A question.

Sorry I ment to reply with quotes to Karanas
post.

Confusion is my speciality :D

Fast Eagle

------------------
Sir, your remarks are repulsive to me, and I disagree with your viewpoints. But I will defend to my death your God given right to express them.
Voltaire
 
Warner Hot Springs full course twice, shortys at Bridgeport, Stead and Subic. Mustang

Just got off the phone with #2 son who is senior NCO Army, half his carrear has been spec ops. He said that he knows of NO NCOs who would take up arms against American civillians.

Sam...I may be old but at least I'm confused.
 
This is a most vexing message. From what I can gather you conclude the government would use the military to violently put down the citizens? And what allures you to believe the FBI or other Federal Agency would act in such a mode?
Yikes!
 
Fast Eagle: DEVGRU or Development Group is the new super secret name for SEAL Team 6 so don't tell anybody! It's so secret that only half the bartenders within 100 miles of Damneck VA know it. I was a "zero" (O-3) platoon commander at ST2 and 4 in the 80s before I got out, class 105 from that Coronado school. ***** I think that confiscation scenarios are unlikey given a linear progression of events in US history. But history teaches us to prepare for the unexpected nonlinear event or events. For example, here is a "what if": what if we see a series of "mega Columbines"? Imagine a deranged shooter (with or without government "help") up in a tower over a stadium with a seabag full of ordnance, say the dreaded "assault rifles"? Between the direct fire casualties and the panic stampede crushing casualties, you could see KIA in 4 figures easily. Think back to the media response to Columbine, now imagine 50 or 100 times the casualties. Imagaine "emergency legislation" ginned up in a matter of days, and RKBA defenders in congress hiding in the tall grass. I could see a poorly written bill outlawing ALL SEMIAUTO firearms being passed, much as happened in Australia after the Tasmania massacre. ***** But what about the 2nd amd you will say? Well, the govt's official position at this point as laid down during Emerson is that it covers state militias-national guards only and not individuals. We may disagree: but that will not stop such a bill being passed in the wake of a "mega Columbine. ***** Now what if evidence suggests that the shooter was a patsy, or a psycho "helped" on his way by agents who wanted to see the anti firearms laws passed, and believed the shooting was "tragic but necessary" to achieve the desired result: a disarmed nation? (Only semis, say.) If many of us believed that the government set the incident up, we would refuse to comply. This could set the stage for a slide into violent govt raids, retaliation by selective assassinations, more raids and "preventive arrests" under "emergency anti terrorism laws", and so on into disorder and civil war on the Irish lines. **** In this climate, soldiers would be ordered to back up federal LEOs on raids, cordon-and-search operations etc. It would not be so easy and clear cut as "soldiers refusing to fire on their fellow citizens". It would be soldiers taking part in "combined anti terrorist sweeps" after bombings and assassinations, quite a different matter. That's enough to chew on for now, tell me what you think.
 
Jimpeel,

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

George Orwell

LawDog
 
These scenarios are usually posted as a bolt out of the blue. A law is past and then...

However, this is naive. A law would probably be the end result of a longer societal evolution towards that goal. It would lead to military and law enforcement that would carry out the law. Those who object would have quit, retire, be fired, etc.

Look at Germany. In 1913, if the German Army was order to round up jews and gypsies and burn them to death, there might have been massive resistance (or one hopes). A war later and the country went along with it. Scholarship indicates that most of the Germans knew about it.

Social crisis or cultural evolution will produce police or military that will carry out such an order. Thus saying Clinton or the UN orders us to do this tomorrow ignores how it will really happen.
 
Ask the Australians how long it took for "tommorow" to become today.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Lawdog,

Thank you very much. I remember him saying it but did not know the source.

J

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
To get a feel for where these zealots want to take us in their quest for Nirvana and Utopia, read s. 390 (1995) Biden Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995: A bill to improve the ability of the United States to respond to the international terrorist threat. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00390:

Read also the companion bill in the house H.R.896 (1995) Schumer (same title). http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR00896:

These clowns wanted to expand the role of the United States military as functionary police.

This also attempted to allow the President to define what organizations are "terrorist" organizations.

From the Bill: Title III: Controls Over Terrorist Fund-Raising - Amends the Federal criminal code to authorize the President to regulate or prohibit within the United States or by any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction: (1) fund-raising or the provision of funds for use by or for the benefit of any foreign organization that the President has designated as being engaged in terrorism activities; or (2) financial transactions with any such foreign organization.

This was also the Bill that sought to add tagants to gunpowder.

As I recall, this mess went nowhere and that was a good place for it.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited October 01, 2000).]
 
Wasn't it General Schwartzkopf who, when during an interviwedasked, was asked what he thought the next great battle would be, he replied, "Posse Commitatus".

Would he say that out of ignorance, or stupidity?

If he spoke that with understanding, then he is in essence stating, that this Nation will one day turn on it's own like a cancer.

And that cancer will have to be killed or it will consume it's host. Does that analogy appear similar to what we're experiencing with such extreme liberalism, as to seek total disarmament of the citizenry of this nation?

Is this the onset of a terminal cancer?
If it's terminal, then what happens to this host once the last breath has been expelled?
Are we to be totally converted by the "scavengers" out there?
 
Here's another good example of the power of these zealots -- the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 also known as the Assault Weapons Ban bill. The full text of the Bill may be found at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:17:./temp/~bdshvL::|/bss/d103query.html|

Pay particular note to a little noticed provision at SEC. 90107. VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS. which may be accessed at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103KFz9tc:e618341:

This section lets the President designate cities, counties, states, or territories as VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS. During the period that these areas are under the control of the Federal Government, the statute gives authority to the Attorney General of the United States to virtually make law. The designation may be renewed at the request of the Attorney General.

Question: Who will be the police force that will be sent into these areas to act as the federal police during this "occupation"?

From the text of the law:
(b) DECLARATION OF VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS- If a major violent crime or drug-related emergency exists throughout a State or a part of a State, the President may declare the State or part of a State to be a violent crime or drug emergency area and may take appropriate actions authorized by this section.

While the press was distracting us with magazine limits, "assault weapon" bans, and new federal death penalty provisions; they conveniently failed to notice this portion of the legislation that allows the president to federalize whole portions of the country.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Back
Top