscations after Katrina.

Soldiers are people, they're not all philosophers like you who have thought out all the big issues and know aforehand exactly what they are to do when faced with an order to confiscate guns. Most know the immediate consequences for refusing to comply with an order given to them by a superior. They may know that the principle that they stand on in refusing such an order *might *lead to their vindication far downstream during a court martial proceeding, but also realize that they will have to endure hell and suffer career damage for years before they finally get vindicated, as well as running the risk that they might not get vindicated and face the prospect of penalty and confinement for disobeying what is later judged to be a lawful order.

The whole point of military structure is that every soldier doesn't get to weigh in and debate the merits of each order that they are given and so when one contemplates disobeying an order one had better be pretty damn sure that one is going to prevail during the investigations that follow and one had better be damn sure, with 100% certainty, that the order that was given was an unlawful order. Most soldiers are not 100% sure of these things and most aren't willing to gamble that they're correct and the entire chain of command above them is incorrect.

Secondly, because soldiers are merely human, they also fall prey to human psychological tendencies, and there is a tendency that most of us have to not be the odd man out in a group, and this tendency grows stronger the tighter the group is. Having all of your squad mates complying with an order given to them and you deciding that you're going to disobey the order given to you by your superior creates a powerful incentive to go with the flow even though your conscience is screaming otherwise. I don't doubt for a moment that there were likely a few National Guard members who doubted the wisdom and lawful nature of the order that they were given but they complied in order to choose the path of least resistance for themselves. To put it more colorfully, was disobeying the order given them the hill that they wanted to die on, career wise, as well as liberty wise with respect to trial, and discharge status. They were performing as expected through their entire military career and now, suddenly, they were about to openly defy an order given to them. Was it really worth it to them to fight this battle and at great risk to their career? As is evident with hindsight, the Katrina National Guard personnel chose not to fight on this hill.



pandamonium said:


> And you never answered the question.


Because the question falls into a mode of thinking that I believe is inane. Only black teachers can know the educational hurdles faced by black students. Only an ex-con can know the issues that face criminals. Only a woman can recognize the horror of rape. A celibate priest is unqualified to discuss matters of love and sex within marriage. Only a father can know the experience of protecting his family. Only a Chinese person can cook Chinese food. Only a Hungarian person can cook Hungarian Goulash.

My background doesn't matter, what matters is the argument I advance.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

pandamonium IMO you are totally wasting your time with Bobbb, you will never convince him/her that there is any other view point other than his/her narrow one. :gaah:


----------



## DJgang (Apr 10, 2011)

A little OT....

Did any of you see the video, can be found on YouTube, about Katrina and taking away of guns? In that video, two white men were disarmed. They were in a boat, getting away and helping others. Then a black lady, a 'pastor' was allowed to keep her gun. What's up with that?? 

On iPhone, or I would find it and link it. Eye opening to me.

I truly hope and pray our guard, our military, wouldn't turn on our people. But I fear the situation will be so confusing like nothing they've never experienced.....I'm not feeling positive. Hope I am wrong.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> Because the question falls into a mode of thinking that I believe is inane.
> 
> My background doesn't matter, what matters is the argument I advance.


But your background DOES matter if are going to armchair quarterback and judge me, other veterans and EVERYONE who is currently in the military, including my nephew.

If you never stood with your hand over your heart and SWORE AN OATH, then YOU, IMO, don't get to judge ME!!


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

oldvet said:


> pandamonium IMO you are totally wasting your time with Bobbb, you will never convince him/her that there is any other view point other than his/her narrow one. :gaah:


Quoted For Truth.


----------



## PrepN4Good (Dec 23, 2011)

DJgang said:


> I truly hope and pray our guard, our military, wouldn't turn on our people. But I fear the situation will be so confusing like nothing they've never experienced.....I'm not feeling positive. Hope I am wrong.


I hesitate to enter into this "discussion", since it's getting a bit...emotional. Like DJgang, I also hope & pray that all members of the military & LE will respect the Constitution & protect The People if ordered to fire on them, confiscate weapons, etc.

However.....as Bobbb points out, there is _anecdotal _evidence to suggest otherwise. I also hope I am wrong, but unfortunately I am not the trusting sort. :ignore:

I have never served, but my dad & many other relatives have. I can't imagine them just "going along", but it DOES tend to be human nature.

No disrespect whatsoever intended to our brave men & women; just adding my 2 cents (FWIW).


----------



## DJgang (Apr 10, 2011)

PrepN4Good said:


> I hesitate to enter into this "discussion", since it's getting a bit...emotional. Like DJgang, I also hope & pray that all members of the military & LE will respect the Constitution & protect The People if ordered to fire on them, confiscate weapons, etc.
> 
> However.....as Bobbb points out, there is _anecdotal _evidence to suggest otherwise. I also hope I am wrong, but unfortunately I am not the trusting sort. :ignore:
> 
> ...


No disrespect from me as well. It's just... Bothering right now, especially when on a recent plane flight I discuss with someone coming back from Iraq how gang violence is horrible at our bases here and abroad...makes me worry. Gangs! We can only hope those making the orders are moral individuals.


----------



## PrepN4Good (Dec 23, 2011)

DJgang said:


> No disrespect from me as well. It's just... Bothering right now, especially when on a recent plane flight I discuss with someone coming back from Iraq how *gang violence is horrible at our bases *here and abroad...makes me worry. Gangs! We can only hope those making the orders are moral individuals.


Yes, I've heard rumors of that too; even that gang members have deliberatly infiltrated the military in order to get training with weapons & tactics.  Maybe others here can verify if there's any truth to that.


----------



## AndyNY (Aug 15, 2012)

If you look at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the troops were convinced that the occupants were dangerous, and they did their duty, not knowing anything other than what they were told.

I think a lot of really bad stuff would happen before the troops decided it was time to change sides. No one is dumb enough to believe that they can just order them to attack random civilians and they will do it. There would be an elaborate description of how whomever they were told to attack was somehow their enemy.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

AndyNY said:


> If you look at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the troops were convinced that the occupants were dangerous, and they did their duty, not knowing anything other than what they were told.
> 
> I think a lot of really bad stuff would happen before the troops decided it was time to change sides. No one is dumb enough to believe that they can just order them to attack random civilians and they will do it. There would be an elaborate description of how whomever they were told to attack was somehow their enemy.


There were no "Troops" at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Waco-BATF and FBI......Ruby Ridge-U.S. Marshals and FBI. The Military took no part in it.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

pandamonium said:


> But your background DOES matter if are going to armchair quarterback and judge me, other veterans and EVERYONE who is currently in the military, including my nephew.
> 
> If you never stood with your hand over your heart and SWORE AN OATH, then YOU, IMO, don't get to judge ME!!


 You are correct Sir, unless someone has walked that mile in our shoes/been there done that and Sworn that Oath, what gives them the right to judge Active Duty Military and us Military Vets?


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

PrepN4Good said:


> However.....as Bobbb points out, there is _anecdotal _evidence to suggest otherwise. I also hope I am wrong, but unfortunately I am not the trusting sort. :ignore:


Let's recap the two positions: I'm citing *evidence *to show that Americans in the military have done just that and surveys which show that many would do just that. Some serviceman fired at missile at a 16 year old American teenager whose only ties to terrorism was that his father was a terrorist. Cold blooded assassination of a 16 year old innocent boy and I've heard no reports of mutiny emanating from that incident. Those who don't like the implications of that evidence cite their own *feelings and beliefs* based on how they would react in a given situation now that they are vets, far removed from actually suffering the consequences of executing on such decisions. Talk about armchair quarterbacking. They don't cite actual instances from their own military history where they refused a direct order from a superior on the basis of conscience. They don't recount the events of the disciplinary hearings which resulted. They don't recount the difficult process of making the decision to willfully disobey an order given to them by a superior and explain how they weighed the costs that they expected would fall on them versus the feeling of good conscience that they expected to experience as a result of their choice to willfully disobey an order. They don't cite instances where they stood apart from their squad mates and let them down in a life-death situation in order to stand on principle. Nothing concrete where they made a stand on principle, damn the cost. Instead, they take their own sense of honor, extend it to every single vet and serving member of the military, wish away evidence to the contrary, expect all men and women in the service to make easy choices about disobeying direct orders and to, without second thought, step forward and incite mutiny, and then get offended when everyone doesn't get on-board with their self-glorification project which elevates them to be people who don't have human foibles and concerns but instead views military folks as having a clear cut vision on liberty that escapes everyone who is not in the military and who are willing to face prison in order to stand on their point of principle.

For their arguments to be convincing they have to be based on more than just wishful thinking and self-glorification or group glorification, especially when deployed against actual evidence which voids their viewpoint.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Bobbb I wasn't going to respond to you again on this thread, but I just can't let your last post go unanswered.

I can't for the life of me understand why you think that the majority of the Troops today would mindlessly follow orders and execute their fellow citizens who are guilty of nothing more than standing up for their rights, nor do I understand why you have such a low opinion of the members of our Military that you would think that way.

Arm Chair Quarterback..I think not. I feel exactly the same today as I did when I first enlisted and took the Oath, which to me meant protecting my fellow Americans, not executing them. 

There is no way I would have obeyed an illegal or immoral order to execute any unarmed non-combatant, not then and not now.

The members of the Military are Americans not Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, or any other faction past or present that would blindly follow orders and execute their Countrymen.

I bet that if there were any non US troops brought into this Country to confiscate our firearms and execute Citizens, you would be one of the first to start yelling "where is our Military, we need help" Instead of trying to convince everyone that they (our military) are the ones to fear.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

oldvet said:


> Bobbb I wasn't going to respond to you again on this thread, but I just can't let your last post go unanswered.
> 
> I can't for the life of me understand why you think that the majority of the Troops today would mindlessly follow orders and execute their fellow citizens who are guilty of nothing more than standing up for their rights, nor do I understand why you have such a low opinion of the members of our Military that you would think that way.
> 
> ...


I have a very high opinion of the military, in fact, my opinion of the military is far higher than my opinion of society in general, meaning that I'd love to live in a nation where all citizens conducted themselves as we see with people in the military.

So let's put to rest the notion that I don't like or respect the military and the people who represent the military.

The issue here is that I don't idolize the military like a teenage girl idolizes Justin Beiber, meaning blindly and imbuing them with all positive attributes and no ordinary or negative attributes . I see the military as comprised of people, and people are not automatons who hold idealism above all and who will accept any cost to uphold their ideal. Secondly, I recognize what many soldiers forthrightly acknowledge, that when push comes to shove, they're not fighting for country or constitution, they're fighting for their buddy in the foxhole and for their mother and father and wife and child. Lastly, I recognize the human tendency to avoiding being the odd man out, a tendency which grows more severe in environments where conformity is stressed more highly, you know, exactly like the military, a culture where everyone doesn't sit down and debate the merits of the orders that they are given.

When a soldier is given an order to confiscate civilian firearms in a time of national catastrophe I believe that all of the above is going to compel him to comply with the order rather than lead him to disobey the order and to incite mutiny. Add to the calculation that there will be immediate penalties falling on the soldier who willfully disobeys an order and then incites mutiny. He may know that issues will get straightened out during a court martial proceeding, but his life will be hell from the moment he disobeys to the moment of future vindication, and knowing this, the easier path is to not be the nail that sticks out and gets hammered down. That's just being human and it's not a poor reflection on people in the military.

It doesn't help that you're transforming the discussion of gun confiscation into one where you allege that I'm arguing that American soldiers are going to become Domestic Nazis.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

oldvet said:


> There is no way I would have obeyed an illegal or immoral order to execute any unarmed non-combatant, not then and not now.


I'm glad to read that. However, your personal feelings don't determine this issue for the entire military. SOMEONE in the military fired a missile which assassinated a 16 year old boy and they did so by design and not accident. How exactly is it legal or moral to assassinate a 16 year old boy who is a non-combatant and is simply going to a restaurant with some friends. The fact that you write until you're blue in the face that YOU would never have fired that missile, that you would have disobeyed that order and stood for court martial and that you would have incited mutiny in your unit to prevent your squad mates from also firing the missile which assassinated a young man doesn't mean squat, really, for SOMEONE DID WHAT YOU WOULDN'T DO.


----------



## mojo4 (Feb 19, 2012)

Bobbb once again you are making no sense. Trying to compare a missle strike against a terrorist turd and rounding up and gunning down Americans isn't even in the same ballpark. Its not even the same sport. Not a soul here wouldn't shoot a missle, bullet, rock or harsh words at a terrorist (except maybe you and db!) Because they are actively trying to kill us. How about some accountant in Ohio? Nope. One is the enemy and one isn't. But since I doubt you ever served a day I doubt you would see the difference but most (not all) veterans do. Will every active duty troop obey illegal orders? Not a chance. But if you truly doubt it do what I did (and oldvet and pandemonium) and JOIN UP!! That way at least you know there is 1 soldier who won't obey illegal orders and it will be your ass and not your words on the line!!


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

mojo4 said:


> Bobbb once again you are making no sense. Trying to compare a missle strike against a terrorist turd and rounding up and gunning down Americans isn't even in the same ballpark.


1.) The father was an American.
2.) The father was a dude who talked and inspired terrorism but was never linked to a direct plot.
3.) The father was a member of Al Queda.
4.) Where in the Constitution is it written that an American citizen can be summarily executed by the US government without trail?

Things are not so clear cut with this guy. Is one a terrorist if one talks and inspires? Is one a terrorist if one joins an organization of terror but never commits an act of terror?

Whatever the merits of the debate on how one becomes classified as a terrorist, there is no escaping the fact that he was an American citizen and he was assassinated by the US military.

All of the above though has no bearing on the actions that the US military took upon his son.

1.) The son was NOT a terrorist, by any definition, loose or strict.
2.) The son was an American citizen.
3.) The son was a 16 year old high school student.
4.) The son was assassinated by the US military.

Are you really going to argue that the "sins of the father must now be visited upon the son?" If the father was a "terrorist turd" then no one has grounds to complain that the US military assassinated his son for the crime of being the son of a terrorist - that's the line you want to take?


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Awlaki, 38 years old, emerged as a focus of the probe into the alleged Christmas Day bombing plot, according to Yemeni and U.S. officials, after reportedly telling a U.S. official he had blessed the operation.

Years ago, he was the imam at a Virginia mosque attended by U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, the suspect in the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree in November, and said in interview in the fall that he counseled Maj. Hasan before the attack. Investigators say he also had incidental contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers.

*There is no indication Mr. Awlaki played a direct role in any of the attacks, and he has never been indicted in the U.S.*

Yemeni and U.S. officials say Mr. Awlaki has now become a key inspirational figure for the al Qaeda branch in Yemen.​
So how is it that the US can order a man to be assassinated by our military without even bothering to indict him for a crime? If the evidence of his monstrosity is so damn clear that he warrants being assassinated then shouldn't it be a slam-dunk to indict him in a court of law for his alleged crimes?

If the US military can assassinate American citizens simply by pointing at them and screaming "Witch" oops, I mean "terrorist" and not bothering with any constitutional safeguards which force the government to go to court with an indictment for alleged crimes, then what's to stop the US government from doing the same with Americans who live at Ruby Ridge, oops, already happened, or Waco, oops, already happened, well you get the idea.

Even if you are a bad man and do bad deeds in the US and you become the target for assassination at the hands of the US military, does your innocent 16 year old son also deserve to die for the crimes that you've committed?

To keep this on topic - some American serviceman fired those missiles against an American father and then another American serviceman fired a missile to assassinate the son. These servicemen didn't refuse their orders, they didn't mutiny, they didn't frag the officer who give them the order, etc. The line that pandemonium and old vet are pushing - that soldiers would never fire upon American citizens is blatantly false because here we have two instances, one of which is clear cut (the innocent son) that members of the military will do just that.


----------



## deetheivy (Aug 7, 2012)

bob i think youre forgetting prejudice. the son may have could have been tottally innocent but however you are talking war, in the sense that love is not something you feel for the enemy, and your views get not necessarily twisted but lets say augmented, you would do things during war that you wouldnt do outside of it. i believe that is a good answer for the son, does it make it right, no 

as far as the military taking action against the populace, whether it has happened or not i believe is irrelevant. reasoning is thus: when it happend before it was small scale, if you were to try and use the might of the military against the populace even if you were to get away with it at first, it wouldnt last long.

theory: government gun ceisure

national emergency katrina scale.
government siezes weapons.
mass murder in chicago
government seizes weaons 
they are "justified" up until this point
if they then move to more radicall movements of gun ceisure
i believe that is when the mass majority of the military service personell(if not before) would say wooo hold up
naw i dont think so 

i see it being possible for a brief moment but only because of lies and disinformation that can only last so long


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

deetheivy said:


> you would do things during war that you wouldnt do outside of it. i believe that is a good answer for the son, does it make it right, no


I could accept this answer when the scenario involves the heat of battle. What we're talking about here is not that, here we have a drone pilot/operator sitting at his desk in an air conditioned building in Arizona, watching a monitor filled with computer flight controls and a video feed of the son of the terrorist going to a restaurant say, and he is given the order to launch a missile at this young boy. He didn't refuse the order, he didn't incite mutiny amongst all of the other pilot/operators, he didn't turn his firearm on his superior and shoot him for giving an order to kill an innocent boy, he simply complied with the order and then went home to have dinner with his wife and children and play catch in his front yard with his son.



> theory: government gun ceisure
> 
> national emergency katrina scale.
> government siezes weapons.
> ...


A lot depends on the believability of the information that the troops are getting. If a series of events across the nation are really leading us to a Mad Max world then there will be chaos and bedlam everywhere, so the disinformation could be confirmed with the the troops own eyes to the point that they believe the disinformation is plausible. Secondly, if the military is taking care of its own and mutiny means being cast outside and having to join the bedraggled masses and face starvation, that raises one's willingness to willfully believe disinformation.

Look, the National Guard that was dealing with the Katrina gun confiscations obviously didn't mutiny, they didn't shoot their own officers, they didn't refuse to obey orders and then stand for court martial - they complied with the orders. They obviously believed in the merit of their orders just enough to meet the threshold of compliance rather than engaging in mutiny. I find it entirely plausible that the very same mindset could apply nationally if the conditions are dire enough.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

I am done, I have to go to the ER and get my head stiched up from beating it against a wall.  For my part I will no longer keep feeding this thread, I do believe I will go check out some other threads that just might teach me a new skill, tickle my funny bone or actually enable me to converse with someone that makes some sense. See ya later. :wave:


----------



## GaryS (Nov 15, 2011)

FWIW, I've not done any research, but I'm betting the drone missile in question was fired by the CIA, not the military. The CIA is the organization tasked to hunt individual terrorists, while the military drones mostly work in support of troops in the field, and this President personally ordered the strike, not "the US"...which could be construed to be top military personnel. 

That said, my feelings about the American military are like those Reagan professed when speaking of international treaties...."Trust, but verify". I left the military twenty-one years ago, so today I would certainly trust anyone who received the same training I did, and who served under the officers I knew, but I don't know what type of training is received today. 

I know that patriotism and honor are no longer taught in schools, or in the media, and they are not expected by society in general, so has military training managed to completely instill those critical atributes in the youth of today? I don't know. I will trust, but I would be more comfortable if Congress would verify that those things are taught and tested at all levels of command.

Secondly, how is the divisive situation in American today being taught? When I read that an officer training school presents a scenario that makes tea party members terrorists, I get chills. Our government has approved the use of active duty troops to move against American civilians, so now we must trust that the leaders in the Pentagon and in the field know who the enemy is. Is the enemy the tyrants who ignore the Constitution, or is the enemy the people who oppose them? 

My personal belief is that a major civil conflict would tear apart our military. By the morning of November 7th, the die for our future will be cast. If the vote is to continue down the path to Socialism and more free stuff, I fear there will be blood in the streets, and that like "the war of northern aggression", there will members of the military on both sides. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Whether you are talking about military men, cops, doctors, or garbage men, you can never lump them together and say they will do this or that. Everyone is different and has free will. And if it gets to the point that any of us have to decide what side of Civil War II we are going to be on, we are screwed anyway. It will be at least SHTF and maybe TEOTWAWKI. Let us hope that it is "only" a total financial collapse and not Civil War II.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Do you guys know that Awlaki was killed in a separate drone attack from his minor child? They killed the 16 yr 15 days later along with a 17 yr old. The official US statement was that he was 21. Yeah, we know that's cover. He was 16 and the US also stated that they have no evidence he was radicalized or participating in inciting terror.


----------



## LongRider (May 8, 2012)

GaryS said:


> I think the concern some folks have is rooted in the survey discussed in this article. It certainly concerns me.
> 
> http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm
> 
> FWIW, I'm retired military, NRA lifetime member and disenchanted Oathkeeper member.


Of course people are taking a distorted view of that article and using it as a foundation for their assumption that are military is made up of traitors. Because they are apparently reading into the article what they want to hear and not what it actually says as an example
Twenty-Nine Palms Survey:


Cunningham said:


> In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question:
> 
> "What about the damn Second Amendment? &#8230; I feel this is a first in communism! &#8230; Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen."
> 
> ...


Cunningham thesis goes on to reveal that when asked if US soldiers would fire on US citizen


> Based on the *disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines,* Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."


61% is huge it is in fact more than I had hoped for 61% is more than enough to turn the entire military towards standing in defense of the Constitution and the People against a tyrannical government bent on disarming the people.


----------



## GaryS (Nov 15, 2011)

I believe that's what I said in the last paragraph of my last post...and in no way did I even remotely suggest that anyone in uniform is a traitor...much less that the militarty is "made up of traitors".

What does concern me is that it wasn't 99% that said they would not fire on civilians. What does concern me is that with the lowered standards that were required to fill the combat jobs a couple of years ago, I don't know if some of those soldiers clearly understand what defines an enemy of the Constitution. If you spent time in uniform, you know perfectly well how hard following orders is pounded into you, and how often your conduct boils down to trusting your officers and NCOs. 

This country is in the process of choosing up sides. One side wants to keep the government our forefathers blessed us with, and the other wants to create a collectivist, European clone. Both are willing to fight to attain their goals, and all branches of the military have members that fall on both sides...especially the younger troops.

Yes, I have fears for this country, but when it comes to our military, please read what I wrote, not what you think I might have said.


----------



## Moby76065 (Jul 31, 2012)

*One thing is certain, you better be on my side. Cuz out to 800 yards.....yur ass belongs to me!*










*I have faith in our troops! WE ALL TOOK AN OATH!*


----------



## LongRider (May 8, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Oh please. Did you not read about what happened after Katrina? Did you read about any of those soldiers disobeying their orders, taking actions to stop their fellow soldiers from executing their orders, being court martialed for disobeying an order, turning on and firing upon their fellow soldiers who were executing the order? I sure didn't. I read about soldiers following the orders that they were given.


Of course you haven't because you read what you want to hear. There is in fact evidence that troops did refuse to obey an unlawful order as in this example



 Despite all your claims I have yet to read anything about the US Army or Marines confiscating guns from civilians in Katrina



Bobbb said:


> One in four soldiers, according to GaryS's link is willing to fire upon American civilians who don't turn in their weapons.


As I posted to GaryS you are one of those who would read into the article what you want to hear, not what was actually written. Ignoring the fact that over 70% of the soldiers would resist any unlawful order to confiscate guns or turn on the American people



GaryS said:


> I believe that's what I said in the last paragraph of my last post...and in no way did I even remotely suggest that anyone in uniform is a traitor...much less that the militarty is "made up of traitors"


Gary if this was directed at me please reread my post. It was not directed at you (see above) it was directed at those who use that article to justify their slanderous assertions. Granted I agree that it is a point of concern that based upon that survey as much 23% of our military in 1994 when the survey was taken were unaware of their duty. I do not think it is an accurate reflection of today's military.

I must admit I have been somewhat startled at the impressive quality of men and women who have risen out of this generation. It is not what I would have expected pre 9/11. I have seen a level a service and dedication that is nothing short of amazing. Never ever in our history have we asked so much from our military. Used to be three combat tours was the max anyone served and we are now seeing four and five combat tours as the norm. I do not think the enormity of that can be down played. Point being that I think that this survey would would have a vastly different response today than it did in 1994.
But for the sake of arrangement lets say the stats stand. It means that nearly 80% of the military would refuse to follow orders to violate the Constitution and stand against their fellow citizens. I believe that is more than enough evidence to discount those who keep claiming that out troops would act against the Constitution or against the interests of the people.
Combined with the patriots in our general population I in full agreement with pandamonium, that if the government attempted a full on gun grab I too have NO DOUBT We The People Would Prevail.

Fact is I also have no doubt that the government also knows that to be a fact because it is the only reason that have not tried it. The day the government is convinced that they could prevail is the day they will come knocking on our doors.


----------

