• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

LibertyDeath

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
128
Location
Inland Empire, CA

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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 a moderator:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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."
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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 :cuss:

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! :banghead:

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? :banghead:
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:
Top