Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Civil war and the litmus test - will you shoot at Americans?

Damn! Thanks for posting that. Answers some questions.

Damn. Thanks for posting that too. You're certainly correct in your post...and probably correct in your last sentence too.

It is not my intention to be an ass to anyone.

The point I am making is that there is no place for a weasel between the US citizen and The US Constitution.

But today, that weasel is there and he is Barack Husein Obama.

HAJ, do reconsider the "protect my President with my life" thing, unless you are Secret Service, and consider protecting the Constitution with your life.

GeoW

Sure does.

If I was still active I'd volunteer for a gig in N. Florida.

People are people and organizations such as the .mil and LEO crowd are drawn from the general population. For state/local LEO, they're drawn from the "local" general population (with a % of imports, obviously).

To argue that "they" will or won't shoot at "civilians" (LEO qualify) is as ridiculous as arguing about who has the balls to stand up and fight back.

As far back at the Revolution there were those willing to make themselves criminals in order to "fight the good fight" and there were those willing to walk the party line for the "rightful" (at the time) government. There was a tremendous percentage of folks willing to just sit on the sidelines and, likely, cry/whine about how it should be done while men of action spilled blood. There are examples of all categories as close as the 'Fire.

I can't/won't speak for all LEOs. I know where my guys and many in my AO stand. Likewise, I know where a great number of my local NG/Reservists stand. The rest will be what it will be.

George

Oh I don't know, like taking HAJ's comments completely out of context and insinuating the armed forces would side with the present marxist occupant of the White House and turn on the American public. Correlating Black people with [bleep], I could go on for hours. As for me arriving, I can't quite remember, but it was on a Pan American flight on the 21st of August, 1960... Now let me ask you this simple question, if the Armed Forces were to turn on the current president based on the fact he was (and I agree) destroying the Constitution would you be for that and would that be a lawful action?

I'm not sure why this is even a question.

First, the US military is already killing Americans. Not just Americans, but American children. That right there should put paid to the whole shocked theatrical "Why, they would never!" drama.

Second, when it comes time for the US military to start wholesale killings of regular Americans like you and me, and like your kids and my kids, why do people insist upon thinking that the people now in the military--even if we were to believe their appalled protestations--would be in the military then?

There are plenty of people out there--millions upon millions--in the inner cities who would eagerly leap at the chance to kill Americans for the government--especially white Americans. Most of them have been practicing with video games like MWCOD for years. When the time comes for the US military to start killing large numbers of white Americans, it will by that time obviously consist mostly of those people.

Third, there are already companies out there making more-or-less autonomous armed robots--early-model Terminators, so to speak--as prototypes. I don't know of any that are actually in production yet, but I imagine that as the time approaches for the US military to exterminate large groups of Americans, these companies will start to receive lots of big military contracts. Machines don't tend to have any annoying problems with their loyalties.

So, to sum up:

1. Never believe a soldier when he claims to be a defender of the Constitution if he has willingly deployed into an undeclared war--that is, any war since WWII.

2. What soldiers say today about how eager they are to be ordered to kill Americans may be true or it may be lies, but that doesn't matter because it's completely irrelevant since those soldiers won't be the ones who get those orders.

Great post, Barak.

I don't think it will happen, here is why. Nancy Pelosi , or Barbare Boxer said, all veterans are mentally disabled,,, they should not have guns. This tells me they are trying to keep veterans from having guns. Most are very conservative from the ones I met. They are soldiers and can see a threat and will most likely fight and will be good at it. I believe this is why the government is very robust in getting as many on post depression status,,, so they can't have guns.. So, they know they most likely will be a problem.

jorge, as you well know, this is not a banana republic and I do not foresee nor do I hope to see any revolt of the armed forces. I do see impeachment as a solution however the Congress is proving to be about as worthless as Obama. A case of a crafty weasel leading the blind and ignorant. Checks and balances aren't working any more.

When the people we chose to represent us are failing miserably, we are in deep [bleep]!

As a former member of the Armed Forces, what would you do?

I call BS. The administrations not asking the military that.

To directly answer your question, hell yes I'd shoot Americans to preserve America. I doubt they'd be leftists in that case, but you never know, and I don't care anyway. Anyone actively, literally, violently, physically attempting to destroy America is a dog deserving put down. Regardless of political stripe.

I've been watching this thread and thinking about the implications of the original question. My first reaction was no. HELL NO!. But I've thought about it some before posting a response. Forty-five years go, I made the following oath:

� 502. Enlistment Oath.� Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

So I swore to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." And there's not enough information in the original question to determine wether or not I would fire upon an American citizen. I would have to determine in my own mind if that person is an enemy of the constitution. If they are then wether or not they are foreign or domestic makes no difference.

Here's my question: What happens if the enemy of the constitution is the President of the United States? My answer; I would "bear true faith and alegiance to the same" and I would fire upon any enemy of the constitution.

Now if we follow that line of reasoning to its' logical end, we have to ask the question "why have the current POTUS, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid not been assassinated already? Maybe we have all just decided that as of yet, they have not provided sufficient evidence that they are enemies of the constitution. Or maybe we're not willing to make the sacrifice to live up to our commitment.

KC

P.S. What about Hickenlooper and the Colorado Dems? Have they given us sufficient proof?

+1

It is as simple as that.

lol, $40K?! thats 4 months salary, not a year!

Maybe in Jersey......

George

yep

These threads used to amuse me, now they just make me want to puke. The number of posters on here that say LEO's are just chomping at the bit to shoot Joe six pack and take his guns/ammo/precious metals disappoints me. But I also wonder how many of them are basement living puzzy ass [bleep] who got a speeding ticket in their mom's car yesterday, and how many are honest to God grown ass men who have formed an opinion based on personal experience. (i.e. not watching youtube clips and reading internet blogs by other random losers)

That's not the scenario that was presented in that thread. My duty was to the Constitution. Period.

Take it out of context all you want but it doesn't make your above comment true.

If the President violates the Constitution then he is to be considered an enemy of the State. The Constitution provides a means by which to handle such situation and it isn't via a coup. By mounting one under the circumstances given in that thread YOU would be in violation of the Constitution. That would make you the one ripping it apart.

It would be my job to arrest the President and bring him to trial. NOT stand by while vigilante justice destroy the Constitution and rip the Nation apart.

Attempt to bypass the Constitution and you become a domestic enemy of the Constitution who I was sworn to defend against.

What does that post taken completely out of context answer for you two?

Anyone that desires to bypass the Constitution becomes the enemy. Be it American citizen or the President. If you read the rest of my comments in that thread you'd see that I repeatedly stated that the Constitution provides a way to address a tyrannical President and what was proposed in that thread was bypassing the Constitution completely.