Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 106

Thread: Army leaks plans - shoot civilians in civil unrest

  1. #1
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Army leaks plans - shoot civilians in civil unrest

    U.S. Army Military Police School Civil Disturbance Operations Course

    Link

    No warning shots will be fired.
    'Temporary detention facilities' don't get mail / correspondence.
    Escapees will be shot.

    Application of Force.

    a. General.

    (1) Civil disturbance operations by federal forces will not be authorized until the President is advised by the highest officials of the state that the situation cannot be controlled with nonfederal resources available.

    The mission of the control force is to help restore law and order and to help maintain it until such time as state and local forces can control the situation without federal help.






    Posse comitatusanyone?

    The military, an ARMED force of the United States, has PLANS, for the detention and execution of U.S. CITIZENS... W T F.
    Last edited by TechnoWeenie; 07-07-2012 at 06:01 PM.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    and to those saying ' Not in the U.S.' and are too lazy to read........ Here's the objective...

    1. Mission of Military Forces during Civil Disturbances. The mission of military forces during civil
    disturbances, both in CONUS and OCONUS, which cannot be overly emphasized, is to help local and state
    authorities to restore and maintain law and order.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    and to those saying ' Not in the U.S.' and are too lazy to read........ Here's the objective...
    OK, I looked at your link and it's unfettered bullscat. The only thing that would make it less credible would be Alex Jones' picture on it. Do you know ANYONE who serves in uniform? Just one person? Do you even occasionally see a stranger in uniform at 7-11?
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  4. #4
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    I say good luck to them getting anyone to pull the trigger.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Firstly, every Government has a contingency plan.

    Second (per your link): (2) The use of deadly force is authorized only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably be employed. Deadly force is justified under one or more of the following circumstances:...

    Apparently Deadly Force is a last resort. Just getting the base worked-up I suppose.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    ...The military, an ARMED force of the United States, has PLANS, for the detention and execution of U.S. CITIZENS... W T F.
    They also have plans for the armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti somewhere, too.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Application of Force.

    a. General.

    (1) Civil disturbance operations by federal forces will not be authorized until the President is advised by the highest officials of the state that the situation cannot be controlled with nonfederal resources available.
    This just occurred here in Colorado Springs. There were 23 break-ins to homes which had been evacuated due to the Waldo Canyon fire. The police were too busy handling fire-related issues to patrol deserted streets, so the crooks had some easy pickings.

    Our state governor mobilized the Guard, which parked themselves in the neighborhoods and very effectively put a stop to the criminal activity with their presence alone.

    The mission of the control force is to help restore law and order and to help maintain it until such time as state and local forces can control the situation without federal help.
    No one was shot, and I believe with most evacuations lifted, the Guard has vacated, as well.

    Posse comitatusanyone?

    The military, an ARMED force of the United States, has PLANS, for the detention and execution of U.S. CITIZENS... W T F.
    Even the post-R. King LA riots were put down without federal help, and this law prohibits the President from acting without the request of a state governor. Should Obama ever say, "No, you need us / we're coming in anyway," some of the troops in that state would prevent their entry, probably with help from neighboring states.

    Two key pieces of legislation you need to see:

    1. AZ would let voters ignore un-Constitutional Federal Law

    2. GOP Governors stand ground against Obamacare despite ruling

    Both citizens and governors are FED UP with the Fed. If they're going to balk at every step with obamacare, how do you think they'd react if the Feds starting rolling tanks in on them?

    It wouldn't be pretty.

    That aside, military officers should KNOW it's their duty to refuse such unlawful orders. Our oath is to our Constitution, not to the President, Congress, or SCOTUS. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that federal military use of deadly force against civilians ain't kosher.

    ETA: Here's another: Maine Governor blasts the fed for "gestapo-like" tactics involving the IRS

    Bottom Line: WE THE PEOPLE aren't going to stand for this. Our State Governors aren't going to stand for it. Most Oathkeepers won't stand for it -- when orders conflict with their oath, they'll follow their oath, as that's what duty does. We WILL follow the Constitution and the lawful regulations which stem forth from it. Nothing more.
    Last edited by since9; 07-08-2012 at 04:09 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    They also have plans for the armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti somewhere, too.
    Of course they do; it is the job of military planners to make contingency plans for contingencies, however unlikely.

    Here's the critical difference, though: an armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti could be legal and constitutional. U.S. Army troops suppressing civil unrest would not.

    Not that legality or the Constitution has ever stopped them before, of course. The most famous abuse of posse comitatus was the attack on the Bonus Army, led by MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, where they gassed, clubbed, bayonetted, and burned men, women and children, U.S. military veterans and their families, in the nation's capital.

    Just 18 years earlier, the U.S. Army intervened to suppress rioting miners in Colorado, who retaliated quite effectively against the Colorado National Guard and mine security companies, in response to the latter's attack against miner camps.

    There is much established history that violated the law and the Constitution; the earliest example was probably George Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. Thankfully, prior practice doesn't legitimize illegal and unconstitutional abuses.
    Last edited by KBCraig; 07-08-2012 at 04:35 AM.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Of course they do; it is the job of military planners to make contingency plans for contingencies, however unlikely.

    Here's the critical difference, though: an armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti could be legal and constitutional. U.S. Army troops suppressing civil unrest would not.

    Not that legality or the Constitution has ever stopped them before, of course. The most famous abuse of posse comitatus was the attack on the Bonus Army, led by MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, where they gassed, clubbed, bayonetted, and burned men, women and children, U.S. military veterans and their families, in the nation's capital.

    Just 18 years earlier, the U.S. Army intervened to suppress rioting miners in Colorado, who retaliated quite effectively against the Colorado National Guard and mine security companies, in response to the latter's attack against miner camps.

    There is much established history that violated the law and the Constitution; the earliest example was probably George Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. Thankfully, prior practice doesn't legitimize illegal and unconstitutional abuses.
    First, let's be sure we all understand that Posse Commitatus is not an absolute ban on the use of federal forces for domestic law enforcement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

    The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies in using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for other reasons (politically).
    The statute only addresses the US Army and, since 1956, the US Air Force. It does not refer to, and thus does not restrict or apply to, the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor (in its federal capacity, the National Guard forms part of the Army or Air Force of the United States). The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive (self-regulation), but not by the Act itself.[
    I had the distinct pleasure of "attending" the riots in D.C. following MLK's assassination. I was, in fact, the first Marine to step off a helicopter onto the grass at the Elipse. Given that D.C. was then a federal enclave under the complete control of Congress there was no problem making sure all the "i"s were dotted and the "t"s crossed - and they were. We were read the declaration and received a brief explanation of both the why and legal implications before boarding for the flight to D.C. I also was part of the contingent staged at Quonset Point, RI in case the Hartford 7 trial got out of hand - as the State of Connecticutt had declared they did not think they could protect the Federal Courthouse and the judges, Marshals, and other staff if things went south. Again, "i"s were dotted and "t"s crossed by Congressional action. Same "i"s and "t"s attended to before heading up there as was done for the D.C. trip.

    Bringing the Bonus Army incident up as a violation of Posse Commitatus is truely a false front, as D.C. was much more of a federal enclave then than it is now - no "Home Rule" at all, and the local police force was in fact federal employees. The City Council was but a sub-committee of a Senate committee, created to attend to the writing of regulations (not laws as we understand them these days) for the operating of the enclave.

    Will the military (National Guard or federal troops) shoot civillians during a period of civil unrest? IMHO the answer is "probably", IF there are clear rules of engagement and the lives of the troops are truely in jeopardy. Massed formations, street patrols for the purpose of intimidating folks not to commit crime (just like the local cops do nowadays), and the operation of detention centers that are of necessity much more primitive than the local civil facilities, should do the trick most of the time. But when they start receiving incoming fire (see ROE comment above) they are not going to stand there like paper targets. And anybody who is worried about how our troops will adhere to ROE, I suggest they look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Will federal troops run roughshod over the land shooting anybody for any reason? Will they round up everyone on any of DHS's many lists of domestic terrorists? IMHO the answer is a resounding "NO!".

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    They also have plans for the armed amphibious invasion of Tahiti somewhere, too.
    Come to think of it, why can't we invade Venezuela? They literally stole billions of dollars worth of US oil company investments in oil producing infrastructure. Not to mention the fact that they have beaches, good looking women, good drugs and alcohol and we wouldn't have to worry about offending islamic "sensibilities" whatever the **** that is. Lets get the hell out of the desert and let those idiots kill each other.

    I regards to military personel shooting US citizens, even rioting thugs in liberal plantation cities, I can't believe there are people who envision such things. First of all even during Katrina half the local cops took their crown vics and long guns home to protect their families and neighbors. Does anyone believe that if even a national crisis of apocolyptic proportions were to strike a significant amount of people wouldn't take their M4's and possibly some serious hardware home? It took how long for the entire empire to mobilize enough guns and operators to calm down just one liberal plantation? Imagine if they all go off at once! Don't forget how many people in the military come from these plantations, and how many come from "the sticks".

    I can see no circumstance AT ALL, where even the most sinister officers, govenors or anyone else could possibly convince enough military personel to turn their firepower on the citizenry without they themselves getting blown out of their Ivory towers by an M1.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 07-08-2012 at 01:53 PM.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    These contingency plans have been around for a long time. It just shows what our politicians think of us, all of them. It is not a bad thing for them to have knowledge and training for any circumstance. It is another to sign the order to murder a US citizen without due process, I don't care how bad a person he is, anyone of us could be labeled bad people. The constitution should come above any fear of bad people.

  12. #12
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    does anyone expect anything different?
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran G22shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Concord, North Carolina
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    does anyone expect anything different?
    Thanks for sharing, papa bear.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Any ROE, written yesterday, would not preclude the gunning down of innocent citizens when a cop....or soldier, fears for his life. Anyone who thinks that there are not soldiers that will fire on their fellow citizens is sadly mistaken.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuRUlqveNYg
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Any ROE, written yesterday, would not preclude the gunning down of innocent citizens when a cop....or soldier, fears for his life. Anyone who thinks that there are not soldiers that will fire on their fellow citizens is sadly mistaken.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuRUlqveNYg
    Whether your point is valid or not, you lose ALL credibility when you put up a trailer from a movie for a citation.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    If even one regular soldier (now agent of the state) shoots a citizen on US soil at the bidding of a tyrannical (as perceived by the citizenry) government....as described in the link to the movie scene, that soldier and his comrades will be painted very poorly by the now victimized citizenry at the hands of a tyrannical government and their thug army.

    The ideal would be for any 'orders' to be ignored and the soldier(s) not deploy. If the cops can't handle the situation maybe it's not the citizenry that is the problem. Unfortunately we now have a army which will be populated with those who will "just be following orders".

    Ironically, it was the army that prevented, for the most part, thug cops during Katrina from doing what some thug cops did.....once they showed up that is.

    Whether or not you consider the point valid or not is not the point. You apparently did get my point but merely disagreed with the example provided to illustrate the point I made.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    If even one regular soldier (now agent of the state) shoots a citizen on US soil at the bidding of a tyrannical (as perceived by the citizenry) government....as described in the link to the movie scene, that soldier and his comrades will be painted very poorly by the now victimized citizenry at the hands of a tyrannical government and their thug army.

    The ideal would be for any 'orders' to be ignored and the soldier(s) not deploy. If the cops can't handle the situation maybe it's not the citizenry that is the problem. Unfortunately we now have a army which will be populated with those who will "just be following orders".

    Ironically, it was the army that prevented, for the most part, thug cops during Katrina from doing what some thug cops did.....once they showed up that is.

    Whether or not you consider the point valid or not is not the point. You apparently did get my point but merely disagreed with the example provided to illustrate the point I made.
    The point I am trying to get through is that using make believe to back up your position, destroys any credibility. All you had to do was leave the movie trailer out of it. You could have showed the clip of the police abusing the elderly woman post Katrina and made your point much more effectively. Don't take offense but the antis that see such stuff would have a field day with it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Kent State never happened.

    Waco never happened.

    Ruby Ridge never happened.

    Katrina never happened.

    There is nothing to see here folks.

    Go home, the government will protect you.
    Dumb National Guardsmen at Kent, the rest were federal "law enforcement" Stormtroopers or moronic NO cops. No US troops. We had contingency plans to go to war with England prior to entering the second WW. They are just that, and nothing more. The danger we face is not US military, it is Nazi thugs with federal badges who don't gas about the Constitution and the scum that leads them in the "white" house and doj.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Kent State never happened.

    Waco never happened.

    Ruby Ridge never happened.

    Katrina never happened.

    There is nothing to see here folks.

    Go home, the government will protect you.
    I have seen nobody here claim that the above did not happen. BTW the government did not have anything to do with Katrina, God did. Though they did screw up the response. You should do some reading on Kent State also before using that incident as an example.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The point I am trying to get through is that using make believe to back up your position, destroys any credibility. All you had to do was leave the movie trailer out of it. You could have showed the clip of the police abusing the elderly woman post Katrina and made your point much more effectively. Don't take offense but the antis that see such stuff would have a field day with it.
    It is not the cops we are talking about here, nor is it the premise of the OP.....nor the inference in the movie clip. The 'problems' created after Katrina were entirely man made by a city administration that permitted rampant cop thuggery and lawlessness. Katrina was not a aftermath story it was a story in the making from years of democrat rule.

    While the movie clip showed a 'cop' lighting the fuse of the backlash, the majority of the clip insinuates that the army is defending a tyrannical government. As I have stated above, do not count on a army to follow any ROE if a enraged citizenry objects to their army preventing them from exercising their 1A right let alone their 2A right. Do not count on any soldier to not assist cops when the cops choose to deprive the citizenry of their 4A right.

    If it is the soldier or the citizen the soldier will choose himself over a citizen every time, unfortunately it is the government that places the soldier in that position to begin with. It would be nice if the soldier would simply refuse to be placed in that position to begin with.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Kent State never happened.

    Waco never happened.

    Ruby Ridge never happened.

    Katrina never happened.

    There is nothing to see here folks.

    Go home, the government will protect you.
    After 9-11 I noted airmen at our airports ... I chewed one out for being there ... why a US airman is pointing his gun on US citizens really got me riled. I don't like seeing servicemen walking around in their fatigues ... want to be out in public in uniform? Wear your dress uniform.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-09-2012 at 03:03 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It is not the cops we are talking about here, nor is it the premise of the OP.....nor the inference in the movie clip. The 'problems' created after Katrina were entirely man made by a city administration that permitted rampant cop thuggery and lawlessness. Katrina was not a aftermath story it was a story in the making from years of democrat rule.

    While the movie clip showed a 'cop' lighting the fuse of the backlash, the majority of the clip insinuates that the army is defending a tyrannical government. As I have stated above, do not count on a army to follow any ROE if a enraged citizenry objects to their army preventing them from exercising their 1A right let alone their 2A right. Do not count on any soldier to not assist cops when the cops choose to deprive the citizenry of their 4A right.

    If it is the soldier or the citizen the soldier will choose himself over a citizen every time, unfortunately it is the government that places the soldier in that position to begin with. It would be nice if the soldier would simply refuse to be placed in that position to begin with.
    **Sigh** Next we will be discussing government vampires~~Where is Abe Lincoln vampire hunter when you need him...

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    The 82nd Airborne was in New Orleans after Katrina. They were going house to house and assisting in seizing guns. But dont worry, that never happened.
    Do you have a legit citation that the 82nd Airborne participated in weapons seizures?

    Please no more movie trailers? It gives me a headache and I never liked tin foil hats.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    186
    I was at a USPSA shooting match a couple of years ago and struck up a conversation with a Deta soldier. During the conversaton he made a comment that if the POTUS ordered my head on a pike, he would put it there. I told him that was an interesting statement and it appeared that he considered the murder of an American citizen, because the POTUS wanted it, to be a lawful order and within the Constitution he swore to defend.

    He started to quallify his comment and I asked him what he thought about the army tanks at Waco. He said there were no army personell involved in that. I asked him if he thought that the citizens inside the house made that distinction as the tanks were crashing through the walls. He didn't answer and I walked away.

    I hope I am wrong, but I believe that a good many troops will fire on Americans for no other reason that they are told to.

  25. #25
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOverlay View Post
    I was at a USPSA shooting match a couple of years ago and struck up a conversation with a Deta soldier. During the conversaton he made a comment that if the POTUS ordered my head on a pike, he would put it there. I told him that was an interesting statement and it appeared that he considered the murder of an American citizen, because the POTUS wanted it, to be a lawful order and within the Constitution he swore to defend.

    He started to quallify his comment and I asked him what he thought about the army tanks at Waco. He said there were no army personell involved in that. I asked him if he thought that the citizens inside the house made that distinction as the tanks were crashing through the walls. He didn't answer and I walked away.

    I hope I am wrong, but I believe that a good many troops will fire on Americans for no other reason that they are told to.
    I agree that some will, and believe that some will not. What I think I would have asked him if he would carry out a hit on his mother if Obama ordered it. We have enough real instances of abuses of the constitution without putting on tin foil hats and looking like loonies pointing to movie trailers, that was my initial point. Not whether there has been abuses or will be, we already know that. We already know that Obama ordered two US citizens executed without due process. Now a good many citizens are OK with this because he was a bad man, but the problem is some of Obama's staff has said we all are bad people. Unless we are willing to call foul even if it is a bad person, we may be the next person in those rifle sights.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •