Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Military ready to kill civillians who don't turn over their guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member linerider69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Louisburg
    Posts
    84

    Military ready to kill civillians who don't turn over their guns


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    153
    Clicked the link, then saw it was Alex Jones. Exited immediately.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Not Alex Jones, not ready to kill fellow citizens ....... but thinks only they should have certain guns.

    http://thepage.time.com/2013/01/08/m...main-arenapage

  4. #4
    Regular Member LibertyDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Inland Empire, CA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by linerider69 View Post
    No, not even close. Were you EVER in the US Military?

    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Not Alex Jones, not ready to kill fellow citizens ....... but thinks only they should have certain guns.

    http://thepage.time.com/2013/01/08/m...main-arenapage
    Apparently McChrystal is unaware that the .223 round is kind of weak compared to common hunting rounds.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyDeath View Post
    No, not even close. Were you EVER in the US Military?



    Apparently McChrystal is unaware that the .223 round is kind of weak compared to common hunting rounds.
    Apparently. I mean we have to protect our children.

    When it hits the human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that and that’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I, personally, don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets, and, particularly, around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look. I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population and I think we’ve got to take a very mature look at that.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyDeath View Post
    No, not even close. Were you EVER in the US Military?



    Apparently McChrystal is unaware that the .223 round is kind of weak compared to common hunting rounds.

    DoD has already trained soldiers to participate in such actions. They were involved with the Katrina gun grabs COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Bashing our military.
    Last edited by John Pierce; 01-11-2013 at 06:18 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member LibertyDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Inland Empire, CA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Apparently. I mean we have to protect our children.
    I bet if we asked him if the 7.62 NATO round was okay for civilians he would say no, then tell us that there are plenty of acceptable hunting rounds like the 308.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by linerider69 View Post
    Loosen the tin foil, friend, it's cutting off blood flow....

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by shastadude17 View Post
    Clicked the link, then saw it was Alex Jones. Exited immediately.
    Hence the lack of a summary. He wants you to click the link blind.

    Tip: Don't click blind links. It the OP is too lazy (or too dishonest) to post a summary, you are taking a big chance clicking links.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I watched the first seven minutes of the video. The UN thing is old news, although the 1961 proposal was new to me. The Katrina stuff was old news. That's not to say it might not be new news to a recent convert to self-defense freedom.

    But, I don't see anything overly conspiracy-nutty in what was presented.

    Some of you guys gotta learn to look for the facts, and evaluate them yourself, rather than just ignore stuff because of who is presenting it. Hell, I read the Washington Post sometimes. Yes, I gotta choke on four mouthfuls of garbage before finding a few facts, but I don't ignore everything and throw away what might be useful facts.

    I guess my message is make your own evaluations about the facts presented by Alex Jones, rather than railing against his. Jeez, are you guys so delicate you can't tolerate some people's evaluations?

    Give you an example. One of his segments was about the fedgov agency for disasters. He found and video-taped a zillion plastic coffins. His evaluation was that agency was prepared for a few million Americans killed by the fedgov and troops when martial law was imposed or something. (Yawn). My evaluation was, "Well, thank you for showing me the government wasted money buying twelve times as many plastic coffins as would ever be needed for any disaster that occurred. More tax dollars shot to hell by wasteful spending. People been burying mass casualties in cloth shrouds for millenia; but our fedgov has to dole out the dollars. Some congressman got a fat campaign contriubtion after that contract, I'm sure."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    As a retired soldier who still prides himself on twenty-one years of honorable service and as the father of another soldier who is rapidly approaching the twenty-year mark himself, I absolutely refuse to believe that American military members will obey an unlawful order to fire on American civilians.

    I served with, and still know, too many good and honorable men and women to believe this sort of garbage. I will believe that any officer who is foolish enough to issue such an order to troops is very likely to find the troops firing on him/her. Any politician, from POTUS on down, who dares to give such an order to the military will find themselves in what we used to call "very deep kimchi".

    As concerns former General McChrystal, and I will include several other general officers in my assessment, officers, and especially flag officers, should be held to a higher standard. In joining with the anti-Second Amendment forces, General McChrystal, although retired, has violated his oath of office. That is, in my mind, more than sufficient reason to hold him in the contempt he deserves.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    SNIP As a retired soldier who still prides himself on twenty-one years of honorable service and as the father of another soldier who is rapidly approaching the twenty-year mark himself, I absolutely refuse to believe that American military members will obey an unlawful order to fire on American civilians.
    I think as it stands today, many would refuse or mutiny. But, some would.

    As things become even more polarized, the mutineers would shrink in number. Its really just a matter of whether the troops feel the commanders' orders are necessary. When things start really falling apart economically, commanders and troops are going to reach a point where they have to decide who's side their gonna be on. The citizens of this or that group, or the government who preserves order, or a military commander who promises to get rid of the Washington cabal and run things by junta for a while, or whatever. Any civilians who resist are going to be shot. That's just history; that's just the nature of the beast.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I think as it stands today, many would refuse or mutiny. But, some would.

    As things become even more polarized, the mutineers would shrink in number. Its really just a matter of whether the troops feel the commanders' orders are necessary. When things start really falling apart economically, commanders and troops are going to reach a point where they have to decide who's side their gonna be on. The citizens of this or that group, or the government who preserves order, or a military commander who promises to get rid of the Washington cabal and run things by junta for a while, or whatever. Any civilians who resist are going to be shot. That's just history; that's just the nature of the beast.
    If something like this happens understand it will be factions against factions. When you say pick a side it won't be black or white. This forum alone exposes that.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    As a retired soldier who still prides himself on twenty-one years of honorable service and as the father of another soldier who is rapidly approaching the twenty-year mark himself, I absolutely refuse to believe that American military members will obey an unlawful order to fire on American civilians.

    I served with, and still know, too many good and honorable men and women to believe this sort of garbage. I will believe that any officer who is foolish enough to issue such an order to troops is very likely to find the troops firing on him/her. Any politician, from POTUS on down, who dares to give such an order to the military will find themselves in what we used to call "very deep kimchi".

    As concerns former General McChrystal, and I will include several other general officers in my assessment, officers, and especially flag officers, should be held to a higher standard. In joining with the anti-Second Amendment forces, General McChrystal, although retired, has violated his oath of office. That is, in my mind, more than sufficient reason to hold him in the contempt he deserves.
    When I was stationed overseas (not deployed) one of my coworkers thought that NO ONE should have guns. This INCLUDED the military...which she was a part of. She admited that the military needed guns because the bad guys weren't going to simply give up their guns, but she still felt that no one should have guns. Why she is in the military I don't know. I've also come across a lot of people who say "it's simply a job" and "I have to feed my family somehow" so I can completely see some military members obeying such unlawful orders because they aren't in for the right reasons and/or because they feel stuck in regards to trying to support their family.

    In regards to officers, I have noticed that military officers are often worse than the enlisted when it comes to upholding the Constitution. They are more likely to feel ok with things like gun control and trying to play legal judo to get around the Constitution. Some also have even said things like "our elected officials can't do anything unConstitutional so any law they pass must be Constitutional" (and thus they would be willing to enforce it). I don't know if it's because of college, OTS, or what, but they just seem more accepting of big brother and its transgressions against the Constitution.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I absolutely refuse to believe that American military members will obey an unlawful order to fire on American civilians.
    .
    Studies have already been done by DoD on this ... suggest you look them up and see .. just don't put your head in the sand and say you refuse to believe.

    Did you previously belief that the gun grab after Katrina would never happen?

    Military is not the same as when you joined ... they are just cogs in a machine now, even more so than when you joined

  16. #16
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Hey, all you people, I want you to actually click the link in the video description and read the document.

    THIS IS THE THIRD FRICKIN' TIME SOMEONE HAS BROUGHT UP THIS VIDEO WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING THE DOCUMENT THE VIDEO CITES

    This 1961 proposal was to limit nuclear and military arms, it says JACK DIDDLEY SQUAT about civilian firearms, and this idea never got past the initial drafting

    please read what you're trying to cite!

    lets cite the document

    INTRODUCTION

    The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
    This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:
    So already the context is military arms, particularily nuclear, let's go on

    DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

    The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
    In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

    The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
    The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
    The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
    The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
    Again clearly a military context...

    let's continue

    The end result according to this plan?
    States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
    The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
    The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
    The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.
    This is obviously in reference to military weapons by state military forces.
    you can argue this is a bad idea in that militaries are one of the hallmarks of a nation and every country should have one, but in no context is this referencing civilians owning a firearm, this is entirely a context of military disarmament.

    furthermore, this idea was a proposal that never saw the light of day. This plan is gone, done for, ended. just like Disco, the 8-track, the Full size sedan, 20 cent a gallon gas, John F. Kennedy, and Elvis. Its gone, done for, dead, end of story, now can people stop posting this same video every time they want to find a new conspiracy?
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 01-09-2013 at 04:48 AM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Studies have already been done by DoD on this ... suggest you look them up and see .. just don't put your head in the sand and say you refuse to believe.

    Did you previously belief that the gun grab after Katrina would never happen?

    Military is not the same as when you joined ... they are just cogs in a machine now, even more so than when you joined
    Don't assign homework. If the studies are real, cite them. They are likely either not real, or don't conclude what you assert they do--or you'd boldly be pointing directly to them, rather than hinting at their existence, hoping that folks would never bother to look, or, if they did, not find them, or, if they did, not notice that they do not say what you claim that they say.

    Again, don't give homework, cite! (I wish there was a rule here against assigning homework. Folks do it way too often around here--either out of laziness or dishonesty.)

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    laziness or dishonesty
    Is it possible that both are at work?
    "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

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Here Is A Survey From 1994 Given To Marines

    Link to survey: http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/armysurvey.html

    Link to new article: http://politichicks.tv/column/will-o...s-survey-says/

    The results will surprise some, sicken many. Bottom line? Quite a few will kill Americans when told to.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    SNIP Hey, all you people, I want you to actually click the link in the video description and read the document.
    (sigh)

    "Hey, all you people"????

    What do you say you condescending people listen, read, and evaluate before "correcting" others?


    Lets hit a few points.

    In the first 30 seconds of the video the presenter gives the context that modern UN anti-gun proposals have their roots in the 1961 proposal. He doesn't say the 1961 proposal is the bill.

    The context is much broader than nuclear weapons. Under the heading First Stage, subheading Arms and Armed Forces, the text clearly goes way beyond nuclear weapons. Under Third Stage it reduces even further to only those weapons needed to maintain internal order. The memo is titled freedom from war, not freedom from nuclear war.

    Now, lets wipe the moisture from behind your ears because you're clearly not a child anymore, and its time to start acting like a big boy. Do a little critical thinking:

    You're correct that the document does not mention privately held arms. You rely on context. We have extensive experience in this country with government abuse of context, so context is meaningless. While the memo does not expressly mention private arms, neither does it expressly exempt private arms.

    And, under Third Stage, it does say "only those forces...for maintaining internal order". That is a huge barn door through which to walk abolition of the militia at some point a little further down the road.

    The memo mentions eventual elimination of national arsenals. Wanta place a bet that some gun-grabbing UN flunkey wouldn't soon notice the US has millions of privately held guns and start twisting the definition of the word arsenal into "pool of weapons" or some such?

    So, if this document was drafted with the intention of also confiscating private arms, its only a few words away from being used as pretended authority to do so.

    Separately, one need only hear the Orwellian term peace-keepers to know that something is up.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-09-2013 at 12:43 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    If someone, anyone, opens fire on US soldiers/LEO/National Guard, I can just about guarantee that our US soldiers will return that fire with much more destructive weapons.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Military ready to kill civillians who don't turn over their guns

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Is it possible that both are at work?
    Ah, the vagaries of the English language. In mathematics and logic, "or" automatically includes both any one being true and all being true. English is less predictable. Sometimes "or" means "pick one and only one."

    I said all that to say this: Yes.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I think the premise of this argument is whether or not the "Army" will be expected to comply with a general order to go house to house and search for then confiscate any firearms found there in. If the firearm owner puts up a fight there is no certainty that the Army will "shoot to kill" if they are faced with armed resistance. Remember, unless it is a direct order from the Commander and Chief the Army would be acting to enforce a law that they are prohibited from enforcing, except in the case of insurrection re the Posse Comitatus Act. The State Militias (Guard) and the USCG are not so encumbered by the Posse Comitatus Act.
    "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

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chesterfield
    Posts
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I think the premise of this argument is whether or not the "Army" will be expected to comply with a general order to go house to house and search for then confiscate any firearms found there in. If the firearm owner puts up a fight there is no certainty that the Army will "shoot to kill" if they are faced with armed resistance. Remember, unless it is a direct order from the Commander and Chief the Army would be acting to enforce a law that they are prohibited from enforcing, except in the case of insurrection re the Posse Comitatus Act. The State Militias (Guard) and the USCG are not so encumbered by the Posse Comitatus Act.
    However it is an insurrection that I think this would stir up. Remember Iraq, remember Afghanistan, a small portion of the population kept our great and power military busy for 10 years. 300 million guns in the USA, 100 million gun owning households. If 10% of those households resist that is 10 million households.....not a pretty pictures for any governing power. Not something any military wants to contemplate. Never mind the idea of shooting ones brothers and sisters. No friends for all our sakes let us hope that this travesty does not come to pass.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    If someone, anyone, opens fire on US soldiers/LEO/National Guard, I can just about guarantee that our US soldiers will return that fire with much more destructive weapons.
    Since the discussion is about American civilians. And I am assuming you know this, and your choice of "someone" was done on purpose. I wonder though how you feel about them doing so.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •