[ArkansasHunter]

Larry O I want to Thank You again for Joining Gun and Game your a 1st. class member in my book.
Don't ever change feller...It makes me proud to know we have men like you in our Military ...A.H

[PistolCity]

This thread kinda reminds me of the TV series Jericho. Its not about the entire country being bad just a few bad apples in high places. Cant wait till the 2nd season starts.

[LarryO1970]

Quote:       Originally Posted by ArkansasHunter

Larry O I want to Thank You again for Joining Gun and Game your a 1st. class member in my book. Don't ever change feller...It makes me proud to know we have men like you in our Military ...A.H

I sincerely appreciate your vote of confidence A.H. ... I sincerely do.

I've always attempted to strive towards obtaining not only appreciation ... but respect from Veterans before me... from my Grandfather (whom I'm named after... a WWII Pearl Harbor Vet) to my uncle... a Buff crew member shot out of the sky by a SAM. They both spoke to me before I took my Oath of Allegiance about their experiences and offered advice, this being one of theirs.


Thanks again...

[Cyrano]

If you go back to the post that started this thread, you'll find it mentions a survey that was done during the Slick Willy Administration. The reporter noted that many Marines refused to answer the question, "If you were ordered to confiscate the firearms of private citizens under a martial law decree, would you obey the order?"

But some of them, in grades from Colonel to PFC, did answer the question. And in all cases, the answer was not merely, "No," it was "Hell, no!" When asked to expand on that refusal, all the responses came down to this, with varying degrees of detail and eloquence:

"We are sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not a particular leader. This means were are not obligated to obey an unlawful order. An order to confiscate the arms of private citizens is both unconstitutional & unlawful, and we would not obey it no matter who issued it."

It's one thing to talk about disarming a street gang (or, one may assume, the survivors) after a firefight between a bunch of gangbangers and a platoon of trained Marines. That's a combat situation and a civil disorder situation where the Marines would have been fired on by the goblins. It is something else again to obey an order to disarm private citizens in their own homes. While ignorant privates and junior officers who haven't thought the situation through or been educated by their seniors might do it, it's a lead-pipe cinch the field-grade officers and staff NCOs would not.

What happened in New Orleans is an anomaly and involved reserve troops, not regulars. I think that has to be taken into account when discussing this subject.

What else is interesting about that survey is the timeframe. One does have to ask the journalistic question reporters seem more and more reluctant to ask: why. Why would someone in the Clinton Administration have had such a survey run with a lot of Marines? Could it be that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was only the first step Slick Willy and Slick Hillary wanted to take regarding our Second Amendment rights?

And that what deterred the Gruesome Twosome from trying to go any farther was the logical extension of that train of thought by the Marines, to wit: "By issuing such an order during an emergency, which order is a clear threat to the personal freedom of Americans everywhere, the President has forfeited any claim he has to legitimacy as the Commander in Chief. It's time for regime change, ladies and gentlemen. Saddle up!"

Perhaps I am being a bit facetious here. But only a bit. I really do believe that if a President were ever foolish or hysterical enough to issue such an order and any unit tried to obey it, the moment the word got out there would be a gathering of armed citizens who would meet the military at the city limits, saying, "No, you don't." Civil war might very well follow, and it's not one the government could win. Not only would most units refuse the illegal order, some might march with the citizens and throw the bums out. It has been pointed out that there are something on the order of 85 million gun owners in America. Even if only half of them joined the cause, that's enough to overwhelm the armed forces.

I devoutly hope such a scenario never comes to pass. Brother has fought brother here once already (twice, if you count the Tories that joined the British Army during the Revolution), and the scars of that war are with us yet. But I do believe if an Administration were stupid enough to issue such an order, that is what the outcome would be.

[LarryO1970]

Cyrano, that was a most excellent response.

[SKS NOOB]

Cyrano, here is an interesting question that arives from something you said: If there are aproxamately 85 MILLION gun owners in the U.S. (not counting that many may have MULTIPLE firearms), why the heck are we letting a "sheeple" minority dictate policies about guns? It's not necessarily asking you, but it IS something we should be asking ourselves instead of blending in.

[ArkansasHunter]

Thanks SKS NOOB thats what I want to know too !!! I don't know about the rest of the country but guns are part of our lives here in Arkansas and Louisiana and knowing the types that live in these 2 states.
They would have to pry them from cold dead hands. It would be a blood bath here on both sides.
A.H

[ezearln]

A comment from a movie I think some here may have seen? Ms Congeniality? "It's TEXAS you idiot EVERYONE HAS A GUN!"

[Wingwiper]

Quote:       Originally Posted by GDawg

I hate to tell you bro, and with all due respect, they are absolutely "brain washed" to a certain extent to follow orders blindly. You act like you are the only one that has served this country. I too served my country (ME, MYSELF) and grew up in a military family. I served under NATO forces for a few years and saw much stuff. Some soldiers are stronger than others to know right from wrong. I'm a soldier but not active at the moment. I'm a patriot for the defense of our country. Most men these days have served. But not all think or follow the same way. I would never turn against my own country for any reason. I would hate to have to fight Americans... but I will fight for my family, my home and MY country. It's not politicians or an Army that makes up this country. It is you and I and the people next door that IS AMERICA. If a young soldier blindly follows orders for the "good of the people"... well, I hate to tell you. I may disagree and just try to disarm me.

BRAINWASHED? Maybe in the NATO FORCES but NOT in the U.S. Forces.

I have served for well over 30 years and I serve NOT because I am BRAINWASHED but because what I feel in My heart. It is for LOVE of country, for LOVE of FREEDOM, for love of Family and for the feelings that every HUMAN has a RIGHT to basic Human life and should not be a victim to another human's desire for control or power. They should not have to sleep or live in fear, nor fear for their children may be taken or abused. They should be able to have simple FREEDOMS, where they too are allowed to make their own decisions, Vote, work and be able to provide for their families under their OWN FREE WILL.
I love life and I love my country and I serve not because of an obligation, nor for any rewards or parades or even for THANKS. I serve for myself and for what I beleive in. To thank a person for serving, I believe is an insult. For that person is not serving for favors or for thanks but for LOVE of country and love of LIFE.
If you are BRAINWASHED, you joined the wrong Service and may have gone in to prove a point or for the WRONG reasons. I would rather die in uniform serving what I believe fully in, than to die in an OLD AGE HOME.

SEMPER FI and I am NOT the least bit Brainwashed. Never have been. If I am uninformed, it is by my own faults.

[mym1a]

as for the 2nd ammendment: I think before we all get nots in our guts, lets see how the supremes rule on this up coming case?? some knowlegdible people have told me it looks very good in our favor and that the anti gunners a fearing this ruling. for now I would focus on the immigration issue, the trillions owed to china, the economy and so on!

[jmp8927]

I haven't read every post in this thread so forgive me if what I say has been said before.

What if by some chance the 2nd amendment is altered to mean only military personnel may possess weapons? I don't see that happening anytime soon, and frankly I think such a view is about as dumb as one can get, but IF it did, defending the constitution would no longer be a legal reason for NOT confiscating firearms if such an order were to be given. Just something that popped in my head while skimming over this.

[Wingwiper]

Quote:       Originally Posted by jmp8927

I haven't read every post in this thread so forgive me if what I say has been said before. What if by some chance the 2nd amendment is altered to mean only military personnel may possess weapons? I don't see that happening anytime soon, and frankly I think such a view is about as dumb as one can get, but IF it did, defending the constitution would no longer be a legal reason for NOT confiscating firearms if such an order were to be given. Just something that popped in my head while skimming over this.

What you fear has been the argument with the Democrats for years. They feel the militia is who has the Right to Keep and Bear arms and not the Common Man. Most of the Gun Control Laws have been implemented by Democrats. Now whether that speaks for all Democrats,, I truly doubt it, but it sure speaks for the ones getting elected.

[LarryO1970]

Frankly... I think if the Democrats tried this, they'd witness a revolution reminiscent to that of the American Revolution. Granted, it would probably not be a shooting revolution but a serious wake-up call to remind the politicians to stop trampling on our rights as Americans. Too many people would fight back tooth & nail to retain their rights granted by the forefathers of this great nation.

Hey... if the E.U. and the U. N. want to disarm the ROW, that is up to each individual country to take it in the butt if they wish. As Americans... we will not allow it.

[mym1a]

unfortunately many of our policians are in bed with the UN/EU and only pop their treasonous heads up from the covers to draw a breath!!!!!!!!!

[Wingwiper]

Quote:       Originally Posted by mym1a

unfortunately many of our policians are in bed with the UN/EU and only pop their treasonous heads up from the covers to draw a breath!!!!!!!!!

They vote where they get the BIG Money rewards from the Lobbyists. It is all about INVESTORS and no longer about the American People.

When I read about how a guys TEXT MESSAGES were retrieved fro 6 years ago and I realize that Holy Sh-- a Private Company not ONLY recorded his messages but Saved them, I wonder where are all of these people who are usually screaming about Loss of Civil Rights when the push for the PAtriot Act was about. We are losing our rights and we don't seem to care. GOLD and SIlver was replaced with PROMISARY NOTES and now with Foriegn Investments. Where are we going in this BIG move for GLOBALIZATION????

[LarryO1970]

... like I've said... time for these people to go. High Treason is grounds for a hanging in some states, others just use the .32 cent solution.

[jmp8927]

In today's America, no. But keep in mind that Europeans once thought the way we do now. What we should be concerned about is what future generations will do. THAT'S the real threat.

[Wingwiper]

Larry

This country is OWNED by foriegn investors, soon they will have more say because of their investments ,than US. Then watch the RIGHTS vanish.

[Seabeescotty]

This has been a good, informative, civil discussion, and I think most of us agree that our military personnel would side with the people of the country rather than a corrupt leader trying to use them to further his(or her) ambitions. I can see an attempt like this being made by a politician in the back pocket of the U.N., or the likes of an America hater like George Soros. The country needs to stop these folks from contributing to OUR elections, even if they have gained nominal citizenship, as Mr. Soros has. He has vocalized his disdain for us, and our way of life. He wants the world to be run by the extremely rich few, so they can finish the job of plundering the world for their personal wealth and gratification. The biggest thorn in their sides is the United States of America. Their plan won't work as long as we stand as a free nation.We'd all be somewhat shocked if we REALLY knew where all the campaign money came from. But that's just my personal opinion. I would not fire on my own people, but if the U.N. sent foreign troops into this country, it would be open season, as far as I'm concerned.

This has been a good, informative, civil discussion, and I think most of us agree that our military personnel would side with the people of the country rather than a corrupt leader trying to use them to further his(or her) ambitions. I can see an attempt like this being made by a politician in the back pocket of the U.N., or the likes of an America hater like George Soros. The country needs to stop these folks from contributing to OUR elections, even if they have gained nominal citizenship, as Mr. Soros has. He has vocalized his disdain for us, and our way of life. He wants the world to be run by the extremely rich few, so they can finish the job of plundering the world for their personal wealth and gratification. The biggest thorn in their sides is the United States of America. Their plan won't work as long as we stand as a free nation.We'd all be somewhat shocked if we REALLY knew where all the campaign money came from. But that's just my personal opinion. I would not fire on my own people, but if the U.N. sent foreign troops into this country, it would be open season, as far as I'm concerned.

[mym1a]

Quote:       Originally Posted by LarryO1970

... like I've said... time for these people to go. High Treason is grounds for a hanging in some states, others just use the .32 cent solution.

Need a muster????????????