View Full Version : Soldiers pledge to refuse disarmament demands
VooDoo6Actual
04-02-09, 11:34
redaction.
Civilian police officers take note - you are welcome to join this distinguished group.
montanadave
04-02-09, 13:16
If only the Ohio National Guard had taken such an oath before Kent State!
If only the Ohio National Guard had taken such an oath before Kent State!
What?
variablebinary
04-02-09, 14:18
Orders are given, and orders will be followed.
If it comes down to you keeping a gun, and someone sworn being discharged, and watching their kids go hungry, bet your ass your gun will get smelted.
Sure some will buck the bosses, but a great many more have a natural aversion to breadlines, so don't expect too many badges to be in your corner.
Orders are given, and orders will be followed.
If it comes down to you keeping a gun, and someone sworn being discharged, and watching their kids go hungry, bet your ass your gun will get smelted.
Sure some will buck the bosses, but a great many more have a natural aversion to breadlines, so don't expect too many badges to be in your corner.
I believe you are correct.
If I may add,
our Oath also states that, "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."
The key is, I must obey all "lawful" orders, even if I don't like them. The article, I feel, didn't make a clear distinction on that level. In some cases, it may even be setting some Soldiers up for failure. I hope it never comes to that.
Orders are given, and orders will be followed.
If it comes down to you keeping a gun, and someone sworn being discharged, and watching their kids go hungry, bet your ass your gun will get smelted.
Sure some will buck the bosses, but a great many more have a natural aversion to breadlines, so don't expect too many badges to be in your corner.
I just can't invision this......nor do I want to. This is the one that would get 'ugly'. I don't think any red blooded patriot would knowingly break their duty to defend the constitution.
I know....I'm naive and have too many leo / military buddies who state they will not follow this order.
Man, I just don't like this thread:(:(
parishioner
04-02-09, 15:15
If I may add,
our Oath also states that, "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."
The key is, I must obey all "lawful" orders, even if I don't like them. The article, I feel, didn't make a clear distinction on that level. In some cases, it may even be setting some Soldiers up for failure. I hope it never comes to that.
Well, the president takes an oath saying "and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."
So technically, he cant even give such an order. He took the oath. So the soldiers should not have to worry about carrying out such orders. ;)
The key is, I must obey all "lawful" orders, even if I don't like them. The article, I feel, didn't make a clear distinction on that level. In some cases, it may even be setting some Soldiers up for failure. I hope it never comes to that.
Forget the article...if the Heller decision says it is an individual right then what sort of hypothetical situation are we even talking here and where would the warrior have issues to follow orders that do not coincide with the U.S. constitution??
I personally do not think they will ever knock on the door to take them back...the tactic is keeping our kids from getting what we can legally get today.
Well, the president takes an oath saying "and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."
So technically, he cant even give such an order. He took the oath. So the soldiers should not have to worry about carrying out such orders. ;)
Forget the article...if the Heller decision says it is an individual right then what sort of hypothetical situation are we even talking here and where would the warrior have issues to follow orders that do not coincide with the U.S. constitution??
I personally do not think they will ever knock on the door to take them back...the tactic is keeping our kids from getting what we can legally get today.
I agree with you guys. I think we need to be cautious, but also watch the conspiracy theorists. They can be just as dangerous as our perceived enemy...
If those soldiers don't take 'em, the .gov will find someone who will...
http://vodpod.com/watch/1485383-katrina-gun-confiscation
RogerinTPA
04-02-09, 16:17
I don't believe most military and peace officers would willfully follow such an order nor refuse and disobey it. I suspect there would be a whole lot of looking the other way and tipping off Americans, especially if I were in that position.
Orders are given, and orders will be followed.
If it comes down to you keeping a gun, and someone sworn being discharged, and watching their kids go hungry, bet your ass your gun will get smelted.
Sure some will buck the bosses, but a great many more have a natural aversion to breadlines, so don't expect too many badges to be in your corner.
This is what I believe also, now it wont be all, but most IMO
I cant see anyone giving up their protected 2A status or their income, benefits and insurance etc if they are ordered to do something or else
I hope Im wrong, but after NO I dont think i am
Derek_Connor
04-02-09, 17:18
If those soldiers don't take 'em, the .gov will find someone who will...
http://vodpod.com/watch/1485383-katrina-gun-confiscation
Im surprised how many people are unaware of Katrina and how many people's rights were taken during those months.
WND does a good part, but Katrina was a glaring example of what did and would happen again in the future.
Derek, true dat.
In MY State, that kind of bs is now statutorily prohibited :D
fruitjacket
04-02-09, 18:16
Forget the article...if the Heller decision says it is an individual right then what sort of hypothetical situation are we even talking here and where would the warrior have issues to follow orders that do not coincide with the U.S. constitution??
I personally do not think they will ever knock on the door to take them back...the tactic is keeping our kids from getting what we can legally get today.
Katrina ring a bell?
Orders are given, and orders will be followed.
If it comes down to you keeping a gun, and someone sworn being discharged, and watching their kids go hungry, bet your ass your gun will get smelted.
Sure some will buck the bosses, but a great many more have a natural aversion to breadlines, so don't expect too many badges to be in your corner.
I would like to say that you are wrong, but most likely you are correct. However I do think that a great many will not be to zealous in doing so.
The Stewart Rhodes the article is referring to is the same guy who writes the "Enemy at the Gate" column in SWAT magazine. He's local to Las Vegas, I've been to several of his lectures, and the man is very knowledgeable about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A good guy all around.
Orders are given, and orders will be followed.
If it comes down to you keeping a gun, and someone sworn being discharged, and watching their kids go hungry, bet your ass your gun will get smelted.
Sure some will buck the bosses, but a great many more have a natural aversion to breadlines, so don't expect too many badges to be in your corner.
This. Don't kid yourselves people.
I've said it before and I will say it again: If anyone seriously thinks that some 18-19 year old private is going to question or hesitate when he is ordered to fire on "domestic terrorists" you live in fantasy land.
If anyone seriously thinks that some 18-19 year old private is going to question or hesitate when he is ordered to fire on "domestic terrorists" you live in fantasy land.
Agreed.
Derek_Connor
04-02-09, 21:48
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 offers some level of protection against the confiscation of firearms during an emergency.
The part that still concerns me is the use of public transportation for evacuation. Under this Act, your weapons can still be taken from you, but are suppose to be returned. Although the written language is vague as to when that exactly is to be.
Am I missing something with this statement, this only applies to FEDERALLY funded organizations (big military, alphabet soup agencies, and so fourth)
No where does this state that the CLEO local to you, or deputy, or local pd cannot disarm you?
OldNavyGuy
04-02-09, 23:10
Orders are given, and orders will be followed.
If it comes down to you keeping a gun, and someone sworn being discharged, and watching their kids go hungry, bet your ass your gun will get smelted.
Sure some will buck the bosses, but a great many more have a natural aversion to breadlines, so don't expect too many badges to be in your corner.
we all have talked big at times so, i just wonder how many here on this forum and across this great country will pledge and swear to,
"From My Cold Dead Hands"
Spokesman Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers told WND his organization's goal is to remind military members their oath of allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution, not a particular president.
I doubt they need reminded about their oath.
Rhodes said his goal is to "teach them more about what they swore to defend so they will be better able to see when an order violates the Constitution and the rights of the people, and is thus unlawful."
Teach them more than??
This. Don't kid yourselves people.
I've said it before and I will say it again: If anyone seriously thinks that some 18-19 year old private is going to question or hesitate when he is ordered to fire on "domestic terrorists" you live in fantasy land.
When it comes to gun confiscation:
The first people to say " No , we can't do that. " are more likely to be closer to 48 to 59 years old , followed by the 28 to 48 age bracket . There are some very senior people in the services and DOD who won't drink that KoolAid. Katrina was a vaccination.
When it comes to real "domestic terrorists " --meaning the whacko Tim McVeigh wanna-be clowns:
The LE community can do just fine without assistance from the Federal Military anyway.
If I may add,
The key is, I must obey all "lawful" orders, even if I don't like them.
There's the key word.
we all have talked big at times so, i just wonder how many here on this forum and across this great country will pledge and swear to,
"From My Cold Dead Hands"
I pledge and swear to, and hope that all of you do, From My Cold Dead Hands
The Stewart Rhodes the article is referring to is the same guy who writes the "Enemy at the Gate" column in SWAT magazine.
When I read the article, I thought it might be the same guy.
Thanks for confirming that.
It's not Title 10 forces you need to be concerned about. Federal LE (e.g., FBI and BATF) are not going to sit out any domestic terrorist incident. State and local LE community will get plenty of "help."
I noticed the word "soldiers" in the thread title , hence the phrase : LE community. Which includes Fed's. I'm sure that LE can handle the Tim McVeigh fan club without help from the Federal military. OTOH , mass Federal confiscation of firearms from regular, normal , sane citizens is very unlikely , IMO.
YMMV.
stanlyonjr
04-03-09, 20:10
On March 14 1985 I took the oath to protect this nation against all enemy's both foreign and domestic. I never considered the American people to be a domestic enemy. Has anyone bothered to read the charter of there local PD? If you read carefully, there is nothing in there that says there job is to protect you the home owner/ citizen. There job is to protect the interests on the city period! If there charter stated any words that included you the citizen, you would see law suits daily if someone was raped or murdered. Don't see those law suits do you. Or when the cops kill some poor bystander in those high speed pursuits you see in Los Angeles. They have tried to sue the police for those chases without success (see city charter). As far as the cops turning against the citizens in a time of crisis, they will too busy protecting the interests of the city to worry about we the people ( see Los Angeles Rodney King Riots). As far as the Military turning against there own people, as a soldier I would consider that an unlawful order and I believe many of my fellow soldier would feel the same. IMO:D
fruitjacket
04-03-09, 20:49
I have the utmost respect for our LEO's. They have a thankless job IMO.
That being said, if they were ever to come to my door for my weapons, alot of people are going to be unhappy with the outcome. Period.
I have the utmost respect for our LEO's. They have a thankless job IMO.
That being said, if they were ever to come to my door for my weapons, alot of people are going to be unhappy with the outcome. Period.
Yes sir, i respect the LEO in my area and around the country more than they will ever know. Period, but i do beleive that there job is to uphold the LAW and our RIGHTS not strip us of them. IMHO in the small town where your good ol boys are the cops this crap wont fly, and if The commisar thinks theyll take our guns hes quite mistaken. I know in several of the areas ive lived in my short life the police force is made of good, honest, hardworkin, morally sound, capitol :D "A" :D Americans, and they too are outraged at this. Dont know bout all you alls areas though. Just my 2 cents.
fruitjacket
04-03-09, 22:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hERZjI
Judge for yourself.
and they too are outraged at this.
Outraged at what exactly?
If I may add,
our Oath also states that, "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."
The key is, I must obey all "lawful" orders, even if I don't like them. The article, I feel, didn't make a clear distinction on that level. In some cases, it may even be setting some Soldiers up for failure. I hope it never comes to that.
There is a WORLD of difference between "lawful" and "legal"... I believe it is UNLAWFUL to demand the disarmament of peaceable persons. It may, however, be quite "legal"...
Outraged at what exactly?
i should have stated it better sorry bout that, i meant the ones i know ( virtualy all of them, small town) are outraged at the fact obama plans to disarm the American public, plus on top of that they cant stand the fact that hes opposed to anything pertaining to God, that hes pro-gay, pro-abortion amongst other things. These LEOs i speak of are my friends that i grew up around, so we know each other pretty darn well. Sorry if i caused confusion
i should have stated it better sorry bout that, i meant the ones i know ( virtualy all of them, small town) are outraged at the fact obama plans to disarm the American public, plus on top of that they cant stand the fact that hes opposed to anything pertaining to God, that hes pro-gay, pro-abortion amongst other things. These LEOs i speak of are my friends that i grew up around, so we know each other pretty darn well. Sorry if i caused confusion
Ok. Thanks
thing is this is fantasy talk ?
I hope it never happens and I say "never say never !!"
but really if it comes down to this many will see it coming and hear about it they cant get every home in the US at one time so people will band together etc..
it will make world news as our country is ripped apart and pushed back to a 3rd world country and all will be destroyed the U.S. as we know it will be no more
also if it ever came to this there are going to be much much larger things to worry about at that point and I think military people and others will be thinking dif
to many scenarios to play out as to how things go but this is really in my eyes so so so so so far off I dont worry about it
and again if it happens chances are there are lots more things to worry about at that point in time
As a retired LEO (who moved) I wouldn't look at "good old boy" PDs as any bulwark against tyranny. A lot of those departments are essentially the muscle in a slightly updated feudal society. It's one of the better, less demanding jobs in a rural environment. You've got to look a lot deeper than the badge these days to know what you're going to get when the crunch comes. Just remember--they recruit from the larger culture, for good or for ill.
When Germany slid into Nazism there was very little resistance from the churches, the legal community, their legislature, or the police.
The Army, yes. They actually had a code they believed in. Tragically the oath of loyalty they took to Hitler conflicted with older traditions and neutered a lot of soldiers who otherwise might have acted.
I think people have hopefully learned and took lessons form hitler and wont let that happen again
texasrangers
04-04-09, 17:30
After seeing the police and military confiscate and break weapons during Katrina I have absolutely no faith in them to uphold any oaths whatsoever. Particularly horrifying was when the militarized law enforcement tactical team beat the shit out of the elderly woman who did not want to leave her home. Amerika - land of the free.
Particularly horrifying was when the militarized law enforcement tactical team beat the shit out of the elderly woman who did not want to leave her home. Amerika - land of the free.
I would like to review that beating. I wasn't able to get anything from Google. Would you point me in the right direction?
I would like to review that beating. I wasn't able to get anything from Google. Would you point me in the right direction?
It was ugly & and those involved should be ashamed. You may want to check with NRA as they have used / documented Katrina very well as a warning.
Not sure which leo agency....I thought it was sherrif dept??
It was ugly & and those involved should be ashamed. You may want to check with NRA as they have used / documented Katrina very well as a warning.
Not sure which leo agency....I thought it was sherrif dept??
Thanks. Found it
TheGhostRider
04-05-09, 20:49
Some things to think about.
The following words are nothing more than me thinking out loud and typing at the same time.
The 2nd Amendment is one Amendment that is "open to interpretation" buy many in the judicial system; (law enforcement, judges, lawyers, congress, senate, office of the president).
While we here on M4C read the 2nd for what it is and take the words literally, there are many people in power that read it and come to a whole different conclusion.
The Heller case did reinforce the 2nd Amendment as being an "individual" right rather than a "Collective" right. But that has not changed the opinions of many in the judicial system... it just made them angrier.
Therefore a Soldier, Police officer or any other federal or state employee will be subjected to his or her higher authority. In most cases the higher authority will support the next highest authority's "Opinion".
If the POTUS gives an order to General Grumpy Rump to "secure" a neighborhood/city and it includes house to house search and seizure... you can bet the majority of the boots on the ground are going to follow that order...
Why? Because the higher authority told them too!
And because so many in "Our" gov't and Judicial system (Judges) hold an opinion contrary to the Heller case, those that choose to stand down and not follow orders because they know it's wrong will pay a heavy price... possibly with their lives. People in power (dictators) are not very nice to those who disobey a direct order, especially during "stressful events". Think it won't happen here... read some history books.
The level of confusion... the mayhem that would ensue amongst the ranks would be a disaster. Think about it.... You have a platoon of soldiers on standby waiting for orders..... the orders come down to secure the city, house to house search and seizure of all weapons...
One little problem though! It's a 50/50 split in the platoon 50% are no-go and the other 50% are ready to follow orders.
Now what?
Now... how many platoon's are here in the states at any giving time?
How many are on standby waiting for their orders?
I think we would have one "Big dangerous cluster****" at this point.
I believe that a majority of our Soldiers and LEO's are damn straight and good people who's values are in line with most of us here on M4C.
Unfortunately, I believe there are a lot out there that are just the opposite.
parishioner
04-05-09, 21:14
This....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
An Undocumented Worker
04-05-09, 21:28
I have a feeling the Heard Mentality will be a big factor with officers/soldiers on the streets if that order comes down. The ones who would stop an unconstituional order from being executed would be your local elected officials. Those are the leaders that the officers on the frontline would follow.
Those are the leaders who also have the authority to say no to such orders, and get away with it.
Oh and for the link just posted above, there was a movie made about that experiment. Called "The Experiment". That movie was far more disturbing than any horror film I have ever seen. And not due to any gratuitous violence or gore of any sort, but that it very effectively portrayed how easily our so called humanity can devolve with normal people.
Smuckatelli
04-05-09, 21:38
This....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
That was from the early 60's, while it is interesting reading, the armed services today are completely different from that time.
Smuckatelli
04-05-09, 21:44
For situational awareness; here are the oaths that are taken:
In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
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.
In the National Guard (Army or Air)
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) 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 Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
parishioner
04-05-09, 21:58
That was from the early 60's, while it is interesting reading, the armed services today are completely different from that time.
Technically, it doesn't matter if it is the military or not. It was a study of human behavior and it showed that the majority of people submitted to the higherarchy even when they knew what they were doing was wrong. 65% of the people gave the subject the final fatal shock when told to do so because they were under the impression that they would not be directly responsible. Im not trying to be rude but if you cant see how that could possibly apply to the topic at hand then Im sorry.
For situational awareness; here are the oaths that are taken:
In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
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.
In the National Guard (Army or Air)
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) 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 Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
Key phrases in red - they were NOT placed there unintentionally. Those in the military (and LEOs for that matter) would be wise to consider the meaning (and *placement*) behind the inclusion of such language, and note that the phrase was NOT placed behind the statement of loyalty to the Constitution.
Key phrases in red - they were NOT placed there unintentionally. Those in the military (and LEOs for that matter) would be wise to consider the meaning (and *placement*) behind the inclusion of such language, and note that the phrase was NOT placed behind the statement of loyalty to the Constitution.
Thank you for the recommendation. I will consider it.
Smuckatelli
04-05-09, 22:44
It doesnt really matter if it is the military or not. It was a study of human behavior and it showed that the majority of people submitted to the higherarchy even when they knew what they were doing was wrong. 65% of the people gave the subject the final fatal shock when told to do so because they were under the impression that they would not be directly responsible.
Human behavior in the 60's was different than today. I am sorry for you that you feel that we have not progressed.
The 60's were all about questioning authority.
Something else that you should think about, the participants knew that they were conducting an experiment. The foundation of your assumption on how LEOs and servicemembers would respond is from a population of 40......
Here's a pretty good article that you should probably read:
http://www.jsecjournal.com/PDF/JSEC_Mesoudi_1-2.pdf
Something that you may also want to think about is that the servicemembers swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.......
The second part of the oath require the first part to be followed. As long as the 2nd Amendment is there; Capt Jones or Pvt Smuckatelli will not follow an unconstitutional order.
Smuckatelli
04-05-09, 22:49
Key phrases in red - they were NOT placed there unintentionally. Those in the military (and LEOs for that matter) would be wise to consider the meaning (and *placement*) behind the inclusion of such language, and note that the phrase was NOT placed behind the statement of loyalty to the Constitution.
The areas in red are talked about constantly. As long those orders were NOT in conflict with the Constitution there was no problem.
That is the reason there wasn't a mass exodus from the Armed Services when President Clinton was in office.
The_War_Wagon
04-05-09, 22:51
People "vote" with their feet and their wallets. A LOT of them are beating paths to gunshops and gun shows, where they're buying everything that ain't nailed down.
Why?
If they were all casual plinkers, why not a .22LR pistol and long arm? They're cheap, accurate, and can be shot on indoor ranges as well. And why buy all that ammo? A couple boxes before each trip to the range should suffice - why buy THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of rounds, UNLESS... :confused:
Somebody - MANY somebodies - have thought this through, and are still acting accordingly. If they were all "crazy," they'd of either never gotten hold (legally!) of firearms to start with, OR, they'd of ALREADY 'gone postal' with 'em.
So what's the deal again? :confused:
I think people have given these times a LOT of thought, and this IS where it has gotten us. It is symptomatic of LARGER problems in this country, and the widespread perception, that WORSE is YET to come. :eek:
I don't 'like' this thread, because I don't 'like' what has become of my country. :( That's the REAL bother...
parishioner
04-05-09, 23:38
Human behavior in the 60's was different than today. I am sorry for you that you feel that we have not progressed.
The 60's were all about questioning authority.
Something else that you should think about, the participants knew that they were conducting an experiment. The foundation of your assumption on how LEOs and servicemembers would respond is from a population of 40......
Here's a pretty good article that you should probably read:
http://www.jsecjournal.com/PDF/JSEC_Mesoudi_1-2.pdf
Something that you may also want to think about is that the servicemembers swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.......
The second part of the oath require the first part to be followed. As long as the 2nd Amendment is there; Capt Jones or Pvt Smuckatelli will not follow an unconstitutional order.
Here is an article from the magazine Psychology Today. They must be a bunch of hacks...http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20020301-000037.html
Here's a quote "Those groundbreaking and controversial experiments have had—and continue to have—long-lasting significance. They demonstrated with jarring clarity that ordinary individuals could be induced to act destructively even in the absence of physical coercion, and humans need not be innately evil or aberrant to act in ways that are reprehensible and inhumane. While we would like to believe that when confronted with a moral dilemma we will act as our conscience dictates, Milgram's obedience experiments teach us that in a concrete situation with powerful social constraints, our moral sense can easily be trampled."
Yes, they knew it was an experiment of memory and learning. What they didnt know is that they were the subjects being studied!!!
As for the population of 40, its actually a sample of 40 and Im fairly certain that due to the Central Limit Theorem, which serves as the cornerstone for the majority of inferential statistics, the sample means will have an approximately normal distribution if we have at least 30 or more people in our sample. So when n>30 the shape is alomost perfectly normal regardless of the shape of the original population. Clearly, Milgram could not test all possible subjects. That is why we have inferential statistics so that we can estimate the probability that the same findings would occur if the same experiment were repeated over and over again.
If I may add,
our Oath also states that, "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."
The key is, I must obey all "lawful" orders, even if I don't like them. The article, I feel, didn't make a clear distinction on that level. In some cases, it may even be setting some Soldiers up for failure. I hope it never comes to that.
problem with "obeying" orders,is just like the schoolyard bully,our wonderful politicians always pass new laws so as not to "break" the old ones.they change the "rules" to suit their objectives.
i am happy as hell that there are soldiers that are smart enough to see thru the smoke an mirrors put up by our dis-honorable politicians.remember,the ss pledged their loyalty to the fuhrer,hitler.kinda scary that we have a parallel situation where soldiers and leo's blindly obey politicians rather than the constitution.truly scary times indeed.
I think some of you guys need to loosen your tinfoil beenies as the oxygen deprivation is affecting your thoughts. You may think that those in the military or LE agencies will blindly obey, but I disagree. Yes, there have been wrongdoings committed, most notably during Katrina. But, many have seen that and also recognize that it was wrong.
Let's put this into context. What happened during Katrina more than likely happened because those that were doing the confiscation thought that they were actually helping the overall situation. They may have even thought it was a temporary situation and that those people would get their property back. In any case it was bad judgement.
However, when we start talking about total disarmament of the civilian population we have entered down a whole new path. We are now talking about a deliberate attempt to permanently deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms.
When that happens you will see a whole lot of people in the military and LE agencies refuse and they will break ranks. I venture to say that most of you that say otherwise have never served in the military or in an LEO capacity.
As a LEO and an assistant Chief of a local PD, I can assure you that I am not a mindless zombie. IF something like this was to happen, I would merely ask if someone had a gun, when going from house to house at the bequest of the federal government. In other words, I would look the other way, keep my job, avoid contempt charges, and the feds are none the wiser. I respect the 2nd ammendment, and would not violate it. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens makes my job easier. They are a deterrent to criminals. We are not all mindless zombies here in LE. Most of us are average Joe's who hunt and shoot as well. I even have an EBR, and shoot it with a friend of mine who is a medic.
VooDoo6Actual
04-06-09, 07:22
+1 on the last two posts.
Good solid COGENT thoughts.
... It sounds as though some of you think that all leo's are mindless goofs. ... I only have one person that I know of that would actually have the balls to make a stand. ...
Great - only *one* with the balls to make a stand? What does that say about the rest you know, and what can you do to make a difference among your peers?
Smuckatelli
04-06-09, 09:39
Here is an article from the magazine Psychology Today. They must be a bunch of hacks...http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20020301-000037.html
Here's a quote "Those groundbreaking and controversial experiments have had—and continue to have—long-lasting significance. They demonstrated with jarring clarity that ordinary individuals could be induced to act destructively even in the absence of physical coercion, and humans need not be innately evil or aberrant to act in ways that are reprehensible and inhumane. While we would like to believe that when confronted with a moral dilemma we will act as our conscience dictates, Milgram's obedience experiments teach us that in a concrete situation with powerful social constraints, our moral sense can easily be trampled."
I'll take a guess here, you didn't bother to read the whole article that you are quoting:
The increased traffic was due to the arrival and departure of participants in an experiment with unexpected findings that would make it one of the most significant—and controversial—psychological studies of the 20th century.
Milgram was invited back to Harvard's social relations department as an assistant professor.
But he was never granted tenure. Some of the opposition toward Milgram came from colleagues who felt uneasy about him, ascribing to him certain negative properties of the obedience experiment.
We constantly have psychologist conducting experiments with the Marines. Every experiment in the past 6 years that I have been involved with ALWAYS come back as subjective, never objective.
As for the population of 40, its actually a sample of 40 and Im fairly certain that due to the Central Limit Theorem, which serves as the cornerstone for the majority of inferential statistics, the sample means will have an approximately normal distribution if we have at least 30 or more people in our sample. So when n>30 the shape is alomost perfectly normal regardless of the shape of the original population. Clearly, Milgram could not test all possible subjects. That is why we have inferential statistics so that we can estimate the probability that the same findings would occur if the same experiment were repeated over and over again.
Again, from your link:
It was an ambitious study, involving almost 400 subjects. Overall, Milgram found the Norwegians to be more conforming than the French participants.
The Norwegians are more conforming than the French, yet an experiment conducted in the US in the 60's determines how our LEOs and Military would react today. There were cultural differences that he identified back then, there are cultural differences between 1961 and 2009. I'm sorry for you if you still think we live in a Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best world.
Something that you may want to think about, Milgram wasn't even happy with himself:
My true spiritual home is Central Europe, not France, the Mediterranean countries, England, Scandinavia or Northern Germany, but that area which is bounded by the cities of Munich, Vienna and Prague .... I should have been born into the German-speaking Jewish community of Prague in 1922 and died in a gas chamber some 20 years later. How I came to be born in the Bronx Hospital, I'll never quite understand.
I spent 21 years on active duty in the Infantry, since retiring I have been directly involved with work being conducted by the Office of Naval Research; specifically Human Performance Training & Education.
LEOs and the Military do not blindly follow orders.
parishioner
04-06-09, 12:55
I'll take a guess here, you didn't bother to read the whole article that you are quoting:
The increased traffic was due to the arrival and departure of participants in an experiment with unexpected findings that would make it one of the most significant—and controversial—psychological studies of the 20th century.
Milgram was invited back to Harvard's social relations department as an assistant professor.
But he was never granted tenure. Some of the opposition toward Milgram came from colleagues who felt uneasy about him, ascribing to him certain negative properties of the obedience experiment.
We constantly have psychologist conducting experiments with the Marines. Every experiment in the past 6 years that I have been involved with ALWAYS come back as subjective, never objective.
Again, from your link:
It was an ambitious study, involving almost 400 subjects. Overall, Milgram found the Norwegians to be more conforming than the French participants.
The Norwegians are more conforming than the French, yet an experiment conducted in the US in the 60's determines how our LEOs and Military would react today. There were cultural differences that he identified back then, there are cultural differences between 1961 and 2009. I'm sorry for you if you still think we live in a Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best world.
Something that you may want to think about, Milgram wasn't even happy with himself:
My true spiritual home is Central Europe, not France, the Mediterranean countries, England, Scandinavia or Northern Germany, but that area which is bounded by the cities of Munich, Vienna and Prague .... I should have been born into the German-speaking Jewish community of Prague in 1922 and died in a gas chamber some 20 years later. How I came to be born in the Bronx Hospital, I'll never quite understand.
I spent 21 years on active duty in the Infantry, since retiring I have been directly involved with work being conducted by the Office of Naval Research; specifically Human Performance Training & Education.
LEOs and the Military do not blindly follow orders.
It was controversial due to the obvious ethical and moral issues i.e. tricking people into thinking they just killed somebody. I also fail to see how his personal and internal conflicts have anything to do with his experiment on obedience.
Lastly, I am not concluding or guaranteeing anything. My reasoning for posting the link to milgrams experiment was mearly because I thought it was worth noting. I hope to god that military/leo would never do something like that and Im fairly certain that they wouldn't but then again I never would have thought that 65% of the people would actually go through with killing someone. There is a video of a woman keeling over and eventually dieing in the emergency room waiting room, with people all around and they did nothing. You would have thought that someone would have said something. People do strange things. The experiment is just something that should be acknowledged. Im done.
Here is the video of the woman dieing on the waiting room floor....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lKUwBCIBzA
texasrangers
04-06-09, 15:01
I think some of you guys need to loosen your tinfoil beenies as the oxygen deprivation is affecting your thoughts.
Let's put this into context. What happened during Katrina more than likely happened because those that were doing the confiscation thought that they were actually helping the overall situation. They may have even thought it was a temporary situation and that those people would get their property back. In any case it was bad judgement.
I'm sorry but I think you need to watch the video of the Katrina confiscations where the militarized law enforcement tactical team kicks the shit out of that poor, frail old woman who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. And then you should watch it again, and think about it. I live in Dallas. I read stories too frequently of regular patrol cops beating the shit out of people and tasing them when it is completely unnecessary. Please don't get me wrong - I do not think all cops are bad. But the police in this country are no longer "peace officers" - they have become militarized to fight the completely unconstitutional War on Drugs. SWAT teams and Sheriff depts have armored vehicles these days. The DEA busts down cancer stricken grandmas' doors in California to confiscate the plant that they are legally allowed to grow in their state - a plant that the Federal Gov't, and the DEA, have absolutely no right to regulate.
I truly hope that you are correct that the vast majority of LE and Military will not obey unconstitutional orders to confiscate our weapons. The facts, few as they are, do not seem to support this.
Smuckatelli
04-06-09, 15:11
It was controversial due to the obvious ethical and moral issues i.e. tricking people into thinking they just killed somebody. I also fail to see how his personal and internal conflicts have anything to do with his experiment on obedience.
The controversy wasn't limited to the obvious ethical and moral issues. Having limited sources of information in a novel or uncertain situation played into his experiment. Someone within the group saying 'no' would stop the person from applying additional voltage.
His personal and internal conflicts directed the experiment, those were what drove him.
It probably would have been better had to expressed why you were bringing this into this thead instead of just posting a link with no explaination.
Putting it into a thread about Soldiers refusing disarmament orders; Milgram found that when paired with someone else there was significant less chance that the killing volt would be administered, generally soldiers and LEOs are paired.
You may see something that I don't.
Do you see a scenario where the authority figure standing next to the soldiers telling them to take our guns?
I am familiar with the Katrina video and what happened, thanks. There are bad apples and those that would act wrong in every place and walk of life.
I have no idea about the stories that you are reading about cops beating people and tasing them and it's irrelevant to this particular situation.
I agree that there are issues with the "militarization" of the local police depts. but we also have to recognize that in many cases it was in direct response to the amount of violence being perpetrated by the drug dealers.
It's your opinion that the "war on drugs" is unconstitutional, but until the laws are repealed they are still the laws. Please tell me about the cancer stricken grandma having her plants taken away. I lived in California and I can tell you first hand that the level of drug enforcement that I saw was going down quite a bit.
Please quantify why you think that the Federal gov't and the DEA (one on the same actually) have no right to regulate marijuana.
There is no constitutional protection to grow, use or sell marijuana or any other drug. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I'm sorry but I think you need to watch the video of the Katrina confiscations where the militarized law enforcement tactical team kicks the shit out of that poor, frail old woman who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. And then you should watch it again, and think about it. I live in Dallas. I read stories too frequently of regular patrol cops beating the shit out of people and tasing them when it is completely unnecessary. Please don't get me wrong - I do not think all cops are bad. But the police in this country are no longer "peace officers" - they have become militarized to fight the completely unconstitutional War on Drugs. SWAT teams and Sheriff depts have armored vehicles these days. The DEA busts down cancer stricken grandmas' doors in California to confiscate the plant that they are legally allowed to grow in their state - a plant that the Federal Gov't, and the DEA, have absolutely no right to regulate.
I truly hope that you are correct that the vast majority of LE and Military will not obey unconstitutional orders to confiscate our weapons. The facts, few as they are, do not seem to support this.
Please quantify why you think that the Federal gov't and the DEA (one on the same actually) have no right to regulate marijuana.
There is no constitutional protection to grow, use or sell marijuana or any other drug. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I'll volunteer to take a stab at this with some food for thought (note - not law, but mere reasoning).
Why did it take a Constitutional amendment to enact Prohibition for alcohol, yet "controlled substances" have been exempted from similar treatment? And today we have a "bureau" that equates alcohol with tobacco/firearms/explosives?
The 9th and 10th Amendments prohibit the feds from tinkering with issues left to the People and the States (i.e., People > feds, and States > feds). George Washington himself grew hemp and would be subjected to DEA/nanny state busts if he were alive today, but George didn't need a constitutional amendment to grow hemp, did he? (Answer: no, because he already had the right).
Just like Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided by the feds, these issues belong to the States and to the People and not to the feds.
Again - just food for thought.
stanlyonjr
04-07-09, 11:54
Let face it folks the second amendment says" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". I don't know about you but its pretty clear to me. IMO even the US Supreme court has no business looking at any case involving guns. None the less we the people allow it to happen. We allow elected and non-elected judges to define what to me is a pretty clear sentence. We want to blame someone for the injustices we see happening, we need not look any further than the mirror. Until we the people decide we won't put up with these injustices it will continue to get worse. Make no mistake, the powers that be want your guns. The only thing hindering the Government from controlling all aspects of your life is we who exercise our right to keep and bear arms. I for one want all Americans to own a firearm.
Take the Swiss for instance. All citizens are required to serve in the armed forces. After there term of service, you are inactive member of the Military for the rest of your life. You take your rifle home with you. If the nation is threatened, guess who shows up to face the threat? Thats right everyone. You never hear of the Swiss making fools of themselves in the media. Mark Twain said "An armed society is a polite society". He might have been on to something. Just my opinion!
There is no constitutional protection to grow, use or sell marijuana or any other drug. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
You have it backwards.
There is no listed Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to do it. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, it is left to the states or the people to decide.
A plain English reading of the Constitution is all it takes.
Not only that, but the power of the government comes from the consent of the governed. Judging by the sheer size and scope of the illicit drug trade, it is quite clear that a large portion of the populace has withdrawn their "consent" to be governed on this particular issue.
Not to mention that the War on Some Drugs is solely responsible for every new encroachment upon our liberties in recent history. Every time you turn around, the courts are weakinging the protections against unreasonable search and in every case, the WoD is behind it.
Well I guess I am all ****ed up. Personally, I have no problem with drungs being illegal because I have seen the damage that drug addiction causes not to mention the financial burden on our country. Everyone has their opinions.
You have it backwards.
There is no listed Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to do it. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, it is left to the states or the people to decide.
A plain English reading of the Constitution is all it takes.
Not only that, but the power of the government comes from the consent of the governed. Judging by the sheer size and scope of the illicit drug trade, it is quite clear that a large portion of the populace has withdrawn their "consent" to be governed on this particular issue.
Not to mention that the War on Some Drugs is solely responsible for every new encroachment upon our liberties in recent history. Every time you turn around, the courts are weakinging the protections against unreasonable search and in every case, the WoD is behind it.
fruitjacket
04-07-09, 13:25
Well I guess I am all ****ed up. Personally, I have no problem with drungs being illegal because I have seen the damage that drug addiction causes not to mention the financial burden on our country. Everyone has their opinions.
I guess that depends on what your version of Liberty is.
If you believe that the government knows what's best for us as free individuals, then that's your opinion.
I personally don't like to see drug addicts either, but it's not the govts place to tell people how to live their lives. That...in it's essense...is Liberty.
Exactly right.
No one is saying that meth addiction is a wonderful thing.
But your "cure" is far, far worse than the disease.
Because if you can find legal and moral justification for having the government control your drug use, I can take that same line of reasoning and apply it to smoking tobacco, fatty foods, obesity, and government-mandated exercise programs.
I'll take freedom, with all its warts, over the nanny state any time.
No one is saying that meth addiction is a wonderful thing.
One could also make the argument that meth (a home-cooked drug) is nothing but a market-based response to the fight against "naturally grown" drugs and would go away once marijuana/coke/heroin/mushrooms/LSD are (once again) legalized (including LSD in the natural list as it is a derivative of a bread mold/fungus).
Submariner
04-08-09, 07:39
You have it backwards.
There is no listed Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to do it. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, it is left to the states or the people to decide.
A plain English reading of the Constitution is all it takes.
Not only that, but the power of the government comes from the consent of the governed. Judging by the sheer size and scope of the illicit drug trade, it is quite clear that a large portion of the populace has withdrawn their "consent" to be governed on this particular issue.
Not to mention that the War on Some Drugs is solely responsible for every new encroachment upon our liberties in recent history. Every time you turn around, the courts are weakinging the protections against unreasonable search and in every case, the WoD is behind it.
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." ~ Thomas Jefferson
OldNavyGuy
04-08-09, 08:08
If you read carefully, there is nothing in there that says there (their) job is to protect you the home owner/ citizen.
police, cops, sheriffs, deputys, etc. all have guns, if their job is NOT to protect me, then i need a gun.., am i on the right track ?
What he is saying is that there is long established case law which states that police or other LE agencies do not have a specific duty to protect you as an individual, but rather the public at large.
One of the oldest cases is South v. Maryland. There is also;
Warren v. District of Columbia
DeShaney v. Winnebago County of Social Services
police, cops, sheriffs, deputys, etc. all have guns, if their job is NOT to protect me, then i need a gun.., am i on the right track ?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.