Where Will Loyalties Lie

M

Mikey

New member
I know I respond to posts tongue-in-cheek from time to time but this is a serious question.

First, assume that the reason our government and their handmaiden, the media, suddenly seem so interested in publicizing Y2K is a precursor to planned future action.

Second, assume that action is to declare a national emergency immediately prior to the turn of the millennium. An emergency, our leaders will say, which was caused by the overzealous preparation of fringe groups of our society who were frightened by the advance recognition of the problem by our government. Now, they will say, these groups represent a clear and present danger to our government and to the good citizens of this nation. To prevent anarchy, Clinton will use his executive privilege to declare a state of martial law. All State Governors are required to employ all state and local law enforcement personnel, augmented by National Guard units to go about the task of collecting all small arms and ammunition in private possesion. We will be continually reminded that this is not confiscation or forfeiture. It is a temporary measure to insure the safety of all citizens during this time of crisis. Once the crisis is over we will be able to get them back after a appropriate background check.

Now for the question. I want to hear from as many LEO and military members as possible.

Given your oaths, where will your loyalties lie. Would you violate the Constitutional Rights of your fellow citizens by direct order of your superiors?

These actions can be made to seem prudent. They have almost 10 months to lay the ground work!
 
First, I think that scenario is incredibly unlikely.

With that out of the way, I can tell you that I have heard this discussion inside groups of LEOs and military personnel several times since around the time of the WACO disaster. I doubt that many of us who have been in Mil or LE in the last 5-10 years haven't had that discussion at least once.

Almost universally I have heard people say they would not use force against fellow citizens to confiscate weapons. Occassionally, you have someone who remians quiet and I have heard some officers/potential officers in the military say that they would execute and pass on orders as they were given, even against "domestic enemies".. which is basically BS for "I'm a cadet/2LT and don't want to say anything to ruin my career just yet."

If some hell breaks loose, I'll be securing my family first.. then I *might* put my badge on long enough to help control any random looting.. if it is within reason... if all hell breaks loose.. I'll be taking care of my own. I happen to think that a significant amount of local LE and Military Reserve/NG will think similarly.. so big brother better not be counting on massive armies of LEOs and activited military to carry out his oppressive executive orders.

I also think that you would be hard pressed to find an LEO in my county that wants to come take my guns ;).

------------------
-Essayons
 
I'm with Rob on this one, it's highly unlikely. If it ever happens, it won't be Clinton. LEO/Military members have absolutely no respect for him.
NOW...if it ever comes to that, count me out. Any oath to support the constitution included the second amendment.

------------------
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Matthew 5:9
 
Buzz, your post is great, but your tagline is all screwed up...

I dunno who that Matt guy is, but that line came from Don Altobello in The Godfather III. ;-)
 
If it were to come to that. I would accept the weapons and Ammo from all that wished to turn in their weapons.
I have a group of Honest Citizens that will be assisting me in the safety of this small town. The National Guard will not be needed nor accepted here.
Those weapons turned in will be reissued to the local volunteer security force. They will be returned at the end of any troubles.

I stand with the Constitution, and the people.
 
Mikey: Rob stated it very succinctly. My oath is to protect the nation, the constitution and the people against "...all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC." I don't personally know anyone who would blindly follow illegal/immoral orders. I know such types who would follow such orders are present within the DOD establishment, but IMHO, they would be concentrated in the civilian hierarchy w/in DOD and the various service departments. I'm also relatively sure that there are senior officers and ncos who are more concerned about maintaining their future retirement benes (what few that remain) at the cost of all else...hopefully, they are in the minority and could be dealt with. Finally, I agree with Rob...the scenario you have described is extremely remote....I hope.
 
It was The Colt Patent Firearms Company that said "Blessed are the Peacemakers." Them and those that have used one. :D

Would LEO's attempt to disarm the civilian population? Wasn't that what the BATF was trying to do at Waco? I know that the guys that I used to work with before I retired would not attempt to do so but I'm not so sure about the newer officers on the department. Many never had any firearms experience until they got hired and went to the academy. They are the product of the "The Second Amendment does not mean the people but the states have the right to keep arms" school of thought. If they don't think that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right how can we expect them to honor it?

When do we decide that it is time to resist and we decide that we are not going to the ovens? When we are being forced into the cattle cars it will be too late to resist.



------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
 
If the federal gov't is going to confiscate guns from 10 fringe groups a year (that is REALLY stretching it).. I'd say that we'll never have to resist.

If the federal Gov't ever decided to try to take everyone's guns at once... well, I really can't forsee that happening.

The more likely scenario is this:

All guns are put into two categories: (1) banned or (2) registered.

You will be given a 60 day amnesty period to destroy or turn in category 1 guns and to register category 2 guns. (this is basically the way it went down with NFA).

I feel like this is the point where WE will really make our decision. If we turn in and/or register our guns. that is the beginning of the end, you might as well just give them all your guns and save paperwork.

If, however, we refuse to show up for the registration, en masse, then they will be forced to realize the futility of their actions and, I predict, back down. The trick is remain standing as a group and not get divided into smaller elements.. All gun owners standing together is the only way to win the war.

The question I think that is left is this:
What if they ban/require registration of certain small groups of guns at a single time... ie- what if they do what they started in 1994.
If it is ARs one day, SEMI shotguns the next, and bolt actions on Friday... On WHICH day do we all say "hell no, we won't go." I guess that depends on the a number of variables.

It looks like the antis undertand that they cannot demand a massive registration or turn in, but they also have seen that we will give up our guns a few at a time. Perhaps it is time that we drew a line and said:


"No more. Not one more type of gun, variant of a gun, or individual gun. Not one class of ammo, caliber, nor type of bullet. Not a single accessory, tool or book related to firearms. No more limits on the types of guns, number of guns, nor amount of ammo that I own. Nor any restrictions on the frequency with which I may add more of the aforementioned to my collection. If you want them, come take them, all at once... or leave us the hell alone."


------------------
-Essayons

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited March 02, 1999).]
 
Good posts guys. I had hoped for more but these are great.

Sorry the scenario wasn't real believable but Rob got ahead of me. My next question was going to be about the more subtle attack - the one that's really happening. Or maybe the first scenario wasn't so far off. The ABC Nightly News was focusing pretty heavy on Y2K again. Anyway, you guys have renewed my faith in the true Americans.

For those who think it can't happen - I mean the PRIMARY question - would LEO's or military types violate the Constitutional Rights of citizens if ORDERED to do so by their superiors - think back. Back before Waco and Ruby Ridge - before the ATF and FBI started looking more like the military and claiming that they were fighting "terrorists" or "religious cults" - think back to Kent State. I know some of you are old enough to remember.
 
Yes, I am indeed old enough to remember. It was 1970, the year I graduated high school. If you want some interesting reading, check out http://home.sprynet.com/~acanfora/ . I sent the fellow the following email:

"Thank you for an interesting web site. I graduated high school in 1970, so this incident has always been significant for me.

How do you feel about gun control laws? And, how do you think American citizens can best deal with crime and sometimes a dangerous government?

Thank you.

Jeff"

We'll see what he says. I tend to think it will not be terribly logical.

I think I read once where Americans have somewhere around 250 million guns. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to try to take them all at once - I don't even think it could be logisitically practical.

Rob's "No more ..." paragraph is inspired, IMHO. With a bit of explanatory introduction I think it would be a fantastic public statement. And, I concur, they'll keep doing it a little at a time. There is a term "change agent", and some books on the concept. The anti's use this approach, and it is well thought out and psychologically effective. The pro-self defense side should start doing the same, I believe.

Regards from AZ
 
GRRRRRRRRR. :(

(Spectre buys another case of .308 and sharpens all his knives.)

Confiscation of all the weapons of the best-armed nation on earth will be a dangerous prospect. The current road to hell is much more insidious.
 
Draconian measures to take away firearms from private citizens (in the event of an "emergency") are entirely possible in my view, especially in larger metropolitan areas of the U.S. such as Los Angeles, New York-Boston, and south Florida. Less populated areas may differ. It is a good idea to keep informed about disaster and riot preparedness in your local jursidiction and to know what the regional authorities think about one plan or another. Often there are public forums for citizens to express the opinion on the matter. Governors, mayors, city managers, police chiefs, sheriffs, supervisors, etc. enjoy appointments subject to public review and comment. It is okay to get involved in your community as a law-abiding gunowner to see that drastic (and often unrealistic) plans are avoided. Certainly, the recent trend to view firearm ownership as a social benefit rather than a social cost (re: Lott, etc.) can provide support for arguments on what to do in the case of some emergency or disaster.
 
Mikey, granted, I was not coherent under his presidency, but I haev got to think that if you asked the average Police Officer or National Gaurdsman theier opinion of Richard Nixon before 1971-2, I would think that you would get a completely different reaction than if you asked an LEO today about Bill Clinton. Not just CLinton, but the federal gov't in general for that matter.
I think (hope?) that we live in a time when our gov't is going to be held accountable for their actions. Perhaps, in the end, it will be the Liberal-Peacenik-Hippy "Question authority" beliefs that will be their own undoing. The irony is that today it is the type of people who were supporting the war in Vietnam and Pres. Nixon who are on the defensive and now questioning/protesting the actions of the Government.
 
I suspect that no one will be sent out to confiscate guns. To bring in drug dealers/terrorists/child molestor, dead or alive. Cops who are sent to bring in people don't have to know that the warrant is bogus...some would prefer not to know.

Also, you'd have people asking themselves...is that old Russian carbine (aka sniper rifle) or is this sear worth time in prison/loss of job and home/endagering my family. You'd have most people feeling responsible and virtuous about not "further endangering their loved ones over trifles"....and when they turn on TV, their actions would be lauded...new and movies would show the tragic choice made by a good guy who, in the end, does the right thing and turns in his gun or his heighbor. Been there, seen that, don't know what can be done.

------------------
If you believe in freedom and means of protecting it...you might be a gun nut.
http://ddb.com/RKBA
 
I do not think the proposed scenario is even possible, not with only 10 months until the new year. Clinton is a master. His MO is to divide, create imaginary dragons, and get his face on TV as he slays the dragons he has created. This takes time. He has started his crusade against private firearms ownership years ago, but is smart enough to know that he has not manipulated enough of the public, yet. I think in the future that books will be written about how clever a manipulator of public opinion he was. Notice that the NRA went from being perceived as a safety and training organisation to a evil extreemist lobby. I think Clinton did that, with help from his like minded ilk. It is subtle - the comments in the movies "An American President", and the newest "Lethal
Weapon", are examples. It is going to take several more years of such influences before
all gunowners are perceived as evil by the voting public. But sadly, that is the path we are being led down now.
So, what will happen around Y2K time is that every disturbance or accident or situation will be milked for all it is worth, and then some. The President, and like minded politicians and the media will paint every item on the news as the work of 'possible right-wing extreemist militia types'. And the real disarmament attempt will come later.
 
Rob: Your gunowner's manifesto is inspired...consider adding words to the effect that no additional taxes on firearms, ammo, components, etc will be tolerated either? What about legitimacy of training the private citizen in responsible and effective use(facilities such as Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, etc). Remember, martial arts study and teaching was prohibited at various times by various despots in Asia. IMHO, we can't afford to leave the slightest loophole in a position statement. Just a thought...as I said, the original product is inspired!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top