Posted on 08/10/2009 3:48:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
`SHOOT AMERICANS’ SURVEY RESULTS
One in Four Marines Would Fire
Results are in from the U.S. military “shoot Americans”
survey-and they are disquieting.
By Mike Blair
About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps base in southern California.
In addition, more that four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to “participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force.”
www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/shootus.htm
Just saying.
The Liberator was meant to be an assassination weapon. Close range, high-value or engagement-critical, targets.
Bookmark Bump.
Thanks, 2DV.
bttt
it can be used to get better weapons..but make no mistake
an insurrection here would be dark ages primal
bloody and brutal
our govt forces would have to be fractured for a chance
Half of 200 million is 100 million. I’m not worried.
Bump
There was a thread not too long ago about how easy it is to make a workable gun. Not a great one - not a beauty - but workable...
Thanks, for the post.
My handgun against our modern military, probably won’t get me far, but my handgun, plus millions of handguns in the hands of free people can get a modern military.
1. I know, there's been a lot of threads and posts showing that liberals have a lot of Marx in their hearts. But, what counts is how they act. They act like Fabian socialists; their forte is incrementalism. Incrementalism works because each of us takes the clime in which we grew up in as normal. Those people who are shocked to see how little freedom there is now, compared to (say) the 1950s up to the mid-60s, had grandparents who would have been shocked to see how little freedom there was in the 1950s as compared with 1900. Only a small minority has the ability to fully connnect events before they were born with today, and they tend to be of a theoretical bent.
1a) The Fabians have an enormous advantage in the worship of youth that's been part of the culture for decades. Placing youth as primary makes it easy to dismiss an oldster sounding the alarum as merely an old grouch. There are, of course, other ways of successfully dismissing the "old grouch" out of hand - or maneuvering him to look like a hypocrite.
2. With respect to incrementalism, this point is very important: Liberals have one rule when it comes to how far they can push the country their way. "If we come off as sounding reasonable, and our enemies come off as sounding extreme, then we can get away with it." Part of this "reasonableness" is backing off when they've pushed too far ahead.
2a) You should think about about how easy it is to maneuver you into being successfuly painted as an "extremist."
2b) A question: what lines, if crossed, would result in the same hostility being showered on Ron Paul to be showered on you guys?
2c) It might be a good idea to cultivate a friendship with a political moderate who has little interest in politics - a sort of Joe or Jane Average (or, if you prefer, Joe or Jane Sheeple.) Rather than trying to convert him or her, it would be wise to use him/her as a sounding board. "Which of the following opinions strike you as extreme? Which are moderate?"
3. Liberals are political animals, and they've been born and raised in a mature democracy. They know that they can often, although not always, get their way with a combination of the electoral system and the judiciary. Why would they turn into dictators when the current system treats them so well? When their standard strategy of incrementalism works so well too? Communist tyrants were tyrants from the get-go. None of them ever sullied their own hands with elections. That is not true of liberals. They've got a lot to gain by sticking with the current system, one that they're trained for. What you guys see as outrages, they tend to see as advantages. The system ain't that broke by their lights, so there'll be little desire on their part to "fix" it.
3a) Remember that point about reasonableness winning and "extremism" losing? Someone who wants to change the entire system, rotten though it may be, is a lot easier to paint as an "extremist" than someone who prefers to use it. As I said in (1), a large majority of people accept what they grow up in as normal. That sheer inertia makes it easy to portray resistors as "extremists."
4. If it's going to be a civil war, the U.S. government will follow the same procedure it did for the first one: wait until the other side fires the first shot. Fabians are good at playing the waiting game; it goes with the incrementalism.
5. Why use the military at all? Why wouldn't the police suffice? Is there any resistor who really wants to be known as a "cop-hater"?
As I indicated before, the original post has a stirring narrative - but people like the author, if truly serious, seem to have a glaring habit of underestimating the enemy. Not from a materiel standpoint, but from a strategic and tactical standpoint. They're all convinced that their enemy is stupid, even politically stupid. Any veteran here should ask him- or herself: what kind of general goes into battle thinking the enemy is stupid?
As a final point: this thread may only be an extended bull session. If so, then this is just my contribution.
Bump for later
This is an older thread and even older article, but knowing the independent mindset of homeschoolers, I thought this might be of interest. Maybe worked into social studies or history.
So,.....
ping.....
Thanks for the ping!
He certainly didn’t perform one for Daniel Peral though, did he?
It wont be 100 million gunowners against the military. It will be 30 well armed troops against a family or a couple men. It will be piecemeal as they seek to divide and conquer. Oh and that family will have been labeled as weapons dealers or terrorists. In exercises already completed they did house to house searches for ‘weapons dealers’
It's the “friends” part that is the tricky part. Haven't we had enough experience with totalitarian regimes to know that spies, even within the family, are the problem with overthrowing tyrants. Also, innocent members of families are made to suffer horribly as a threat to control the population.
I recommend Ayn Rand's first novel, “We the Living”.
So?....Any recommendations regarding spies, or retaliation against family and friends?
In women's self-defense classes we are advised to make some decisions well before a problem occurs. For instance, I have personally decided that I will not be dragged into a car. They will need to kill me in the parking lot because i will do everything within my power to resist.
Well...When I saw the photos of the men and boys being dragged from their homes in Bosnia to be shot in the head on the street, I made a personal decision. Anyone who attempts to do that to one of my family will have to get through me first. They will have to kill me. Also, I will NEVER step foot in line on its way to a cattle car.
Generations of citizens have now attended godlessly secular socialist schools. They attended because these “schools” were **compulsory**, and once in these “schools” all of their First Amendment Rights were trashed every minute of every school day. In many ways they were taught to be compliant little prisoners of the state. Just as citizens now meekly allow their children to walk through metal detectors, have their lockers searched, submit to “lockdowns”, etc, and the adults allow the most intimate of personal searches at the airports, I fear that in the face of true tyranny we will see the same meek behavior.
Finally:
Our conservative media is completely untrustworthy. How they ignored Obama’s eligibility and failed miserably to vet his murky past is proof of that! They consistently fail to report on the homosexual bullying tactics used against Christians. If tyranny comes to this nation, Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Medved, Levin, Ingraham, and the rest, will sell their talents to the fascist oligarchy. They will lick the jack boots crushing our necks. Bet on it!
While I hold our brave and honorable military men and women in the highest regard, I do **not**trust the very highest levels of the military.
I am disgusted with our very highest military. They **know** that Obama fails e-verify, that he has numerous social security numbers. They **know** that Obama has posted forgeries. Yet....Have they peacefully and lawfully requested certifiably verification of Obma’s identity and natural born status from either congress or the courts?
When did IGNORING forgery, identity theft, fraud, lying, and usurpation of a military command ( CIC) become part of defending the Constitution or the military code of honor? They have treated lower level officers with legitimate concerns about these matters, in a shameful manner. They are allowing a man of dubious identity to issue rules of engagement and make foreign policy decision that have result in deaths and serious life-long injuries to our troops. Is **this** how they watch the back of the honorable and brave men and women in our arms forces?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.