View Full Version : Paul Howe - 2nd Amendment and Kool-Aid drinkers
Interesting read by Paul Howe on the current AWB ban craze.
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/
Thanks Irish, that is a most encouraging read, I'm passing it on.
Thanks Irish passing it on also.
Moose-Knuckle
01-04-13, 04:26
Spot f***ing on!
He's not the only SME (Kyle Defoor and Larry Vickers) to give a public statement in light of the exploitation of the incident in CT.
What Paul just written is an outline to basic armed resistance and guerilla warfare. Great job.
GeorgiaBoy
01-04-13, 07:43
He makes some fantastic points; one could only hope what he says is true and would actually be the occurrence if gun confiscation started.
They don't need confiscation to bring an end to gun ownership in the US. Just stop the sale of guns altogether, no new gun sales. Everyone keeps what they have. No repairs/spare parts allowed. No passing to the next generation. The firearms are registered as part of the owners estate and turned in when they pass. Two, three generations from now, no guns in private hands. Except illegal guns. And by then the mind set will have changed since the following generations will have been "cleansed" of the "gun culture".
With the progressives, you have to think long term. They've been at this since the Civil War, or as I refer to it, "The Second American Revolution". Lincoln advanced Federal Government to the detriment of state's rights, T. Roosevelt pushed it along, Wilson moved it forward too. This didn't arrive in the US with the election of BHO, it just came out of the shadows.
Outstanding Mr. Howe.
Thanks for the read.
Good article, I'm spreading it around.
They don't need confiscation to bring an end to gun ownership in the US. Just stop the sale of guns altogether, no new gun sales. Everyone keeps what they have. No repairs/spare parts allowed. No passing to the next generation. The firearms are registered as part of the owners estate and turned in when they pass. Two, three generations from now, no guns in private hands. Except illegal guns. And by then the mind set will have changed since the following generations will have been "cleansed" of the "gun culture".
With the progressives, you have to think long term. They've been at this since the Civil War, or as I refer to it, "The Second American Revolution". Lincoln advanced Federal Government to the detriment of state's rights, T. Roosevelt pushed it along, Wilson moved it forward too. This didn't arrive in the US with the election of BHO, it just came out of the shadows.
At least TR was a beast who wasn't afraid of hurting someone's feelings every once and a while.
Cincinnatus
01-04-13, 12:21
A fantastic read. Thanks for the link. I'm spreading this to as many gun-owners as I know.
Interesting read by Paul Howe on the current AWB ban craze.
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/
Sorry, but there are studies available that clearly illustrate that those "American" kids will follow their orders to disarm you, or else! DoD commissioned most of the studies that exist, many of which are classified...
Then there's the para-militarized police, buying up drones, APC's, Tanks, state of the art automatic weapons, and robotics.....
http://dailyreckoning.com/when-they-come-for-your-guns-you-will-turn-them-over/
A good read but wishful thinking. I don't see the majority of Americans standing up in résistance to the powers that be. This is because they have been given to much of the good life. This is how it will work " I will die for my beliefs", " but I am not going prison, person 123 to going xyz". Commandant replies" thank you for your cooperation"
:suicide2:
I don't agree with everything Mr. Howe wrote but I think there are definite pearls of wisdom in there that just about anybody can benefit from, including your mindset and a few tactics.
Just like any type of formal gun or training class that you attend you need to take it in, analyze it for yourself, discard what you don't deem necessary and carry on with what will work for you.
Bullshit.
There will be no resistance and most mil/le will confiscate if ordered to do so.
Then there's the para-militarized police
http://dailyreckoning.com/when-they-come-for-your-guns-you-will-turn-them-over/
When has this not been the case? LE is and has always been based on a military/para-military model.
Moose-Knuckle
01-04-13, 15:24
As with Hurricane Katrina, the gun grabbers wait for and exploit such events.
Or they just manutacture them.
This is excellent. Three more rainbow flag wavin' turds flushed out I can place on ignore.
I got your studies hangin' here buddy.
Cagemonkey
01-04-13, 17:56
Awesome article. Thanks Irish.
This is excellent. Three more rainbow flag wavin' turds flushed out I can place on ignore.
I got your studies hangin' here buddy.
I can only assume that you are shooting at me, which is more than a little strange, to say the least....Perhaps you'd like to explore the possibility of upping the dosage of your prozac...;)
This is excellent. Three more rainbow flag wavin' turds flushed out I can place on ignore.
I got your studies hangin' here buddy.
The study he's referring to, I'm pretty sure, is the survey composed by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest "Guy" Cunningham, who was working on a Master's Thesis dealing with the deployment of US military units under foreign command as part of UN-supervised missions abroad. Commonly referred to as The US Armed Forces Survey from April 1994 and specifically question #46:
"The US government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) 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 citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon US citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US government."
When Cunningham released his findings it was revealed that more than 61 percent of the Marines who took the survey responded that they wouldn't carry out such an order under any circumstances. However, slightly more than 25% of Marines who took the survey replied in the affirmative.
Here's an article written by the same: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/04/lcdr-ret-ernest-g-cunningham-and-famous.html
SeriousStudent
01-04-13, 20:20
Interesting. I was long gone from the Corps by then, but those numbers sound about right to me.
You've got a bunch of PFC's and Lance Coolies that will do whatever the Gunny says.
But you have a hell of a lot more Sergeants, Captains and Colonels that would never follow any illegal order. They take their oath very seriously, and many if not all consider themselves still bound to it.
GeorgiaBoy
01-04-13, 20:56
The question is: would the troops obey the order from the top, even if their CO's tell them to ignore the orders?
I'll admit I'm a bit ignorant on how the chain of command/orders stuff in the military works.
Ahhh, thanks for diggin that up. I sure as hell wasn't going to spend time on some book nerds drivel. I can just see all the thought bubbles now over the devil dogs heads. "Is this joker for real?" And of course the token E1-3-s yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir. As for the side article I have no clue how to explain that abortion. Except as a bunch of confused legs after some excessive octoberfest festivities. I can sure as **** tell you this, all it would have generated at bragg is a ****ton of one finger salutes.
The study he's referring to, I'm pretty sure, is the survey composed by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest "Guy" Cunningham, who was working on a Master's Thesis dealing with the deployment of US military units under foreign command as part of UN-supervised missions abroad. Commonly referred to as The US Armed Forces Survey from April 1994 and specifically question #46:
"The US government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) 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 citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon US citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US government."
When Cunningham released his findings it was revealed that more than 61 percent of the Marines who took the survey responded that they wouldn't carry out such an order under any circumstances. However, slightly more than 25% of Marines who took the survey replied in the affirmative.
Here's an article written by the same: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/04/lcdr-ret-ernest-g-cunningham-and-famous.html
SeriousStudent
01-04-13, 23:00
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
That is the oath you swear. I have only served in one branch of the military. I can only tell you what we were taught.
But it was stressed many, many times that it was lawful orders we were to follow. Being ordered to do illegal acts does not make them legal. An extreme example would be, being ordered to murder innocents or civilians. That is not a lawful order. If the person giving the order persisted, they would be releived and restrained.
Or whatever else it took. But the US military is a professional force, not an armed mob. They follow their oath and lawful orders. There have been a few exceptions to this, but that is exactly what they were: exceptions.
Frankly, we have the most professional military on the planet. It's because we have thoughtful, dedicated NCO's, Staff NCO's and officers that LEAD men, not order them.
A leader would never give an unlawful order. An officer might. I guess that is the difference, as I see it.
There were officers that I worked for, for whom I would have charged Hell with a damp sponge. Others could not lead us to free beer. The good ones knew the difference.
QuickStrike
01-04-13, 23:05
As positive as that sounds, i believe there would be more than enough who thinks, "Mission first!".
Probably gonna get dogpiled, but what percentage of the armed forces are even pro-2nd???
One fella who was about to enlist looked at me like there's a horn growing out of my head when i mentioned AR15's.
"Why do civies need those???".
They don't need confiscation to bring an end to gun ownership in the US. Just stop the sale of guns altogether, no new gun sales. Everyone keeps what they have. No repairs/spare parts allowed. No passing to the next generation. The firearms are registered as part of the owners estate and turned in when they pass. Two, three generations from now, no guns in private hands. Except illegal guns. And by then the mind set will have changed since the following generations will have been "cleansed" of the "gun culture".
With the progressives, you have to think long term. They've been at this since the Civil War, or as I refer to it, "The Second American Revolution". Lincoln advanced Federal Government to the detriment of state's rights, T. Roosevelt pushed it along, Wilson moved it forward too. This didn't arrive in the US with the election of BHO, it just came out of the shadows.
Considering the left will have completely spent this country's economy to pieces by 2016, when we come in to pick up the pieces and rebuild on better principles, we can undo whatever nonsense they dream up in the next four years. So long-term progressive nonsense doesn't scare me. They won't be around by then, or this country will have revolted long before they get through one generation of their corruption.
PA PATRIOT
01-04-13, 23:31
I would suggest a high percentage of Military and Law Enforcement personal would follow orders to assist with confiscations of Assault type weapons if it was a order from the POTUS backed with a AWB approved by a majority of both houses.
Also say there was a S/C appeal and the justices sided with the POTUS and the AWB.
With the above said many L/E and Military would be duty bound to follow the lawful orders and would not want to lose said job or enlistment over a single issue such as Assault style weapon ownership which may or may not matter to the individual L/E or GI.
Now a total ban of all firearms maybe another story and very unlikely to survive a court challenge to the S/C but I'm only commenting on the single issue of a total ownership ban on assault style weapons which the anti gunners seem to have their panties in a bunch over.
BrigandTwoFour
01-04-13, 23:53
As positive as that sounds, i believe there would be more than enough who thinks, "Mission first!".
Probably gonna get dogpiled, but what percentage of the armed forces are even pro-2nd???
One fella who was about to enlist looked at me like there's a horn growing out of my head when i mentioned AR15's.
"Why do civies need those???".
I can tell you right now as an active duty officer that 90% of the officers and NCOs I have come into contact with are supportive of the 2nd, if not outright firearms enthusiasts themselves. Should such an order come down, I would expect vanishingly few to act on it.
That said, my AFSC is not combat arms and I would not be the getting the order to go confiscate. My purview is the strategic weapons realm (nukes), not small arms.
theblackknight
01-05-13, 00:46
Interesting. I was long gone from the Corps by then, but those numbers sound about right to me.
You've got a bunch of PFC's and Lance Coolies that will do whatever the Gunny says.
But you have a hell of a lot more Sergeants, Captains and Colonels that would never follow any illegal order. They take their oath very seriously, and many if not all consider themselves still bound to it.
People forgot that 20% of the cream corn does the fighting,the rest. .. . .dont. But hey, You've seen it, Marines slay dragons on TV.
Guys, dont feel offended when a supply clerk from the inner city fills out a questionare as fast as possible.
Also, marxism.
SeriousStudent
01-05-13, 09:37
People forgot that 20% of the cream corn does the fighting,the rest. .. . .dont. But hey, You've seen it, Marines slay dragons on TV.
Guys, dont feel offended when a supply clerk from the inner city fills out a questionare as fast as possible.
Also, marxism.
True. They are not going to send the 325th Double AA Battery Resupply Company out to do the dirty work.
It would be no different than how they deal with unregistered machine guns. Not a massive roundup but an arrest and prosecution on a case by case basis.
This is one reason they are kicking around the NFA idea. Those who register are known and they have the registration model they have always wanted, those who don't register become criminals and can be dealt with accordingly.
As positive as that sounds, i believe there would be more than enough who thinks, "Mission first!".
Probably gonna get dogpiled, but what percentage of the armed forces are even pro-2nd???
One fella who was about to enlist looked at me like there's a horn growing out of my head when i mentioned AR15's.
"Why do civies need those???".
You would be correct. I remember when I was on a forum dedicated to the members of Delta, Rangers and SOAR involved in the Mogadishu incident and it was heavily populated by members of those groups.
I was there to share my Blackhawk Down "Bodies" video I had created a few years back. The subject of guns came up and I posted pics of my HK21 and I was stunned by the number of "why does a civie need a belt feld?" comments.
On the topic of how many in the .mil are pro 2A, approach that question from a different perspective.
As blackknight stated the guys carrying out the orders will be 11B (my army background will kick in here) infantry.
Breaking down the Army by MOSs who would you assume is more 2A.
An infantryman or say for example an 88M truck driver?
Point is the guys carrying out those orders I believe would lean towards our side as opposed to people who basically are just a support mechanism. Grunts/SOF live and breathe guns much more than anyone else.
Part of the reason I signed up off the bat to be an infantryman was my love guns. I suspect I am not alone.
-Jax
On the topic of how many in the .mil are pro 2A, approach that question from a different perspective.
As blackknight stated the guys carrying out the orders will be 11B (my army background will kick in here) infantry.
Breaking down the Army by MOSs who would you assume is more 2A.
An infantryman or say for example an 88M truck driver?
Point is the guys carrying out those orders I believe would lean towards our side as opposed to people who basically are just a support mechanism.
Part of the reason I signed up off the bat to be an infantryman was my love guns. I suspect I am not alone.
-Jax
It will be a lot like cops.
Some of them extremely pro gun, some of them virulently anti gun.
montanadave
01-05-13, 14:57
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand….The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Moose-Knuckle
01-05-13, 15:24
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand….The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
I read this often. ;)
Cincinnatus
01-05-13, 15:27
It would be no different than how they deal with unregistered machine guns. Not a massive roundup but an arrest and prosecution on a case by case basis.
This is one reason they are kicking around the NFA idea. Those who register are known and they have the registration model they have always wanted, those who don't register become criminals and can be dealt with accordingly.
True. Let us also recall it was a supposed NFA violation that led to Ruby Ridge.
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 15:56
Sorry, but there are studies available that clearly illustrate that those "American" kids will follow their orders to disarm you, or else! DoD commissioned most of the studies that exist, many of which are classified...
Then there's the para-militarized police, buying up drones, APC's, Tanks, state of the art automatic weapons, and robotics.....
http://dailyreckoning.com/when-they-come-for-your-guns-you-will-turn-them-over/
The Tin Foil is strong with this one.:haha:
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 16:00
It will be a lot like cops.
Some of them extremely pro gun, some of them virulently anti gun.
Actually most are very pro gun and I have only met 2 that were slightly anti gun. Same goes for the soldiers I know except I haven't met an anti gun member of the military. Not saying such animals don't exist but they are exceedinly rare in my experience.
Pat
The Tin Foil is strong with this one.:haha:
Pat as you likely know I'm not the fringe type, but that said I'll save my assumptions as to how many LEO would comply for another day.
Ideals aside they will have families to care for and pensions to protect. Add potential legal ramifications to the mix and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if too many comply.
Moose-Knuckle
01-05-13, 16:11
The Tin Foil is strong with this one.
Just how is this "tin foil" . . .
Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/64-drone-bases-on-us-soil/
. . . or DHS MRAPs?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/DHSMRAP2.jpg
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/DHSMRAP1.jpg
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 16:12
Pat as you likely know I'm not the fringe type, but that said I'll save my assumptions as to how many LEO would comply for another day.
Ideals aside they will have families to care for and pensions to protect. Add potential legal ramifications to the mix and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if too many comply.
On the pension issue. Every state is different I am sure but where I am at my pension is my retirement and no one can take it. Its not tied to criminal acts etc. Its simply a retirement plan. I see stuff like that on TV and I think people are starting to believe it. Frankly you have a right to your opnion but as a LEO and as one who is is friends with a lot of other LEO's I have a lot more faith than you do. Furthermore from a pure safety stand point its lunacy to implament a confiscation plan. Cops will get shot no way around that and for what a law we don't even agree with. That is going to be a hard sell to line level cops and even department heads.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 16:17
Just how is this "tin foil" . . .
Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/64-drone-bases-on-us-soil/
. . . or DHS MRAPs?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/DHSMRAP2.jpg
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/DHSMRAP1.jpg
I never said the vehicles don't exist and in some areas there is a need for such things. Remember the crazy guy with a tank in LA that LAPD had to deal with. My problem with his statement is his theory that soldiers and cops will be willing drones to take their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters guns away.
Yes police are para military we use a similar rank structure we have guns and we get into gun fights. Some of our equipment is simular who cares. When your life is on the line you want the best equipment and training around and frankly the military is very good at what they do and I am all for learning from them. Any citizens who has been to a Larry Vickers class is also benefiting from military training.
Some people are simply crazy and they think that men in black are coming for them in the middle of the night.
Moose-Knuckle
01-05-13, 16:22
Not saying such animals don't exist but they are exceedinly rare in my experience.
Pat
If I'm not mistaken you work for a small town in AK correct? I gather that is how you have arrived at that particular conclusion. Most major US cities are a different matter however as they have very liberal administrators.
Just yesterday . . .
" . . . gunplay is a national problem." - Detroit Police Chief Chester Logan (http://news.yahoo.com/detroit-reports-highest-homicide-rate-in-20-years-192557311.html)
Remember Katrina?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/rayrayar15.png
If I'm not mistaken you work for a small town in AK correct? I gather that is how you have arrived at that particular conclusion. Most major US cities are a different matter however as they have very liberal administrators.
This is exactly right. His perspective is too limited for such generalized opinions in that regard. And even though I've mentioned that officers I know aren't worried about a bayonet lug, there is no gut assurance that they won't do their jobs cautiously but diligently if ordered.
Yeh, I remember Katrina. My Sheriff at the time (still in office) had hell with FEMA after he refused those federal guys access to our county vehicles. Was very very uplifting to hear my own Sheriff refuse government demands.
-Jax
Moose-Knuckle
01-05-13, 16:32
Some people are simply crazy and they think that men in black are coming for them in the middle of the night.
And with good reason.
A Teachers Guide to the Holocaust (http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazifica.htm)
"With Adolf Hitler's ascendancy to the chancellorship, the Nazi Party quickly consolidated its power. Hitler managed to maintain a posture of legality throughout the Nazification process."
"Domestically, during the next six years, Hitler completely transformed Germany into a police state."
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 17:34
This is exactly right. His perspective is too limited for such generalized opinions in that regard. And even though I've mentioned that officers I know aren't worried about a bayonet lug, there is no gut assurance that they won't do their jobs cautiously but diligently if ordered.
Guys administrators are appointed by politicians in big cities and they don't represent the Rank and File. Yes I work in a small town but I have friends who work for all kinds of agencies. Law enforcement is a small world when it comes to networking. Its not like I have never left my area. Also your perpsective is far more flawed because your from the outside looking in. You know know of the people involved and are making some very very bad assumptions.
Pat
Bullshit.
There will be no resistance and most mil/le will confiscate if ordered to do so.
Bullshit right back at you! Most of us will not. The oaths we took are to the Constitution, not whoever happens to be in D.C.
Have you ever served in either capacity?? Don't make assumptions about us.
Rmplstlskn
01-05-13, 18:03
The excellent, but now sadly defunct and retired publication, "The RESISTER, The Special Forces Underground," did several essays on the "military disarming US citizens" scenario and their opinion was that the "boots on the ground" would put the safety of their BUDDIES in arms, their fellow soldiers ABOVE any civilian and his RIGHTS. That basically if a civilian were to open fire on US troops sent to "arrest" a civilian, putting them in harm's way, that they would put down the threat immediately...
It was also opined that the majority of troops WOULD obey orders to disarm "dangerous citizens with an ARSENAL of assault weapons holed up in their BUNKER/COMPOUND."
TR/SFU also spearheaded the alarm decades ago, along with James Pate in SOF mag, about the militarization of domestic police forces and the increased military-type hardware being de-milled to "law enforcement."
LEO too, will have the majority that will obey orders, especially in big metropolitan areas. Small towns less so, if even refusing...
I do not think it impossible that such a LEO/MIL operation would happen under this DOJ and POTUS...
But the Unintended Consequences of such actions I dread to entertain...
Rmpl
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 18:04
Bullshit right back at you! Most of us will not. The oaths we took are to the Constitution, not whoever happens to be in D.C.
Have you ever served in either capacity?? Don't make assumptions about us.
Like I have said before there is a clear anti leo bias with a lot of members here who frankly have no clue what the truth is because they don't know any LEO's. They just assume the worst.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 18:05
And with good reason.
A Teachers Guide to the Holocaust (http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazifica.htm)
We are not even close to anything like that.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 18:08
If I'm not mistaken you work for a small town in AK correct? I gather that is how you have arrived at that particular conclusion. Most major US cities are a different matter however as they have very liberal administrators.
Just yesterday . . .
" . . . gunplay is a national problem." - Detroit Police Chief Chester Logan (http://news.yahoo.com/detroit-reports-highest-homicide-rate-in-20-years-192557311.html)
Remember Katrina?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/rayrayar15.png
Katrina. The New Orleans Police Department is the most corrupt in the country. The FBI has had to take control of that department several times. You can not judge all police officers by this department unless you think its fair to judge all gun owners by the shooter at Sandy Hook. Which is basically pretty screwed up.
Pat
The compliance rate among LE will be higher than among military. Insurgents need to suppress the police to function and between officers who go home due to objections and those who don't want to die in the name of gun control in an insurgency of any size you can expect the police to disappear.
If pressed to pick a side the military will fracture. We get the meat eating side, the Feds get the maintainers.
The Tin Foil is strong with this one.:haha:
You know it doesn't go over very well, the ad-hominem, especially when you have absolutely nothing of substance, with which to counter the data sets that you personally don't like. I posted a rather substantive link, you responded with a personal attack, founded upon knee-jerk emotion...
If I was as big a jerk as you seem determined to be, I'd simply respond, "that you're just a beat cop in some podunk Alaskan village in the middle of nowhere," you bring about as much expertise to the topic, as does the typical armored car guard...Further, and significantly, you are not helping the cause, any cause whatever it may be, in the slightest, with your arrogant, elitist worldviews.
The facts shout you down all by themselves, you very clearly lack both perspective, or "grasp" of the subject matter...
It was also opined that the majority of troops WOULD obey orders to disarm "dangerous citizens with an ARSENAL of assault weapons holed up in their BUNKER/COMPOUND."
You mean like Waco or Ruby Ridge?
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 18:16
You mean like Waco or Ruby Ridge?
In both Waco and Ruby Ridge we had other issues going on there. I am not sure I would be trying to use Randy Weaver as a hero or the leader of the Branch Davidians.
Pat
Rmplstlskn
01-05-13, 18:23
In both Waco and Ruby Ridge we had other issues going on there. I am not sure I would be trying to use Randy Weaver as a hero or the leader of the Branch Davidians.
Pat
Spoken like the Judge & Jury LEO's mentioned in TR/SFU and SOF... Here's your sign...
Rmpl
In both Waco and Ruby Ridge we had other issues going on there. I am not sure I would be trying to use Randy Weaver as a hero or the leader of the Branch Davidians.
Pat
I wasn't trying to imply that anyone was a hero. I was asking a genuine question to see if that's what he was referring to.
I don't know if this is the right thread for it or not but I'm pretty well versed on the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. Many Americans lost their lives for absolutely no good reason and that is a fact.
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 18:26
You know it doesn't go over very well, the ad-hominem, especially when you have absolutely nothing of substance, with which to counter the data sets that you personally don't like. I posted a rather substantive link, you responded with a personal attack, founded upon knee-jerk emotion...
If I was as big a jerk as you seem determined to be, I'd simply respond, "that you're just a beat cop in some podunk Alaskan village in the middle of nowhere," you bring about as much expertise to the topic, as does the typical armored car guard...Further, and significantly, you are not helping the cause, any cause whatever it may be, in the slightest, with your arrogant, elitist worldviews.
The facts shout you down all by themselves, you very clearly lack both perspective, or "grasp" of the subject matter...
Hardly. You have not presented any facts rather just made far out there opinion statements. And no I don't work in a village and I have worked in one of the buisiest departments in the state as well as having worked on the drug task force for 3 years. That is a bit beyond the average armored car driver.:no:
You seem to simply make statements for shock value. As for elietist many could say the same about your views on hunting and how you feel about fellow hunters who prefer to use different guns than you do. As for helping the cause your far out there conspiracy theories are not helping gun owners retain their rights at all. People look at the things you right as being so far out there as not to take you seriously and they dismiss it. That is not what we need.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 18:29
I wasn't trying to imply that anyone was a hero. I was asking a genuine question to see if that's what he was referring to.
I don't know if this is the right thread for it or not but I'm pretty well versed on the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. Many Americans lost their lives for absolutely no good reason and that is a fact.
I agree with that. Bad things happened on both sides.
pat
PA PATRIOT
01-05-13, 18:30
Being from a very large major Department and working with hundreds of Officers daily I may be able to give a reasonably accurate assessment of how follow LEO's would respond to such a confiscation order.
I personally feel 98% or more would follow orders given by a superior which were legal and did not purposely harm others.
By harming others I don't mean property issues as some would classify a confiscation of Assault style rifles as harming their way of life but actually inflicting injury outside the legal use of force.
I would also suggest when push came to shove may owners would give up the Assault style rifles if out lawed as they would not want the negative consequences which could befall their selfs and family in not doing so.
Many Assault style rifles owners see their rifles as a cool toy but they are not going to jail for it or risking life over in keeping.
Just my opinion.
In rural areas it will be less.
And the first time a gaggle of patrol cops get hit with indirect fire your absenteeism rate will go up significantly.
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 18:52
In rural areas it will be less.
And the first time a gaggle of patrol cops get hit with indirect fire your absenteeism rate will go up significantly.
The chance of citizens firing on police with indirect fire is about the same as cops being willing to take the guns. Everyone needs to step back and focus on efforts to stop any of this from even becoming a possible issue. Seems like some on here who are always anti leo/govt are using the pending gun control crisis to demonize LEO's. That needs to stop.
Pat
Hardly. You have not presented any facts rather just made far out there opinion statements. And no I don't work in a village and I have worked in one of the buisiest departments in the state as well as having worked on the drug task force for 3 years. That is a bit beyond the average armored car driver.:no:
You seem to simply make statements for shock value. As for elietist many could say the same about your views on hunting and how you feel about fellow hunters who prefer to use different guns than you do. As for helping the cause your far out there conspiracy theories are not helping gun owners retain their rights at all. People look at the things you right as being so far out there as not to take you seriously and they dismiss it. That is not what we need.
Pat
You're FOS, I was born in Fairbanks, if you're not a cop either there, or Anchorage, you're one step removed from rent-a-cop status anywhere else, but "ahh" don't let that slow you down....:rolleyes:
Oh, BTW http://dailyreckoning.com/when-they-...urn-them-over/
The link I posted, which you very obviously didn't read....We call that a cite!
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 19:09
[QUOTE=Denali;1493330]You're FOS, I was born in Fairbanks, if you're not a cop either there, or Anchorage, you're one step removed from rent-a-cop status anywhere else, but "ahh" don't let that slow you down....:rolleyes%3
GeorgiaBoy
01-05-13, 19:10
You're FOS, I was born in Fairbanks, if you're not a cop either there, or Anchorage, you're one step removed from rent-a-cop status anywhere else, but "ahh" don't let that slow you down....:rolleyes:
Despite your constant self-victimization that you are always a target of ad hominems, you sure like to dish them out as well. :confused:
Actually most are very pro gun and I have only met 2 that were slightly anti gun. Same goes for the soldiers I know except I haven't met an anti gun member of the military. Not saying such animals don't exist but they are exceedinly rare in my experience.
Pat
That is your zip code. CDP, NOLA PD, LAPD, NYPD will all have different results.
montanadave
01-05-13, 19:30
It is disheartening to see these threads devolve into personal attacks and accusations which serve only to create dissension and distrust among forum members at a time when most would agree a unified effort is required to confront what is certain to be one of the most concerted and well-organized attacks on 2nd amendment rights in our lifetimes.
The fact that particular members seem to routinely insinuate themselves into these discussions with what appears to be a deliberate effort to foment discord also strikes me as curious.
The chance of citizens firing on police with indirect fire is about the same as cops being willing to take the guns. Everyone needs to step back and focus on efforts to stop any of this from even becoming a possible issue. Seems like some on here who are always anti leo/govt are using the pending gun control crisis to demonize LEO's. That needs to stop.
Pat
Soldiers bro. If an insurgency starts Soldiers will be in it.
Being from a very large major Department and working with hundreds of Officers daily I may be able to give a reasonably accurate assessment of how follow LEO's would respond to such a confiscation order.
I personally feel 98% or more would follow orders given by a superior which were legal and did not purposely harm others.
By harming others I don't mean property issues as some would classify a confiscation of Assault style rifles as harming their way of life but actually inflicting injury outside the legal use of force.
I would also suggest when push came to shove may owners would give up the Assault style rifles if out lawed as they would not want the negative consequences which could befall their selfs and family in not doing so.
To many Assault style weapons are a cool toy but they are not going to jail for it or risking life over in keeping.
Just my opinion.
The other thing to remember is that we've already had an AWB in this country, so it's not like it's unheard of or unprecedented. It can happen.
In both Waco and Ruby Ridge we had other issues going on there. I am not sure I would be trying to use Randy Weaver as a hero or the leader of the Branch Davidians.
Pat
Weaver was a former Green Beret and a separatist who refused to help ATF infiltrate Aryan Nations as an informant after he manufactured an unregistered SBS for an informant who was cooperating with ATF for a reduced sentence.
Federal authorities falsely informed him that if he didn't cooperate his home and property would be seized. Federal Marshalls then shot the family dog provoking a gun fight with Weavers 14 year old son who was shot in the back while fleeing.
Marshalls then falsified reports trying to shift blame to Sam Weaver and family friend Kevin Harris. In the resulting standoff FBI HRT with "shoot first" ROE (later declared to be unlawful) shot and killed Vicki Weaver and claimed it was an accident.
While I don't see Weaver as any kind of hero, there is nothing wrong about choosing your own beliefs and the worst thing he did was cut down a shotgun. If I have to choose between his actions and those of the Federal government, it's any easy choice regarding who was wrong.
Koresch was in insane child molester who believed or convinced others he was Jesus. That said, plenty of blame on the government side of that as well including falsified allegations of narcotics trafficking to permit assistance from Delta and a high noon raid for the cameras that went to shit.
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 19:36
Soldiers bro. If an insurgency starts Soldiers will be in it.
I don't think cops or soldiers will disarm citizens but soldiers would be more likely to follow orders as most are young in the 18 to 25 range and they are not used to questioning orders nor do most have to think independantly. Quite unlike a patrol officer who is generally 25 to 50 many who are prior military and they are paid to think and make decisions on the fly and obviously independently expecially in a rural setting with no back up much less any supervisor around to make the decision for them.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 19:38
Weaver was a former Green Beret and a separatist who refused to help ATF infiltrate Aryan Nations as an informant after he manufactured an unregistered SBS for an informant who was cooperating with ATF for a reduced sentence.
Federal authorities falsely informed him that if he didn't cooperate his home and property would be seized. Federal Marshalls then shot the family dog provoking a gun fight with Weavers 14 year old son who was shot in the back while fleeing.
Marshalls then falsified reports trying to shift blame to Sam Weaver and family friend Kevin Harris. In the resulting standoff FBI HRT with "shoot first" ROE (later declared to be unlawful) shot and killed Vicki Weaver and claimed it was an accident.
While I don't see Weaver as any kind of hero, there is nothing wrong about choosing your own beliefs and the worst thing he did was cut down a shotgun. If I have to choose between his actions and those of the Federal government, it's any easy choice regarding who was wrong.
Koresch was in insane child molester who believed or convinced others he was Jesus. That said, plenty of blame on the government side of that as well including falsified allegations of narcotics trafficking to permit assistance from Delta and a high noon raid for the cameras that went to shit.
Weaver could have just shown up to court and there would have been no blood shed and he likely would not have served any time at all because I believe the agents measured the shotgun incorrectly if I recall. Of course that was found out later. Of course the action on the Feds side was very wrong as well. They could have just waited him out.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 19:40
That is your zip code. CDP, NOLA PD, LAPD, NYPD will all have different results.
Not much different. This topic has come up on several police only discusson forums and the majority of response have been very progun and vocal. These forums like police one have members from all of the country saw quite a variety post on there. I am not saying there are not anti gun cops but in my experience they are few and far between not just in my local area either.
Pat
I personally feel 98% or more would follow orders given by a superior which were legal and did not purposely harm others....
The KEY point here is that, regardless of any legislation passed, any kind of "turn them in" ban is NOT legal unless they repeal or drastically alter the 2nd Amendment using the amendment process spelled out in the Constitution. Moving certain firearms to NFA status or requiring some other kind of registration is a little bit more open to interpretation, but I think most of us would say that would clearly classify as "infringed".
The fact is that they could pass a "law" that required every first born male child to be killed at birth and it would not be any more or less "legal" than a gun ban would be.
Right now we all need to burn up the phone lines, mailboxes, and email in-boxes of our senators and congressmen, but we also need to face the fact that if they pass this ban, they are doing so in violation of the supreme law of the land.
Weaver could have just shown up to court and there would have been no blood shed and he likely would not have served any time at all because I believe the agents measured the shotgun incorrectly if I recall. Of course that was found out later. Of course the action on the Feds side was very wrong as well. They could have just waited him out.
Pat
There was a misunderstanding about the court date too.
I don't think cops or soldiers will disarm citizens but soldiers would be more likely to follow orders as most are young in the 18 to 25 range and they are not used to questioning orders nor do most have to think independantly. Quite unlike a patrol officer who is generally 25 to 50 many who are prior military and they are paid to think and make decisions on the fly and obviously independently expecially in a rural setting with no back up much less any supervisor around to make the decision for them.
Pat
Officers arrest people for breaking laws they don't approve of all the time. But the military is trained to consider action in the US to be mostly illegal.
Besides, I know what SOF will be doing.
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 19:55
There was a misunderstanding about the court date too.
Yea both sides made a lot of mistakes and it was not a good moment for federal law enforcement in our country.
Pat
Yea both sides made a lot of mistakes and it was not a good moment for federal law enforcement in our country.
Pat
Agreed. Waco as well. I hear that the deputy marshal killed at RR was an exceptional man.
Traditionally the line I see people drawing is at confiscation. Now I see people discussing violence even if laws are passed that don't include confiscation.
If you enjoy this read, you will love his monthly newsletters. Paul knows from what he speaks.
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 20:00
Officers arrest people for breaking laws they don't approve of all the time. But the military is trained to consider action in the US to be mostly illegal.
Besides, I know what SOF will be doing.
We are both on the same side. I have a lot of friends in the military mostly for shooting three gun. Officers do arrest people for breaking laws they may not agree with but not many will arrest people for a law they believe is unconstitutional. Plus you have to realize we live with the people we are having to arrest. We are not an invading force. We have relationships with these people. In my community I host and oganize three gun shoots. I invite all members of the community out to the range. In other communities there are officers like me as well. Gun owners are not the dirt bags that we deal with but rather our friends and neighbors. I don't think some of you are seeing that.
Pat
I know a lot of cops who would just stay home. Works for me.
I like cops, I really do.
GeorgiaBoy
01-05-13, 20:07
LE demographics are obviously different.
In bigger cities, the % of LEO's who are anti-gun usually goes up. In turn, most residents in big cities are already anti gun. In fact, illegal gun ownership probably easily surpasses legal gun ownership in most bigger cities/metropolitan areas.
Because of that, big city LEO's probably wouldn't be under near as much scrutiny from the "general public" that "they live with" because most of that general public would be "ok" with confiscating "evil guns".
On the other hand, rural departments (city departments, sheriffs offices) are often far more pro-gun. This usually stems from rural citizens often having a higher gun ownership per capita than their "city slicker" counterparts. Rural LEO's are often even further embedded into their communities (as communities are smaller) and would therefore face even more wrath if order to confiscate firearms. Hell, I routinely go shooting with some of the sheriffs' deputies and city officers on my private range from my area... Most own personal SBR's and suppressors. I severely doubt most officers from Savannah or Atlanta would be as thrilled to do so.
brushy bill
01-05-13, 20:08
Koresch was in insane child molester who believed or convinced others he was Jesus. That said, plenty of blame on the government side of that as well including falsified allegations of narcotics trafficking to permit assistance from Delta and a high noon raid for the cameras that went to shit.
Admittedly, I'm more familiar with the travesty perpetrated against the Weaver family and less so with specifics of the Koresch fiasco.
That said, if the .gov falsified narcotics allegations why not fabricate bogus child molestation charges? Obviously this is the most vile crime someone can can commit. So, wouldn't that be a handy way to justify just about any and all actions to protect the innocents (just prior to the agents burning everyone up)? Not justifying Koresch in any respect. He may well have been a child molester and most of the actions more than warranted, but when we have "fast & furious" and Benghazi, how can we have legitimate faith in what we're told by the govt?
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 20:09
I know a lot of cops who would just stay home. Works for me.
I like cops, I really do.
There needs to be a way that rank and file law enforcement and military personal can tell the politicians that we will not be a part of any firearms confiscation.
Pat
That would be good. Take it a step farther and say you'll refuse to enforce an AWB. Just because there's a law doesn't mean we have to obey it.
Despite your constant self-victimization that you are always a target of ad hominems, you sure like to dish them out as well. :confused:
:
Originally Posted by Denali
Sorry, but there are studies available that clearly illustrate that those "American" kids will follow their orders to disarm you, or else! DoD commissioned most of the studies that exist, many of which are classified...
Then there's the para-militarized police, buying up drones, APC's, Tanks, state of the art automatic weapons, and robotics.....
http://dailyreckoning.com/when-they-...urn-them-over/
"
Originally Posted by Alaskapopo
The Tin Foil is strong with this one.
Being personally attacked, as the above quotes clearly illustrate, and standing your ground, translate how exactly,into self-victimization?
The fact is, there's a group of you here, 12-15 or so, who are continually dragging down the discourse, the two of you here, are right at the top of that list....
GeorgiaBoy
01-05-13, 20:34
The fact is, there's a group of you here, 12-15 or so, who are continually dragging down the discourse, the two of you here, are right at the top of that list....
Some could say the exact same about you. ;)
IIRC, there are about 15-25 "fully active" members in GD who post with regularity. I'd be interested in knowing who you actually put in your categorizations. You could PM me if you wish.
Sorry, but there are studies available that clearly illustrate that those "American" kids will follow their orders to disarm you, or else! DoD commissioned most of the studies that exist, many of which are classified...
Then there's the para-militarized police, buying up drones, APC's, Tanks, state of the art automatic weapons, and robotics.....
http://dailyreckoning.com/when-they-come-for-your-guns-you-will-turn-them-over/
If they're classified how do you know about them? Citing something you can't share doesn't help one way or the other. The study Irish referenced showed a healthy majority would refuse an illegal order. As stated by several those are likely the kids who don't have things figured out yet. The numbers he shared are 61/25 so that means many of the kids wouldn't follow the orders either.
Bullshit.
There will be no resistance and most mil/le will confiscate if ordered to do so.
Bullshit.
The study he's referring to, I'm pretty sure, is the survey composed by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest "Guy" Cunningham, who was working on a Master's Thesis dealing with the deployment of US military units under foreign command as part of UN-supervised missions abroad. Commonly referred to as The US Armed Forces Survey from April 1994 and specifically question #46:
"The US government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) 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 citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon US citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US government."
When Cunningham released his findings it was revealed that more than 61 percent of the Marines who took the survey responded that they wouldn't carry out such an order under any circumstances. However, slightly more than 25% of Marines who took the survey replied in the affirmative.
Here's an article written by the same: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/04/lcdr-ret-ernest-g-cunningham-and-famous.html
Interesting. I was long gone from the Corps by then, but those numbers sound about right to me.
You've got a bunch of PFC's and Lance Coolies that will do whatever the Gunny says.
But you have a hell of a lot more Sergeants, Captains and Colonels that would never follow any illegal order. They take their oath very seriously, and many if not all consider themselves still bound to it.
Still many of the non rates must have said no in this study too if 61% said no.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
That is the oath you swear. I have only served in one branch of the military. I can only tell you what we were taught.
But it was stressed many, many times that it was lawful orders we were to follow. Being ordered to do illegal acts does not make them legal. An extreme example would be, being ordered to murder innocents or civilians. That is not a lawful order. If the person giving the order persisted, they would be releived and restrained.
Or whatever else it took. But the US military is a professional force, not an armed mob. They follow their oath and lawful orders. There have been a few exceptions to this, but that is exactly what they were: exceptions.
Frankly, we have the most professional military on the planet. It's because we have thoughtful, dedicated NCO's, Staff NCO's and officers that LEAD men, not order them.
A leader would never give an unlawful order. An officer might. I guess that is the difference, as I see it.
There were officers that I worked for, for whom I would have charged Hell with a damp sponge. Others could not lead us to free beer. The good ones knew the difference.
Pretty close to the oath of office for LEO's too.
I would suggest a high percentage of Military and Law Enforcement personal would follow orders to assist with confiscations of Assault type weapons if it was a order from the POTUS backed with a AWB approved by a majority of both houses.
Also say there was a S/C appeal and the justices sided with the POTUS and the AWB.
With the above said many L/E and Military would be duty bound to follow the lawful orders and would not want to lose said job or enlistment over a single issue such as Assault style weapon ownership which may or may not matter to the individual L/E or GI.
Now a total ban of all firearms maybe another story and very unlikely to survive a court challenge to the S/C but I'm only commenting on the single issue of a total ownership ban on assault style weapons which the anti gunners seem to have their panties in a bunch over.
There is no way it would work. Howe clearly points this out. What are they going to do search every building in America? It can't work.
On the topic of how many in the .mil are pro 2A, approach that question from a different perspective.
As blackknight stated the guys carrying out the orders will be 11B (my army background will kick in here) infantry.
Breaking down the Army by MOSs who would you assume is more 2A.
An infantryman or say for example an 88M truck driver?
Point is the guys carrying out those orders I believe would lean towards our side as opposed to people who basically are just a support mechanism. Grunts/SOF live and breathe guns much more than anyone else.
Part of the reason I signed up off the bat to be an infantryman was my love guns. I suspect I am not alone.
-Jax
That's why I signed up as a machine gunner, well that and chicks dig a Marine in Dress Blues!
https://www.m4carbine.net/album.php?albumid=304&pictureid=1688
The Tin Foil is strong with this one.:haha:
Very strong. You and I don't have the security clearance to see the "classified" documents that he bases his opinion on. We just have to take his word for it.
Bullshit right back at you! Most of us will not. The oaths we took are to the Constitution, not whoever happens to be in D.C.
Have you ever served in either capacity?? Don't make assumptions about us.
Agreed.
You know it doesn't go over very well, the ad-hominem, especially when you have absolutely nothing of substance, with which to counter the data sets that you personally don't like. I posted a rather substantive link, you responded with a personal attack, founded upon knee-jerk emotion...
If I was as big a jerk as you seem determined to be, I'd simply respond, "that you're just a beat cop in some podunk Alaskan village in the middle of nowhere," you bring about as much expertise to the topic, as does the typical armored car guard...Further, and significantly, you are not helping the cause, any cause whatever it may be, in the slightest, with your arrogant, elitist worldviews.
The facts shout you down all by themselves, you very clearly lack both perspective, or "grasp" of the subject matter...
What facts? I though they were "classified" reports.
The KEY point here is that, regardless of any legislation passed, any kind of "turn them in" ban is NOT legal unless they repeal or drastically alter the 2nd Amendment using the amendment process spelled out in the Constitution. Moving certain firearms to NFA status or requiring some other kind of registration is a little bit more open to interpretation, but I think most of us would say that would clearly classify as "infringed".
The fact is that they could pass a "law" that required every first born male child to be killed at birth and it would not be any more or less "legal" than a gun ban would be.
Right now we all need to burn up the phone lines, mailboxes, and email in-boxes of our senators and congressmen, but we also need to face the fact that if they pass this ban, they are doing so in violation of the supreme law of the land.
This is very true. Instead of pissing matches we should be calling and writing and donating to the ILA and NRA.
You can say Pat and I are small town cops who are out of touch but what about Paul Howe?
He served much longer than I did. He also continues to interact with people daily in his business that would lead me to believe he has a better feel for civilians, cops, soldiers and operators and what they believe. He is the SME, not me and not any of you. I will take my advice from Howe.
You can say Pat and I are small town cops who are out of touch but what about Paul Howe?
He served much longer than I did. He also continues to interact with people daily in his business that would lead me to believe he has a better feel for civilians, cops, soldiers and operators and what they believe. He is the SME, not me and not any of you. I will take my advice from Howe.
Whether you are small town LE or not, is really not germane, other then as a corrective mechanism for "Pat's" inherent hostility, and the perception that he takes certain disrespectful liberties with those with whom he disagrees, all while not offering anything truely meaningful in the way of rebuattal(source citations).
A couple of things, first, speaking for myself, the topic at hand is not a condemnation of LE, or the military, rather its an exploration of the "obvious!" A certain set percentage, will always, without fail, follow an order that the greater majority would be morally opposed too, and or found personally repugnant, this is a fact of human behavior, which human history is replete with evidence of!
The hard reality is that the federal government does not require the allegience of every cop, or Marine, Salior, Soldier, or Airmen, they only require about one out of every five or six, give or take! Factually, we already have an entire federal LEA that is largely dedicated to the disarming of America, one that has already participated in atrocities on American citizens!
As to the DoD studies, I will concede that point beyond LC Cunningham, I do not have access to those specific studies, so in all fairness you are correct to challenge my statement regarding them. However I will add this caveat, the odds are high that they do in fact exist, there are likely DoD personel on site, who have been administered such surveys...
A last bit of light reading,
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/full-spectrum-operations-in-the-homeland-a-%E2%80%9Cvision%E2%80%9D-of-the-future
Sombodies planning ahead, somebodies preparing....
Alaskapopo
01-05-13, 23:08
Whether you are small town LE or not, is really not germane, other then as a corrective mechanism for "Pat's" inherent hostility, and the perception that he takes certain disrespectful liberties with those with whom he disagrees, all while not offering anything truely meaningful in the way of rebuattal(source citations).
A couple of things, first, speaking for myself, the topic at hand is not a condemnation of LE, or the military, rather its an exploration of the "obvious!" A certain set percentage, will always, without fail, follow an order that the greater majority would be morally opposed too, and or found personally repugnant, this is a fact of human behavior, which human history is replete with evidence of!
The hard reality is that the federal government does not require the allegience of every cop, or Marine, Salior, Soldier, or Airmen, they only require about one out of every five or six, give or take! Factually, we already have an entire federal LEA that is largely dedicated to the disarming of America, one that has already participated in atrocities on American citizens!
As to the DoD studies, I will concede that point beyond LC Cunningham, I do not have access to those specific studies, so in all fairness you are correct to challenge my statement regarding them. However I will add this caveat, the odds are high that they do in fact exist, there are likely DoD personel on site, who have been administered such surveys...
A last bit of light reading,
Sombodies planning ahead, somebodies preparing....
I am glad you are big enough to admit you were talking about something you knew nothing about. Forum rules here require you to have first hand knowledge about the what you post. That is what is supposed to separate this forum from others. Also its not that helpful when you cite articles dealing with fictional stories as proof of anything.
Admittedly, I'm more familiar with the travesty perpetrated against the Weaver family and less so with specifics of the Koresch fiasco.
That said, if the .gov falsified narcotics allegations why not fabricate bogus child molestation charges? Obviously this is the most vile crime someone can can commit. So, wouldn't that be a handy way to justify just about any and all actions to protect the innocents (just prior to the agents burning everyone up)? Not justifying Koresch in any respect. He may well have been a child molester and most of the actions more than warranted, but when we have "fast & furious" and Benghazi, how can we have legitimate faith in what we're told by the govt?
The evidence, including testimony from surviving Branch Davidians seems to support the validity of the child molestation charges. it was government evidence that actually proved they lied about the narcotics issue just as it was the FBI who discovered the US Marshalls BS'd their initial story about the Sam Weaver shooting.
Of course the important thing to remember is charges of child molestation have nothing to do with the ATF.
Weaver could have just shown up to court and there would have been no blood shed and he likely would not have served any time at all because I believe the agents measured the shotgun incorrectly if I recall. Of course that was found out later. Of course the action on the Feds side was very wrong as well. They could have just waited him out.
Pat
Problem is "he" didn't know that and took the Feds at their word. He truly believed they were telling the truth and if he didn't agree to be a CI they would confiscate his home and property as well as put him in jail.
Not everyone is a "system savy" criminal.
And there was so much wrong about Ruby Ridge I don't even know where to begin. The entire bloodshed matter could have been avoided if compromised Marshalls didn't get pissed and shoot a kids dog.
Ruby Ridge might be the worst example of Federal LE abuse in our history. Ranks right up there with the attack on the Bonus Marchers as a low moment for the US military.
Moose-Knuckle
01-06-13, 04:57
Ruby Ridge might be the worst example of Federal LE abuse in our history.
Yup, nothing like an HRT sniper shooting an unarmed woman in the head on her own front porch while holding an infant.
For anyone who drank the Kool-Aid on Waco and thinks Koresh was a child molester I suggest you watch a documentary on the subject entitled Waco The Big Lie. 100% complete misinformation campaign on part of Reno's DOJ and the state ran media.
BTT:
In regards to firearm confiscation in CONUS, Barry could/would use foreign troops if and when our own military and LE told him to go f**k himself. You can laugh at me and the UN all you want and it won’t change the events that are set in motion; Agenda 21, Small Arms Treaty, et al.
There needs to be a way that rank and file law enforcement and military personal can tell the politicians that we will not be a part of any firearms confiscation.
Pat
Rank and file will not hold there own unions accountable. They continue to pay dues to an organization that lobbies for and give campaign money to causes and candidates they claim to not support. They claim they are members for the insurance etc and local reasons but fail to acknowledge that there are only four unions in this country and all the smaller ones are just sister to the big four. Those big four do not poll the rank and file to even the executive bodies of the locals before giving millions to liberal politicians and anti gun lobbys.
Until that changes do you think the elected reps will believe the letter of individuals or the presidents of all the LEO unions and orgs that will stand before the Judiciary Committee again as in 94, and say our 450000 members support this new AWB? No way. I was not polled by the FOP in 94 when I watched that happened and tore my card up and mailed it to the national pres of FOP with a nasty letter.
I am the only sgt in my org that is not a member of the sgt union.
I agree with what you are saying but officers need to send a clear message to their union leadership first...quitting it if need be. Quit being hypocrites and quit giving these orgs your money.
I would say a confiscation event would be the bottom of the list option. Why risk that when a man and his family could be crippled with the pen? If things get that crazy, and one is given the ultimatium turn it in or else all that need be done is to file charges against him, seize or put some sort of lien on his belongings, yank his drivers license...he can no longer work or provide. His life could be so screwed up administratively to where the average man would have no choice but to cave. It will not be like Prohibition, where folks said screw it and began moonshining/smuggling. Firearms don't have the type of demand that booze does. You would have some underground market, but not like in the 30's. Then lets say there is a run on guns. What happens to you if you manage to keep under the radar and keep your guns, but then someone breaks into your house or as something that just happened to a woman I know, someone tries to abduct your daughter from off your own front porch and you shoot them. You're done. There are so many other options much more probable that a door to door grab, none of which are hardly ever discussed. I'm not sure why everyone is so focused on violentish confinscations.
Here's the thing, and any copper on here will tell you this is true. A good number of those in the job are affraid. They will call in a location miles from where they are to avoid a hot call. They may even actually be just down the street, but make like they are 5-10+ minutes out. They'll circle the block or back streets killing time but radioing in they are having trouble finding the location of a hot call, especially if it looks like they'll be the first on scene. You'll hear them asking dispatch for assistance & it's always the same ones. You see them choosing soft calls or targets to go to. Say a warrant comes down to go out and find a violent felon. Eight possible locations for where he might be are listed but with a high likelihood of him being at location "X". The type I'm talking about, if alone, will spend all day hitting the less probable locations and avoid the hot target if at all possible to leave it for the guys whom don't have that mindset. It goes on & on. If there ever is a yank on 2A, it will most likely be this guy I have just described who will be onboard with following orders against 2A & confiscating guns. He will get onboard with it in roll call, but quickly loose resolve once he hits the road. This is also the same type who will monday morning quarterback an officers actions and throw a fellow officer under the bus in a minute. Now obviously this is a rough generalization, but an accurate one in my eyes.
I would say a confiscation event would be the bottom of the list option. Why risk that when a man and his family could be crippled with the pen? If things get that crazy, and one is given the ultimatium turn it in or else all that need be done is to file charges against him, seize or put some sort of lien on his belongings, yank his drivers license...he can no longer work or provide. His life could be so screwed up administratively to where the average man would have no choice but to cave. It will not be like Prohibition, where folks said screw it and began moonshining/smuggling. Firearms don't have the type of demand that booze does. You would have some underground market, but not like in the 30's. Then lets say there is a run on guns. What happens to you if you manage to keep under the radar and keep your guns, but then someone breaks into your house or as something that just happened to a woman I know, someone tries to abduct your daughter from off your own front porch and you shoot them. You're done. There are so many other options much more probable that a door to door grab, none of which are hardly ever discussed. I'm not sure why everyone is so focused on violentish confinscations.
Here's the thing, and any copper on here will tell you this is true. A good number of those in the job are affraid. They will call in a location miles from where they are to avoid a hot call. They may even actually be just down the street, but make like they are 5-10+ minutes out. They'll circle the block or back streets killing time but radioing in they are having trouble finding the location of a hot call, especially if it looks like they'll be the first on scene. You'll hear them asking dispatch for assistance & it's always the same ones. You see them choosing soft calls or targets to go to. Say a warrant comes down to go out and find a violent felon. Eight possible locations for where he might be are listed but with a high likelihood of him being at location "X". The type I'm talking about, if alone, will spend all day hitting the less probable locations and avoid the hot target if at all possible to leave it for the guys whom don't have that mindset. It goes on & on. If there ever is a yank on 2A, it will most likely be this guy I have just described who will be onboard with following orders against 2A & confiscating guns. He will get onboard with it in roll call, but quickly loose resolve once he hits the road. This is also the same type who will monday morning quarterback an officers actions and throw a fellow officer under the bus in a minute. Now obviously this is a rough generalization, but an accurate one in my eyes.
I ****in hate those types, there are a few at my agency but I would not go as far to say a "good number." But I think more weapons would be picked up from mad girlfriends/ wife/ life partners telling on you than anything else.
RogerinTPA
01-07-13, 15:23
Although I understand and agree with MSG Howe, I think it is noble but wishful thinking. Maybe in most Red states, would this outcome play out as there aren't enough rugged individuals co-located anywhere else in the land. In the Blue states, I can honestly see them turning each other in, to the authorities. Neighbor against neighbor, mothers and fathers turning in their son's to the State and getting a medal for it...like Russia or East Germany. I would pray that most Americans would agree and would have this mindset or at least seriously consider MSG Howe's thoughts. Sadly, having dealt with many 20, 30 & quite a few 40 somethings who have never thought about serving, are chicken shit to their very core, who are assimilated into the PC popular culture and very into not hurting someones feeling (Our Nation's down fall I might add), it just won't happen. Unless those with a spine organize and lead it. With the exception of those who have served as military or LEOs, those who saw serving as a calling, I just don't see it happening on a national scale.
There aren't enough officers and nco's with a spine, or oath keepers to prevent a confiscation from occurring. Those who are of a constitutional mindset risk exposure, arrest and detention if they expose themselves in defiance of an unconstitutional order being given. They'd be better off feigning compliance, then looking the other way when dealing with civilians. Warning and feeding real time intel to the local population, while simultaneously formulating plans to arrest & detain their superior officers. Once you have the backing and force of cities and states, the Feds won't have any place to go.
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/2nd_amen.pdf
Putting this back up as I was looking for this to reference and the Wilson Combat Blog was down.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.