Why are we asked if they will when they are already doing it? The military is seldom used (yet) but cops do it all the time. They don't go through any checks to see if the orders are constitutional or valid. The just "obey orders".
In some cases they are taking guns ( and anything else they wish to grab or that they are ordered to grab) from criminals. In others they are taking guns because they are pawns of politicians who ascribe a criminal title to someone they don't like. Cops are largely selected from the type of people that will do as they are told and not "buck the system".
In EVERY case of unconstitutional seizures, the cops don't check. That's is why they happen at all. The just do as they are told and what they are paid to do. NO ONE is more likely to disobey their pledged allegiance to the Constitution then a cop. Some politicians will but nearly all cops will --- when told to.
That may sound like the words of an agitator, but if I am wrong then ask yourself who else takes what citizens earned themselves other then cops? The statures and courts may order it, but the COPS do it.
Why are we asked if they will when they are already doing it? The military is seldom used (yet) but cops do it all the time. They don't go through any checks to see if the orders are constitutional or valid. The just "obey orders".
In some cases they are taking guns ( and anything else they wish to grab or that they are ordered to grab) from criminals. In others they are taking guns because they are pawns of politicians who ascribe a criminal title to someone they don't like. Cops are largely selected from the type of people that will do as they are told and not "buck the system".
In EVERY case of unconstitutional seizures, the cops don't check. That's is why they happen at all. The just do as they are told and what they are paid to do. NO ONE is more likely to disobey their pledged allegiance to the Constitution then a cop. Some politicians will but nearly all cops will --- when told to.
That may sound like the words of an agitator, but if I am wrong then ask yourself who else takes what citizens earned themselves other then cops? The statures and courts may order it, but the COPS do it.
NO ONE ELSE!
I've agreed with almost everything you've said on every post of yours I've read.
Seems to me if a person is fit enough to be a part of a free society and not under any sort of supervision they should have the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. I am no expert on the subject I could be wrong but until I hear a really good reason why not I will keep these views. There is a lot of grey area on both sides of that story I definitely agree with the punishment fitting the crime and not the system as it is today. To give up liberty for perceived safety is wrong IMHO Freedom isn't always safe for everyone it is a part of the price we have to pay to remain free, and I like freedom
The problem is, most convicted felons released to society are NOT fit to be a part of that society.
The point he's making is that they shouldn't be released, then. We need to hang more criminals, such as third violent felony conviction.
The rub on all of this is..... The enforcement branch will not be losing their rights. They will still have the tools to protect those near and dear to them. "Us" don't need to protect ourselves because "them" will.
It's not LEO's job to protect us & in the end, they never will; the only one that will protect us is us, pure & simple.
As for the military, their job is to protect the country, not us, either.
Individually & as a group of individuals, it's up to us to take care of us.
if we lose our guns, it will be because we lost votes that were essential to keeping them.
If anyone loses their gun/s and keeps sucking air, it’s because they did not have the balls to fight until their last breath, while fighting / killing the Communists / Tyrants.
If a citizen does not fight till their death to defend their God given inalienable rights and to defend freedom, they should be wrapped in wet hide and staked in the middle of the dessert. If you give up your gun/s, you deserve no less.
It’s that simple.
"He is far from Stupid"
”person, who happens to have an above-average level of intelligence”
That's a gross distortion. The protesters were rioters, rather like our Antifa. The folks ordered to suppress the riots were generally ordered to use the sides of their sabres, rather than the edges. That was a mistake that likely cost the Russian people a lifetime of misery under the Bolsheviks.
You are 180deg out of phase with my thoughts, but that's ok, maybe this one will clue you in..
I don’t think that worked out to well for England.
Their national dish is now curry and they can’t even occupy and defend a bathroom stall.....
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
I don't know for sure how to put a video in frame, but this lady says pretty clearly exactly how I think it'll happen. One chip off the foundation at a time, much like catching wild pigs!
When Patton Rolled Tanks Over Veterans in Washington, D.C.
In 1932, 17,000 former soldiers marched on Washington, D.C. to demand wartime pay owed to them. The Great Depression ravaged the country, and a president took desperate measures to disperse the angry veterans. Tanks rolled down the streets. Soldiers held people at bayonet-point. Veterans and their families took lungs full of tear gas. People died.
In late July, Attorney General William Mitchell ordered D.C. police to clear out the protesters.
When the police arrived at the shanty town, the veterans fought back. The police drew their revolvers and fired into the crowd, killing World War I veterans Eric Carlson and William Hushka. The situation had spiraled out of control.
Hoover ordered the military to remove the protesters from the city at once. Gen. Douglas MacArthur — then the U.S. Army’s Chief of Staff — led the 12th Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment into the fray. The cavalry regiment contained six Renault FT tanks commanded by Maj. George Patton. The Army troops, with bayonets affixed to their rifles, charged into the shanty town and launched tear gas into the crowds.
“Cavalrymen and infantrymen jerked gas masks out of their haversacks,” the Baltimore Evening Sun reported. “The spectators, blinded and choking with the unexpected gas attack, broke and fled. Movie photographers who had parked their sound trucks so as to catch a panorama of the skirmish ground away doggedly, tears streaming down their faces.” Patton’s tanks crushed the makeshift buildings. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River, and Hoover ordered the assault to stop. But MacArthur saw the protesters as communist agitators intent on overthrowing the U.S. government, and continued the operation. More than 1,000 injured veterans ended up in area hospitals. One veteran died and a veteran’s wife miscarried.
Not only will they follow orders, they will follow orders that attack and kill their own.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Everyone in the military is also trained to understand what a lawful order is and what is not and that they have an obligation to question it. The "just following orders" is not a defense that has been accepted since WW-II and they know they are individually accountable.
Any orders to confiscate will be not be something the government can get through that wicket. Even if the communist/dems get the executive and the legislative branches, the judicial branch will find confiscation unconstitutional. I expect we will very soon here find Red Flags laws at the supreme level. The right case of lack of due process just needs to come up the chain.
Pugs, With MUCH respect to your service and sacrifices, I think you are wrong on this one.
I don't think I am and I hope I'm not. We live in odd times and as I said, I do not believe that the military will have any part of it. The police officers I know won't but the quality and I suspect the willingness of police to go along with anything like it vary a lot across this great nation. I suspect the rural ones at least will stand on our side.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
To find the answer "If they will follow orders" all we need to do is look at history, US History.
Katrina Ruby Ridge Waco, Kent State Bundy Stand off to name a few.
We can also look at what LEO's will and won't do on a smaller scale as in existing Firearms laws.
Lets start with Mark Witaschek a successful financial adviser with no criminal record. He is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.
His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. “They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked,” said his father. “The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.”
The police found no guns in the house, but did write on the warrant that four items were discovered: “One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition,” which was an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier. Mr. Witaschek had kept it as a souvenir. “One handgun holster” was found, which is perfectly legal.
How many cops refused to follow that order?
How about Shaneen Allen. She was from PA and carried her Carry Gun with her PA permit into NJ. She was arrested and charged. Seems like the cop and the DA were more than willing to arrest her on NJ firearms violations. Wonder why this Cop, the guy that took the "famous" oath , didn't ignore NJ's unconstitutional law and let her go?
How about the FBI? How many FBI agents refused to comply with the outrageous order to saddle up in SWAT gear and raid the home of a Roger Stone? How many agents joined in the fun tat morning?
If you guys think that Cops will not enforce firearms confiscation, then take a simple test.
Go to a location that have bans on certain types of ammo, firearms or mags. Then take these banned items to the local range and have at it. See how long before you are arrested, and charged. Not only arrested, see how long it takes before these Cops come busting down your door and searching your home for more...
OH, and while you are at it, take a Bump-Stock to the public range and see if you get a rise out of the local Cops.
Last edited by steve4102; 09/21/19.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
You should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everything goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." -Bob Hagel
“I’d like to be a good rifleman…..but, I prefer to be a good hunter”! memtb 2024
Seems to me if a person is fit enough to be a part of a free society and not under any sort of supervision they should have the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. I am no expert on the subject I could be wrong but until I hear a really good reason why not I will keep these views. There is a lot of grey area on both sides of that story I definitely agree with the punishment fitting the crime and not the system as it is today. To give up liberty for perceived safety is wrong IMHO Freedom isn't always safe for everyone it is a part of the price we have to pay to remain free, and I like freedom
Well said.
"Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, and more money." -Tom T Hall
I went through Infantry Officer Basic Course post Vietnam. William Calley was still fresh on everyone's mind. There were a lot of conversations and training about illegal orders. The question was "what is an illegal order". There was no clear answer. In the end the question was "as a military officer, are you willing to give up your career and possibly freedom to do what is right". I can't say that all of my fellow officers were willing to.
Why are we asked if they will when they are already doing it? The military is seldom used (yet) but cops do it all the time. They don't go through any checks to see if the orders are constitutional or valid. The just "obey orders".
In some cases they are taking guns ( and anything else they wish to grab or that they are ordered to grab) from criminals. In others they are taking guns because they are pawns of politicians who ascribe a criminal title to someone they don't like. Cops are largely selected from the type of people that will do as they are told and not "buck the system".
In EVERY case of unconstitutional seizures, the cops don't check. That's is why they happen at all. The just do as they are told and what they are paid to do. NO ONE is more likely to disobey their pledged allegiance to the Constitution then a cop. Some politicians will but nearly all cops will --- when told to.
That may sound like the words of an agitator, but if I am wrong then ask yourself who else takes what citizens earned themselves other then cops? The statures and courts may order it, but the COPS do it.
NO ONE ELSE!
curdog, is that you?
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
