Scary thing at drill this weekend

[joab]

Clearly my education stopped at the 8th grade, unlike you cultural elitists with doctorates from David Duke University.

You are clearly unable to participate in an intelligent debate on the subject so you resort to stupid little accusations of racism to try to mask you're own ignorance
I see that you try to use little witisms in your other posts trying to make yourself look more intelligent than you are and you only succeed in making your self look like a condescending pseudo intellectual dumbass

When your only rebuttals are word twisting and depths of stupidity insults and accusation of racism then you are outclassed in the discussion so try to discuss it intelligently or bow out before you make yourself look like a complete ass

 

[pacodelahoya]

Plexrecticle, I have a fair amount of active military time under my belt also.
I never said that the Battalion commander plans every ftx down to the squad level as you implied. On the other hand, a 1st Lt dosn't just go out on the weekend and play weekend warrior without written op orders.

As far as me being paranoid, explain the patriot act, the mcain feingold act, the everi ncreasing willingness to disarm citizens, the war on people who use drugs, dui checkpoints(clear violation of the fourth ammendment) ruby ridge, waco texas ad infinatum. Oop almost forgot the Kelo VS new london decision.
I'm sure that pol pot and stalin had lots of followers too. Not saying we are there yet, but it would certainly look to me like we are heading in that general direction.

Hey, lets not leave out no knock warrants and the disarming of the Katrina victims.

Am I paranoid if I see a pattern in all this?

Maybe it's all just isolated cases right?

How about the fact that the government run schools don't teach the 2A and if you mention that you got a new deer gun to you buddy, you get expelled.

How's about the fact that kindergatners get expelled for bringing nail clippers or plastic knives to school?

Nope, nothing to see here folks, move along.

 

[eric_t12]

YES!

+1! The government is here to help me. they will make me safe, noone will commit crime against me or hurt me, with their help.

[gun handover] here you go, man in black!

thank you kind citizen. go inside, curfew is in effect. the one officer in the mile radius will attend to all of your personal needs as well as those of every person in his AOR.

No, thank YOU kind man-in-black. i'm sure you will do all you can, not to further your career, but to protect me, since i'm now defenseless! have a good night. [/gun handover]

please.

give everyone their right to bear arms back, as we all should have in the first place, and we will take a step in the right direction. The reasoning behind this i usually use - which rights are the most benevolent (or for that matter dangerous to them) to give? the ones that give your constituent the power to talk to [the man] or meet others to speak as one about what's wrong to [the man] or the ones that give him the ability to remove [the man] if you do too much wrong? :banghead:

If a politician can concede the right of the people to defend THEMSELVES equivocably from their assailnt, whoever that may be, they have my vote, because it seems impossible to me to allow someone such a dangerous right (dangerous to the man), and not allow the 'less dangerous' ones like, freedom of speech or petition. it would boggle my mind if that were ever proven wrong, as well. please don't prove me wrong lol.

+1 for Ron Paul, and maybe Fred Thompson.

 

[JWarren]

Somehow this thread as meandered from troops training to engage state militias to a discussion of slavery and racism. I suppose I can understand the segway considering our nation's history.

Guys, its time to drop the slavery/racism discussion.

I don't think that any rational person in today's society would defend slavery. In a different period of time and in different places, people had differing views. It is amateur academia to attempt to interpret and understand the society of that period by using current ethical concepts.

Blanketly equating slavery to racism is equally amateur. It is a fact that essentially all black persons that were brought to this country were to be slaves. What the pop-culture educated person does not understand is that [Depending on the source of the estimates] over the history of the US MORE white persons were subjected to slavery than any other race. It was called Indentured servants. While that sounded like a better deal than slavery, this presumption would be misleading and outright incorrect.

In Indentured Servants, the mortality rate was much higher and the work was often worse. Why? Well, how well to you treat a rental car? If you are going to have to release a worker in a number of years, you want to get as much work as you can out of him. One text I read cites a negro work song of the 1800's whose lyric says "I'd rather be a N___ than a poor white man."

Slavery was never about racism. It was about a economic system of exploitation. This system was neither originated nor perpetuated by the "South." Even a passing look at our history will show Northern, English, Portugese, Dutch, and other participation. The South, being a heavily agragarian economy naturally demonstrated the system longer than our North.

Again, Slavery was not racism. The time for labeling and name-calling of anyone who has a differing view than you is LONG over.


I will be happy to provide source references to anything I have asserted in this post by request. I'm doing a home restoration, so please bear with me on a timeframe. I have to dig up a few books-- and I know for certain the best of my material is on loan to a family member. I can, however, retreive the material when time permits.


Now, let's PLEASE discuss the original topic. It is one that deserves a healthy discussion.


-- John

 

[Don Gwinn]

How about the fact that the government run schools don't teach the 2A and if you mention that you got a new deer gun to you buddy, you get expelled.

Not everybody sees hyperbole, so I'll just point out that this is not true in any "government school" where I've ever worked. This year there were student-made posters depicting the 2nd Amendment and the weapons it protects on the walls of the 8th grade hallway for most of the year, right there alongside the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Don, do you deny that many government schools refuse to teach the 2a?

Good googly moogly, how many times have we seen the headlines "third grader expelled for wearing gun on shirt" or "1st grader expelled for drawing picture of gun"

or headlines to that affect.

 

[online2mch]

Mythical Opfor

It may not have been the LT but I think there was a dunce somewhere in the chain of command. Most notional OPFOR I've experienced have been some thinly disguised enemy like Krasnovian or Corinthians.

 

[Don Gwinn]

That said, let's not call each other uneducated racists anymore, shall we?

 

[coyote_jr]

Check out the TwentyNine Palms Combat Arms Survey from several years ago where the Marines were asked if they would fire on American citizens if ordered to disarm them.

A very large percentage said that they would.

That's understandable. I'm sure that the Marines are trained to return fire.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Don, do you deny that many government schools refuse to teach the 2a?

Absolutely. Maybe some do. Most don't. In Illinois, students have to pass a standard test over the Constitution to graduate from any school. That means all high schools and most middle schools and junior highs (since most of them have decided to run those silly 8th-grade graduations.)

All I can tell you is what I actually see in the school. Guns on shirts aren't treated any differently than a bottle of Budweiser or a hot girl in a bikini on a shirt where I work--not appropriate for school. People don't get expelled over inappropriate shirts. This is at one of the best schools in the state according to both the state and the feds--they love us.

There's no conspiracy. There are individual teachers and principals who disagree with you on a political issue, and some of them are so fear-driven that they get irrational.
Just like the leadership in any other company or job you can name.
Your school is not run by the federal government or the military high command. If you don't like their policies, CHANGE their policies. You have far more control over your local school board than anything the state or the feds do.
Do you know who's on your school board?

 

[Don Gwinn]

Coyote, that was pithy. I wonder how many will catch it?

 

[Titan6]

Fully agree Don. However if someone is going to take a cheap shot and call me uneducated for a POV clearly shared by thousands of college professors of history, than they must understand that I will point out their POV is regarded as racist by many people. We will have to agree to disagree as many people in this country do on the Civil War.

But on the more important issue of the thread to assume that the state government has no plan to deal with insurrection and train towards that end is foolish. While the vast majority of militia work and train towards good and honest ends there is an element that is little more than criminal and does not. Failure to plan on how to deal with such events (certainly some events have already occurred) is akin to the police having no plan to deal with bank robbers.

With the quality and capabilities of small arms available today a large militia could easily overwhelm the resources of a small county. So I ask you would you rather have the fed deal with situation and bring back shades of Waco or let the State handle it? I for one would rather have the state handle it.

 

[Outlaws]

However if someone is going to take a cheap shot and call me uneducated for a POV clearly shared by thousands of college professors of history, than they must understand that I will point out their POV is regarded as racist by many people.

...and college professors are well known for their unbiased politics.

 

[pacodelahoya]

That's understandable. I'm sure that the Marines are trained to return fire.

Does anyone have a link to the survey? I would like to see it before I reply to the above quote.

 

[pacodelahoya]

nevermind, I found it.

It never said that the persons who resisted fired first.

The U.S. 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 U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government

And I'll follow that with: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If they come for my guns, I die but I ain't going alone.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The power of secession is not given to the federal government, nor is it prohibited to the States. Therefore, under the 10th Ammendment, it is reserved by the states or people.

Further evidence that the States are just that, sovereign states, and that our allegiance is NOT to the federal government and its flag, but to our states:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Notice, the words "them" and the significance of that?

And as for Lincoln's claim that he had sworn an oath to keep the union together, not at all:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He merely swore to uphold the Constitution, not the union. And the Constitution states the power of seccession is reserved to the states, under Ammendment 10.

And why, must I ask, would the founders have prohibited an action in the Constitution that they wrote, which not many years earlier they themselves had engaged in, and they had written and/or signed a Declaration of Independence, stating people have the right to replace a government or break away from one?


And wasn't Lincoln imposing involuntary servitude when he imposed a draft?

Ammendment 13:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."


And the "Emancipation Proclamation" freed no one. It did not free slaves in the border states, over which the North still had control. Nor did it free Southern slaves, since they were not under federal control at the time. It was a clever piece of propaganda to get people thinking they were fighting to free slaves, when in fact, they were fighting to expand the size and power of the federal government.

 

[Outlaws]

And the "Emancipation Proclamation" freed no one. It did not free slaves in the border states, over which the North still had control. Nor did it free Southern slaves, since they were not under federal control at the time.

Well, to be fair, it was a notice to the slave population of the southern states that if the Union won they would be given freedom. This is something for the slaves to rally behind and join the fight on behalf of the Union. Lincoln was reluctant, but was able to see the obvious fact that 50% of the souths population was slaves, and if you offer them freedom, he would have a LOT of potential soldiers already embedded in place.

And on another issue, lets not forget one of Lincolns quotes...
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."

 

[AntiqueCollector]

And it was utter failure too...the Southerners weren't gonna go around telling their slaves about it.

 

[brerrabbit]

Lets end the slavery debate and get back on topic.
Lincoln had a lot of quotes that pretty much point out that the war was not over slavery.

We effectively have two governments. Federal and state. A state has rights granted to it under the constitution. Regardless of what happened to the federal interpretation at the end of the civil war, those rights still exist.

While the constitution never covered the seccession question directly, that would fall under a states rights area. If it does not, then does that mean the states are all directly responsible to the federal government for all their state business? Most would say not.

As I understand it, reconstruction after the civil war was pretty horrible, with rights trampled on by all. Is it worth it to the federal government to get another hundred years of it?

Terrorism is the name of the game today. If the federal government quelled an attempt at secession, would they be willing to handle the level of domestic attacks the would be sure to ensue from the natives of the states that they attacked? From their relatives in other states? Are they going to sequester the all of the citizens of a state that tried to secede? For how long?

 

[Frog48]

And it was utter failure too...the Southerners weren't gonna go around telling their slaves about it.

This is true. Most slaves didnt know about it until the Union troops rolled through town. The Emancipation Proclamation did little to stir up slave revolts and soften up the South before Union troops arrived in a particular area.

While I feel that slavery is a disgusting institution, I recognize and respect that the Constitution did not expressly forbid slavery, and therefore was totally legal under the 10th amendment.

If you think about it, the 13th amendment is nothing more than an ex post facto justification for the Union's unconstitutional actions.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Coyote, that was pithy. I wonder how many will catch it?

Me, I caught it. Even before your "broad hint" that there was something there to catch ...

 

[The Unknown User]

The military is supposed to train you for the situations you may encounter during your service. It doesn't matter how unlikely that situation is to occur, they will train you to do your job efficiently.

If that job includes firing on local or state militia that the government deems to be a threat, then that is your job.

 

[helpless]

The military is supposed to train you for the situations you may encounter during your service. It doesn't matter how unlikely that situation is to occur, they will train you to do your job efficiently.

If that job includes firing on local or state militia that the government deems to be a threat, then that is your job.

Then why not train to fight leprechauns?

For whats it's worth guys I was looking on Google Video and found this. Lets not turn this into a thread about Alex Jones being nut, just what he is actually video taping in this docu. I think it is on topic.

My brother is in the Army and my Father is 30 years LEO and they both told me if they had orders they would fire on and disarm citizens.


I think it is important to understand this mindset and make sure our minds are in the right place as well.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-732845682703884418&q=alex+jones+police+state&hl=en

 

[brerrabbit]

Rob87

How is training and indoctrinating folks to follow an unlawful, likely illegal order "your job".

As past history has shown, what happens to the soldiers who will fire? They will quite likely be penalized by their own command. Notice how many of our own soldiers we have court martialed while following orders in Iraq? Then again they are subject to penalties in the state whose militia they fired upon.

 

[Titan6]

Even if there were some type of perceived right to secession with a view that a state is a sovereign power able to enter into the union and withdraw at it's pleasure there was no right to seize federal military facilities or fire upon unarmed resupply ships. This constituted rebellion or an act of war, your choice.