[Hobbit]

Yes.

[Broadside]

I agree with everything Larry and Livetoshoot just said. However...

The barrel of a gun isn't the only weapon they have. In fact, they are more likely to head up a media campaign (ala, the Brady campaign on crack) before all else in order to turn ANY public opinion away from supporting a real patriot movement centered around the Constitution and restoration of the government as an instrument of the people.

False flags, as have been mentioned, would most certainly be carried out and blamed on "the people making you, the TV viewer, lose his job, his house, his car, his children to be hungry, and that bus load of kids he heard just get blown up." The media will spin any and all opposition to the gun-grabbing Nazis and troops (some will be foriegn) as being from extremist white, middle-American, terrorist, militia, patriots. And I'm sorry to say that not only will a vast portion of the population swallow that tripe, but a portion of the military will to. As some of you are already aware, the Marines at Twentynine Palms were given surveys in '94 asking whether or not they would fire on American citizens. They've had quite a while to prepare and plan for "us".

Quote:      

`SHOOT AMERICANS' SURVEY RESULTS One in Four Marines Would Fire Results are in from the U.S. military "shoot Americans" survey-and they are disquieting. By Mike Blair About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps base in southern California. In addition, more that four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force." The SPOTLIGHT has been provided the results to the survey contained in a master's degree thesis, reportedly undertaken by a student at the Naval -More-Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, to determine "unit cohesion" when soldiers are assigned to "non-traditional missions." Few stories published in The SPOTLIGHT have created such a stir as when it was revealed in this newspaper's July 25, 1994 issue that the survey had been taken at the Marine base. On May 10, 1994, the survey was undertaken by Navy Lt Cmdr. Ernest G Cunningham, purportedly as research for his thesis, Peacekeeping and UN Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion, at the Marine base, located on the southeast corner of the Mojave Desert, about 70 miles due east of San Bernadino, California, just east of Los Angeles. RECEIVED DEGREE Cunningham turned in the thesis for printing on March 20 and was graduated from the Postgraduate School on March 23, receiving his Master of Science in Manpower, Personnel and Training Analysis degree. According to U.S. navy and Marine Corps officials, Cunningham administered the survey to 300 Marine veterans of the Persian Gulf War and the earlier invasion of Panama in the base auditorium. He had the cooperation and permission of the base's public affairs officer, But Cunningham did not have consent of the base commander, Brig. Gen. Russell H. Sutton. In fact, Sutton didn't know about the survey until afterwards. The results of the survey contained 46 questions dealing with the Marines" willingness to perform "non-traditional" missions. Question 46, dealing with a gun confiscation scenario, jolted both the Marines and the Navy, as well as the Department of Defense, numerous members of the House and Senate and virtually every American concerned about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the people's right to keep and bear arms." VERY DISTURBING This is how the question was posed to the Marines: "The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'." The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the Statement. According to the results given in Cunningham's thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question. Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens." Of that total, 18.67 percent, or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent, or 23 Marines, indicated that they "strongly agree." A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing at citizens. Of the total, 42.33 percent, or 127, indicated they "strongly disagree" and 19.33 percent, or 58, indicated they "disagree." In his thesis, Cunningham noted: "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on their response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission," However, it becomes clear that a poll would be useful in determining which soldiers, and in this case Marines, would be willing to undertake such a mission, to fire upon U.S. citizens." In other words, if a commander asked the men of his unit to raise their hands in a simple poll, he could determine the position of such servicemen and those who responded in the affirmative could be talked for such a mission. This is just one of the reasons the question, not to mention the fact that it was allowed to be asked, is obviously potentially dangerous. In fact, several months before the survey was taken at Twenty-Nine Palms, The SPOTLIGHT, Modern Gun magazine and other publications revealed the question posed by Cunningham in his survey had been asked of members of a U.S. Seal (Sea-Air-Land) team. In addition, despite Navy and Marine Corps denials, there have been dozens of reports, unconfirmed, that the survey has been given to other servicemen, as well as various federal law enforcement agents. FURTHER SURVEYS? In fact, Cunningham notes: "If the results of this survey elicit concerns in the areas queried, then further studies are warranted. Perhaps, a random sample survey should be conducted to determine whether the results of this survey are valid for the entire Marine Corps and/or Army. Also, a survey could provide an indication of the volunteer pool that would seek service in units dedicated to, and specialized in, peacekeeping operations..." Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis, that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative-that they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force..." "Furthermore," Cunningham notes, "43 percent of the soldiers strongly agreed... "Federal troops have been restricted from participation with local police authorities to quell domestic violence since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That being the case, it was surprising that these soldiers seemed to not know the legal restrictions placed on them by the act." He also noted, however, that "In May 1992, 4,000 U.S. Army and Marine soldiers were ordered by President George Bush to augment city and county law enforcement and state National Guard during the riot in Los Angeles, California, following the Rodney King trial. "Since 1981," Cunningham states, "the majority of today's All Volunteer Force has been exposed to and participated in an environment of expanding non-traditional missions when Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981. This act enabled the military to participate in the drug war. This cooperative alliance of military and civilian police efforts in the name of national security may have eroded the demarcation between civilian law enforcement and our military institution first established by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878." The results of another question, No. 45, posed by the survey, indicates American soldiers are not eager to swear allegiance to the United Nations, although nearly on in four would do so. Question 45 states: "I would swear to the following code: `I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense'." A total of 69.33 percent, or 208 Marines of those surveyed, indicated that they disagreed, with 117, or 39 percent, indicating they strongly disagreed. On the other hand, 71 Marines, or 23.66 percent, indicated they would be willing to swear such allegiance to the UN, with 19, or 6.33 percent indicating they were strongly in favor of doing so. "For thousands of years," Cunningham notes in his thesis, "military organizations have required their soldiers to swear to some form of code or allegiance. A code provides a standard for the soldiers to live up to and, in many cases, to die for. A code can be a powerful tool for establishing and sustaining unit cohesion. But what if the mission a soldier is assigned to perform counters or confuses the code he has sworn to uphold? Question 45 was presented to determine if the soldiers would swear to such a code." No one knows if the American personnel traveling in the helicopter shot down over Iraq by friendly fire" in April 1994 would have sworn allegiance to such a code. Yet, Vice President Albert Gore stated that these Americans "died in the service of the United Nations." "It is patently clear," a retired high-ranking Army officer told The SPOTLIGHT, "That this survey raises some very serious issues, not the least of which is that U.S. servicemen are not being properly educated as to the limits of their service in the civilian sector. This is most dangerous, and, I should think, the Congress has an obligation to the people to take a careful look at this, not to mention the people at the Pentagon."

Combine this with any casualties that are family/freinds of military members on the news blamed on "clingers" like us, and you've got a couple more that would gladly answer yes to question #45.

I'm not worried about servicemen and women like Larry and Livetoshoot and I know that they greatly outnumber the others. But it doesn't mean that this scenario is outlandish or even unlikely, just that our odds are a lot better in that scenario than a lot of people think, even as bad as they are.

[jackar]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TACAV

All of you all who are ready to "meet your maker" can speak for yourselves and I mean no disrespect but being the type who honestly isnt the most religious person out there and still pretty young Im not quite ready to leave this world yet or see it go down in flames. But I guess ill still be more prepared for it as the next guy.

Yes, and when the "end" does arrive it will be a win-win situation. If personality continues to exist you win, and if if it doesn't (I'm leaning that way) you will never know it. Cheers

[SwedeSteve]

Well, either way, they better take me when I'm not looking !! This has been a thought provoking thread. Thanks to all who contributed.

[LarryO1970]

... send in the blue helmets, I could use the target practice.

[Broadside]

Larryo1970 said:

Quote:      

... send in the blue helmets, I could use the target practice.

I made up some "blue helmet targets once out of cardboard and spray paint. I got some pretty strange looks at the range.

[LarryO1970]

LOL ... I can imagine.

[kansascoyote]

Trigger happy and punch drunk has been the death of many a movement . Pick your fights fellas . I agree bad things are coming not because I have a death wish but because I am seasoned and a realist ,we have watched as things have gone south . I only hope folks can quit thinking of as alarmist and listen and examine the facts for themselves and come up with their own intelligent decision. A hate to see preventable colateral damage. As for me and mine . HUP. Good to go!!

[Prepared2Surviv]

Been waiting to shoot it out with "the man" since I found out how bad they twisted my America and her Constitution.

[Broadside]

Shootin' it out with the man is actually something I desperately hope to avoid. I don't know if I'm going to be afforded that option since they've neglected to send me a questionaire regarding my options in this, nor am I ever invited to the meetings. Mind you, my congressman is probably sick of recieving my e-mails.

I do have my line in the sand like everyone else, and until they cross it I'm perfectly content to live my nice peaceful life, raising my kids and loving my darling wife. Besides that, the potential level of suffering inflicted upon countless American citizens young and old from any sort of unrest in this country, real or propagated, weighs more heavily on my soul than any percieved insult to the values I hold dear. Yes, it sucks. Guess what, it could suck beyond comprehension if ever TS truly HTF.

Many patriotic Americans are working hard every day in an effort to get Washington to listen to reason. We owe it to their efforts to keep that kind of sentiment out of the discussion. WWRPD? (What would Ron Paul do?) If ever we are to have our Constitution fully restored, it will be through diplomacy and statesmanship with men like Dr. Paul setting the example.

[GlockMeister]

Um,

[billy]

Gerald Celente


I've never heard of him but it looks like he's in the business of selling books.