245 replies to this topic

[aztek]

Simbi Laveau, on 30 January 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

I've said this over and over. They want guns OUT of our hands,so we can't fight back .No one seems to get it

. I'm pretty sure those that matter do get it.

[questionmark]

Simbi Laveau, on 30 January 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

I've said this over and over. They want guns OUT of our hands,so we can't fight back .No one seems to get it

If THEY want guns out of anybodies hands THEY don't need soldiers. Police will do fine, thank you. And police are more accustomed to effectively disarm civilians than any soldier will ever be able to.

Don't you guys take a reality check like twice a month before your imagination runs off with you?

[sam12six]

I don't really get how this is controversial. Is it shocking that cops must be willing to lock up American Citizens? There are situations where it could be called for - everything from a bunch of people storming the white house to an actual civil war.

Don't get me wrong. I believe our government is planning bad things. I just don't see this concept alone as the huge warning flag that big brother's about to drop the hammer.

As far as soldiers refusing orders to do so, I can't see it. Sure, if those in charge were stupid enough to say, "We're going to throw a scare into the People so they'll sit quietly while we financially rape the country.", there'd be a lot of dissent. If they said they were putting down a terrorist cell that was a danger to their own friends and families, I can't imagine soldiers saying, "Ummm, you'll need to prove that before I'll follow your orders."

The entire military is based on the fact that their job is a dirty one and they are rigorously trained to believe that it shows strength for them to follow through and obey even when it feels wrong. I believe an insurrection within the military would occur if the government decided to use it to sytematically stamp out anyone who disagrees with its policies, but I think there would be a lot of dead Americans before that point.

Edited by sam12six, 30 January 2013 - 11:13 PM.

[Simbi Laveau]

Order66, on 30 January 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:

Remember this story?

Homeland security buys 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition:

http://www.americant...ammunition.html

Couple this with Obama's push for gun control and his scaling dowon of the military, why? Because he wants to turn it the US into a police state. Why do you think he idolizes dictators like Cesar Chavez, Fidel Castro? Why do think he circumvented the constitution with recess appointments, executive orders? Why does he vow to introduce his own immigration bill in spite of the one that is already in Congress? Because he is spiteful of the challenge to his authority. He doesn't believe in a balance of power, he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and nto as progressive as he is. He has the aspirations of a petty dictator, it's that simple.

I've said this over and over. They want guns OUT of our hands,so we can't fight back .No one seems to get it

questionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

Well, once the soldiers get deployed the time of peace is over, and nobody ever got the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff to communicate an illegal deployment order. No matter what certain FEMA ghost seeker claim on their websites. In short: paranoia.

Well I've heard about this question posed to soldiers before ,FROM a soldier ,as far back as 2009.
As no previous president made it an actual issue before.
Being deployed to Iraq is one thing,being deployed to nyc ,is quite another. My friend said none of his guys would shoot USA civilians ,if they're holding a gun or not.

[RavenHawk]

Yeah, I don't know what to believe.  All I can say is that it is within the character of this POTUS to do that.  It would make sense considering that organizing a NCSF or using  NORCOMM would probably fall through.  But if this is factual then it would clear the ranks of most of the personnel.  And even then, if the $-hit hit the fan and they were actually faced with doing so, then most would back down.  I would have to think that the Administration knows this already.  And because of that, I would think that this report is false.

[Mr Right Wing]

regeneratia, on 30 January 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

I was just listening to a Coast2Coastam podcast, on the radio on Jan. 25, 2013 during Open Lines, when a caller talked about how Obama has called in the top military brass to instruct them on a particular. His instructions were to go thru all the units and ask the soldiers of they were unwilling to fire on US citizens. If any of these soldiers were to say “yes, that they were unwilling to shoot on US citizens”, these soldiers were to be “let go”.

Now I have no links to back this up. Just a strongly stored podcast involving a caller.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

If this is true, How do you feel about it?
If you don’t think this is true, would you kindly tell me why you think so?
Does anyone want to speculate on what might coming down the pipe in the US?
And where is OathKeepers on this issue?

I seem to remember from my history classes the French having some quite bad economic problems which resulted in millions of people going hungry. They had a revolution and put Napoleon in charge of their country. The Germans did something similar leading to Hitler.

The US with a $16.4 trillion debt and a budget deficit which is about $1 trillion is in trouble. When they cut and inflate they will have to put the troops on the streets. Will they actually shoot their own people when they're looting for food? Or will they join and over-throw the government?

I'm surprised that the 'Arab Spring' hasnt yet spread to the west. I think the US is holding off but the longer it waits before sorting out its books the worse it will be.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 30 January 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[Simbi Laveau]

sam12six, on 30 January 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

I don't really get how this is controversial. Is it shocking that cops must be willing to lock up American Citizens? There are situations where it could be called for - everything from a bunch of people storming the white house to an actual civil war.

Don't get me wrong. I believe our government is planning bad things. I just don't see this concept alone as the huge warning flag that big brother's about to drop the hammer.

As far as soldiers refusing orders to do so, I can't see it. Sure, if those in charge were stupid enough to say, "We're going to throw a scare into the People so they'll sit quietly while we financially rape the country.", there'd be a lot of dissent. If they said they were putting down a terrorist cell that was a danger to their own friends and families, I can't imagine soldiers saying, "Ummm, you'll need to prove that before I'll follow your orders."

The entire military is based on the fact that their job is a dirty one and they are rigorously trained to believe that it shows strength for them to follow through and obey even when it feels wrong. I believe an insurrection within the military would occur if the government decided to use it to sytematically stamp out anyone who disagrees with its policies, but I think there would be a lot of dead Americans before that point.

Well then one might ask why our police forces are being MILITARIZED ,which went into full swing with the advent of occupy wall street .


Just google militarized police USA .

[Michelle]

questionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

If THEY want guns out of anybodies hands THEY don't need soldiers. Police will do fine, thank you. And police are more accustomed to effectively disarm civilians than any soldier will ever be able to.

Very few police officers would be willing to risk their lives to remove people's guns. Most of them are very proud when a civilian takes out one of the bad guys and truly believe in the people's right to bear arms.

[questionmark]

Mr Right Wing, on 30 January 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

I seem to remember from my history classes the French having some quite bad economic problems which resulted in millions of people going hungry. They had a revolution and put Napoleon in charge of their country. The Germans did something similar leading to Hitler.

The US with a $16.4 trillion debt and a budget deficit which is about $1 trillion is in trouble. When they cut and inflate they will have to put the troops on the streets. Will they actually shoot their own people when they're looting for food? Or will they join and over-throw the government?

I'm surprised that the 'Arab Spring' hasnt yet spread to the west. I think the US is holding off but the longer it waits before sorting out its books the worse it will be.

I hate to agree with you on anything, but you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is that dictatorships generally don't make anything better (exceptions like Franco's Spain considered). They just give a warm feeling for some time and then the cold hits twice as hard.

But while we have real problems everybody is only in some sideshow called the second amendment which is a zero number....

[questionmark]

Michelle, on 30 January 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

Very few police officers would be willing to risk their lives to remove people's guns. Most of them are very proud when a civilian takes out one of the bad guys and truly believe in the people's right to bear arms.

Are you telling me that the police does not enforce the law letting those who illegally run around with guns just up to their machination? No wonder you have a high criminality rate in your town.

[sam12six]

Simbi Laveau, on 30 January 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

Well then one might ask why our police forces are being MILITARIZED ,which went into full swing with the advent of occupy wall street .


Just google militarized police USA .

The police have been becoming more militarized since before anyone ever considered the occupy protests. It's a very bad sign. They've basically converted the police into a domestic army that doesn't need to follow international law, just relatively easily altered local law. Remember, I did say I believe the government is planning bad things.

I was just pointing out that there are reasons most of us might consider legitimate that might force the military into direct conflict with Americans. That being the case, I don't see asking whether they'd actually fight or would instead stand there refusing orders is something unreasonable for the military leaders to want to know about the soldiers. Between that and the unnanounced mock training missions we've seen publicized recently I think there's a good chance something major is coming. I just don't see this particular concept as the controversy lots of people do. Sure, maybe it's been a given before and this is the first time there was a rumor of somebody actually asking this particular question, but anyone with a brain should know that joining the military means that being ordered to fight at home is a possibility.

[Michelle]

questionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Are you telling me that the police does not enforce the law letting those who illegally run around with guns just up to their machination? No wonder you have a high criminality rate in your town.

No, they arrest people on a daily basis that are breaking the law with illegal guns. The problem is with the court system and they get tired of arresting the same people day after day. I thought we were talking about the police or military trying to take away law abiding citizen's guns. I don't think you would find many that would do it.

[questionmark]

Michelle, on 30 January 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

No, they arrest people on a daily basis that are breaking the law with illegal guns. The problem is with the court system and they get tired of arresting the same people day after day. I thought we were talking about the police or military trying to take away law abiding citizen's guns. I don't think you would find many that would do it.

So, if guns were outlawed, and that law upheld by the Supreme Court: do you still believe the cops would not go after the then illegal guns? Right.

[and then]

sam12six, on 30 January 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

I don't really get how this is controversial. Is it shocking that cops must be willing to lock up American Citizens? There are situations where it could be called for - everything from a bunch of people storming the white house to an actual civil war.

Don't get me wrong. I believe our government is planning bad things. I just don't see this concept alone as the huge warning flag that big brother's about to drop the hammer.

As far as soldiers refusing orders to do so, I can't see it. Sure, if those in charge were stupid enough to say, "We're going to throw a scare into the People so they'll sit quietly while we financially rape the country.", there'd be a lot of dissent. If they said they were putting down a terrorist cell that was a danger to their own friends and families, I can't imagine soldiers saying, "Ummm, you'll need to prove that before I'll follow your orders."

The entire military is based on the fact that their job is a dirty one and they are rigorously trained to believe that it shows strength for them to follow through and obey even when it feels wrong. I believe an insurrection within the military would occur if the government decided to use it to sytematically stamp out anyone who disagrees with its policies, but I think there would be a lot of dead Americans before that point.

And quite a few dead soldiers as well.  We have always respected, even cherished our military where I come from but if they started shooting at us in our homes?  Buddy you can believe there are more than a few folks down here that can give as good as they get.

[WoIverine]

One thing I haven't seen many people mention is that if there's an eventual economic collapse...the government might not be able to pay the police. There's already been a lot of lost jobs in police departments around the US. In that instance, I could see the military being used to quell mass rioting, looting, and who knows what kind of chaos. I also think that the administration hasn't gone after every possible type of gun out there due to the need of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families in such a crisis. I can see the assault weapons thing being a logical, reasonable thing in some ways, but imagine if nearly all guns were taken, and then an economic collapse happens.

Edited by WoIverine, 30 January 2013 - 11:54 PM.