***i talked to an army soldier today about the 2nd ammendment****

[meatyrem]

I have included a link to a writing. This kind of helped me grasp some reality and also supported a positive in my wondering of the same question. It's kind of lengthy but good. Tell me what you think.


The Dick Act is Not the Gun-Control Holy Grail - American Live Wire | American Live Wire

 

[bigbuck]

Things have to be bad enough that the local law enforcement cannot handle the situation; riots, mass looting, etc for martial law to be imposed. Then the military is the law and your rights mean squat. I hate to say it but sometimes it's needed, even on our own soil. Katrina is the perfect example. It was heart breaking to see how Americans would act and treat each other. I expect that behavior in a country like Iraq but never here. Some people have to be put in their place and innocent folks get caught in the cross fire...literally!
Some folks say the government gets in our business too much, and for the most part I would be the first one to say that. But on the other hand there are just as many folks that don't think the gov does enough. After things settled down in New Orleans and FEMA and the Red Cross came in I was in charge of the security at one of there aid sites. They would take in 1,500 people a day and were handing out all kinds of stuff including $1,500 to each household. That wasn't enough and people were getting ****ed about how our government is doing nothing. Are you freaking kidding me!? What in the hell does our government have to do with you living in a giant flood zone and you not having insurance? That and mobs were attacking soldiers trying to hand out food and water.
I've heard it said: The person is smart, but people are stupid.
I agree.

I worked in Laruel Miss. After Katrina hit. Once work got kind of slow I decided to ride down to New Orleans , when I got there it looked like a ghost town . I rode through subdivision after subdivision and house after house was vacant. I noticed that every car that had a set of after market wheels was jacked up on blocks and the wheels had been stolen. It was this way every where you looked. I was told a story from one of the locals . He said that when Katrina hit the streets where full of people in a certain location he said there was no police to control them and it got so bad that a man raped a woman in the broad daylight in the middle of the street in front of everyone . He said he watched a man walk up behind the man that was doing the rape and pull out a hand gun point it at his head and POP .......end of the rape! I would say that the military was definitely needed .

Thanks guys for your service !

 

[aviatrix]

He said he watched a man walk up behind the man that was doing the rape and pull out a hand gun point it at his head and POP .......end of the rape! I would say that the military was definitely needed .

Thanks guys for your service !

I'd say more men with guns was needed.

 

[bigbuck]

QUOTE=aviatrix;787126]I'd say more men with guns was needed.[/QUOTE]

That will work as well .gun)

 

[aviatrix]

I have included a link to a writing. This kind of helped me grasp some reality and also supported a positive in my wondering of the same question. It's kind of lengthy but good. Tell me what you think.


The Dick Act is Not the Gun-Control Holy Grail - American Live Wire*|*American Live Wire

What do I think? Its in the following two paragraphs and I no longer care what the current criminal lunatic inhabitants of the District of Corruption (aka the government) have to say about anything.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.

I don't need 9 in black robes braying decisions out of whole cloth, a president who thinks he's king or self-serving politicians in D.C. lusting for more and more power who have built their careers twisting, spinning and pompously pontificating about what the meaning of is - is, to interpret the Constitution for me, neither do you; take it for what it says.

 

[bigbuck]

What do I think? Its in the following two paragraphs and I no longer care what the current criminal lunatic inhabitants of the District of Corruption (aka the government) have to say about anything.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.

I don't need 9 in black robes braying decisions out of whole cloth, a president who thinks he's king or self-serving politicians in D.C. lusting for more and more power who have built their careers twisting, spinning and pompously pontificating about what the meaning of is - is, to interpret the Constitution for me, neither do you; take it for what it says.

One of the things that did bother me was that the soldier said. He would "uphold the constitutation unless it was rewritten ." What tha ? The way I see it, if it comes to that he will definately need his training ! We live in a society that thinks they can rewrite the Bible so it doesnt apply to them thats why the "other" versions take Sodomy out of the text . Same as our constitution these same individuals would rather "rewrite" the constitution to mold it to fit there twisted views !

 

[Broz]

One of the things that did bother me was that the soldier said. He would "uphold the constitutation unless it was rewritten.

Maybe what he meant was, if they change it he will no longer "uphold" the new version. ??

Jeff

 

[bigbuck]

Maybe what he meant was, if they change it he will no longer "uphold" the new version. ??

Jeff

I hope thats what he meant . Maybe you are right . I should have verified what he meant exactly. Thanks for pointing that out Broz....

 

[SidecarFlip]

I'd say (if not corrected) that if there is a new version, that version will be upheld...... Obummer is all about a new version, for his benefit.

 

[bigbuck]

I'd say (if not corrected) that if there is a new version, that version will be upheld...... Obummer is all about a new version, for his benefit.

I agree . like the old saying goes "if it aint broke don't fix it" .
If they tamper with the constitutation it will be for their benefit...

 

[SidecarFlip]

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is simply, one, subordinates follow orders of their superiors.

Case in point, I didn't agree with what our commanders ordered us to do in 'Nam, but we did it anyway, whether you agreed with it in principle or not, it was an order to be carried out..... and we carried out those orders.

Secondly, if Obummer altered the Constitution or the wording of any Amendments, or the removal of any Amendment, service personnel would be obligated to carry out the orders of their commanders or face desertion, disgrace or a Court Martial.

Consequently, you can read the fellow's comments (that you spoke with) a couple different ways, depending on how you want to interpret them.

Upholding the Constitution as it is now written.......or.......upholding the Constitution as it may be altered.

We are all aware that there is a large segment of the Liberal political group that wants to flush the Constitution as it's now written and remake it into a 'modern day' Constitution or should we say a Socialist Doctrine.

....Why I maintain that dereliction of duty in the face of civil unrest, will rest solely with the individual because orders will come down to enforce any Constitution whether it's the present one or a new one.

I've been there, many years ago and I still vividly remember the choice and the consequences of directly disobeying an order.

If I was the soldier (in the service station) I probably would have answered in kind.

 

[Bullet bumper]

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is simply, one, subordinates follow orders of their superiors.

Case in point, I didn't agree with what our commanders ordered us to do in 'Nam, but we did it anyway, whether you agreed with it in principle or not, it was an order to be carried out..... and we carried out those orders.

Secondly, if Obummer altered the Constitution or the wording of any Amendments, or the removal of any Amendment, service personnel would be obligated to carry out the orders of their commanders or face desertion, disgrace or a Court Martial.

Consequently, you can read the fellow's comments (that you spoke with) a couple different ways, depending on how you want to interpret them.

Upholding the Constitution as it is now written.......or.......upholding the Constitution as it may be altered.

We are all aware that there is a large segment of the Liberal political group that wants to flush the Constitution as it's now written and remake it into a 'modern day' Constitution or should we say a Socialist Doctrine.

....Why I maintain that dereliction of duty in the face of civil unrest, will rest solely with the individual because orders will come down to enforce any Constitution whether it's the present one or a new one.

I've been there, many years ago and I still vividly remember the choice and the consequences of directly disobeying an order.

If I was the soldier (in the service station) I probably would have answered in kind.

You have read my thoughts . Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about AR's or other Auto's specifically . Now we know the intention was to protect the ownership of arms in general but they could use that to brainwash the young and impressionable types to think that it is ok to just take away the Automatics . They replace the Officers and some NCO's with the wrong kind of Americans to give the orders . This may already be happening in the higher ranks .
Having been a Nam vet myself it is very hard to go against the Army if you value your career and reputation. Refusing to obey an order given by an Officer can get you court marshaled and a dishonourable discharge which is a cruel and inhumane punishment and a fate worse than death. Whether that order was legal or not . The Army is not a democracy !
I know of a soldier that committed suicide after being dishonourably discharged , the shame and guilt suffered can be very bad .
They hold a lot of power over a soldier and the training makes you loyal to the Army and your comrades in arms .
Then you also have National Guardsman and Police which is a different dynamic again.
My feelings is there will be resistance to the use of Full Time Soldiers to do civilian weapons confiscations in a general and non emergency situation . It will be Police as they are far easier to use against the innocent and the Judges far more likely to issue Police with search warrants rather than a platoon of soldiers .
They may look like soldiers but will be Police or at least have Police at the front end .
Soldiers in general are far more honest and far less corrupt than Police .
It's a real worry but I don't think it will happen that way .
It is far more likely that it could happen sporadically around the place a bit at a time in this state and that over time . This way they do it by stealth by limiting the numbers affected at any one time .
You would think that the Obama administration should be more concerned about North Korean guns than law abiding US citizens guns .

 

[MontanaRifleman]

It's true that subordinates follow the orders of their superiors and that's why I said earlier that a lot will depend on the officers and senior NCO's as to how things fall out, if and when they fall out.

That said, Back in 82, when I went through OTS, we were taught (emphasized) that we had a moral/ethical obligation not to follow any immoral, unethical or unlawful orders. One of the case studies they used to teach us was Lt Calley and the My Lai massacre. I would assume that officers and NCO's are getting the same training today. Although these junior leaders are getting this training, disobeying an order from a superior is not an easy thing to do. It may be the right thing to do but it often will end a career or worse, but not always. I've squirmed my way through a couple of sticky decisions and fortunately made the right choice with no repercussions.

One of my AC's (Aircraft Commander), when he was a copilot was TDY to Eielson in AK. It was December and they were having some nasty record breaking weather. We flew KC-135's (air refuelers). They were scheduled a training air refueling against an RC-135 (reccy bird). The crew gets out to the jet and does the preflight. The copilot does the last check of the takeoff data and tells the AC, "we don't have 3 engine capability", because of runway and environment conditions, blah, blah, blah. Well there are 3 basic go- no go criteria for flyimg a mission. Peace time trainig, peace time operational and war time operational. This was a peace time training mission which means you need, as a minimum, the ability to takeoff with 3 engines in the event you loose one during the takeoff. Well the old crusty AC says we have 4 engines, we're going. The copilot says no we're not. Keep in mind, an RC-135 training mission is dependent on getting the refueling. So the 2nd LT navigator backs up the 1st LT co vs the old crusty Capt AC. Then the AC gets on the radio and says over the airways (really dumb thing to do) get me another co and nav so I can fly this mission. So the Reconnaissance Wing DO (full bull, second in command of the Wing) gets involved and radio talk goes back and forth and finally the mission is scrubbed. Long story short, the entire crew is flown back to home base and replaced by another crew (my crew). When they get back, the copilot and nav are hit with a number charges up to and including mutiny, which they are told they could face the death penalty. They both get private lawyers and after a long drawn out process, all charges are dismissed with no adverse affects to their careers... but definitely a lasting sour taste to them personally.

So.... leaders and junior leaders are taught that not all orders are lawful orders, etc. The question comes down to do they have the cajones to disobey an order and how do they interpret the Constitution and where do their loyalties lie?

 

[bigbuck]

SiderCarflip,bulletbumper, Montanarifleman

You guys bring some good points to the table for discussion.
Sidercarflip I like the way you put it. "Social Doctrine"
Montanarifleman . What you have mentioned has made me realize how hard it will be on the soldiers that disobey an order although it will be the right thing to do . If they are asked to follow thru with an unlawful order, such as stepping on our 2nd Ammendment. It will take courage to do the right thing.

Our country is in bad shape! Today while in church the preacher told us about how Bill Orilley (FOX) said that 2 Top colleges hired known Terrorist to fill the positions of professors in each college he didnt mention how many had been hired but one of the terrorist/professors asked the student to write the name of Jesus on a sheet of paper so they did then he ask them to place it on the floor beside their desk once they did this he then instructed them to "stomp on it" One of the student was a christian and didnt do it. Its a sad day in America when such things as this is going on. We are the only country that is dumb enough to send millions of dollars to countries that would love to cut our throats if they where given a second to do so.