Posted on 01/09/2013 10:39:39 AM PST by Windflier
Good
“Most police would happily confiscate your firearms and kill you if you resisted.”
That is an ignorant generalization. Both of my sons are cops and both have told me that they would refuse such an order. As have their colleagues. You don’t know what you are talking about.
If Johnny Jihad can build an IED in Iraq. An American will build an IED 100x better. A well defended position with plenty of surprises will up the kill ratio. Having a number of sacrificial animals with a remote detonator might be a distraction as well. To take your guns, they have to come get them. You have all the advantages in planning a defense.
I always knew the “patriot act” was really for when they came after freedom loving Americans.
Seems like they’ll get to use it against us.
Are we suckers or what?
Then what you’ll see is a huge black market in arms and ammo. It’ll be just like dope smuggling, only larger. But it wouldn’t last long. There’s simply too many gun owners, Dems as well as Republicans, who won’t put up with pols who try something like that. Only pols in blue states MIGHT!! be safe. There definitely would be some kind of civil war. And the military will not be on the side of the leftists.
Abso-frikken-lutely.
I think that will hold true if they attempt any sort of direct confrontation with law-abiding gun owners. As soon as the word got out that the federal jackboots were knocking on doors, all hell would break loose.
Our fight should remain in the political realm for now. We have impeachment, the Republican House’s ability to control spending, the Supreme Court, and elections among many other means to battle tyranny.
bookmark
That is an ignorant generalization. You don’t know what you are talking about.
History is NOT on your side. When David Dinkins confiscated registered semiautos in NYC how many cops failed to obey the order to confiscate the firearms and arrest the owners? I'll give you a hint to help lighten the load of your ignorance - a number less than one.
After all we've been through in the last four years, I'm amazed that you still have the slightest faith in 'the system', or in the Republican party.
In case you hadn't noticed, we have a rogue government running the country. It's composed of lawless, leftist ideologues, and spineless Republican co-conspirators, with a few good people (and I do mean a few) mixed in. The bureaucratic ranks are an even worse lot. From the media, to academia, to the halls of Congress, it's a festering sub-culture of rot, treason, and utter degradation.
Wake up and smell the coffee, then put your war paint on.
Oh really?
What do these soldiers have to say about their service to the Usurper?
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
I always knew the “patriot act” was really for when they came after freedom loving Americans.
Seems like they’ll get to use it against us.
Are we suckers or what?
I’ve brought up the subject of him not being eligible many times.
Some don’t even want to discuss it.
Some agree with me.
Some roll their eyes.
Quite a few realize that with a Congress that has no balls it’s pretty much impossible to do anything about it.
I’ve shared my book “Where’s the Birth Certificate” but none want to discuss it afterwards.
Our deployment orders don’t actually come from the President. They come from the SecDef. I haven’t deployed since obama has been in the white house. I was in Iraq during the 2008 election. The general attitude than was most were just tired of Bush. I had a book of obama’s speeches and wrote “how’s he going to pay for it” in the margin everywhere he wanted to do this or that. The younger the Soldier the less they want to talk politics.
I’ve also noticed that race plays a part. Most of the blacks tend to be blind to most everything and think he can do no wrong. The senior NCO’s and officers (MAJ on down) aren’t fond of him. As for LTC’s and up I try to avoid them as they seem more politicians.
That is logically false; the nature of Authority is its delegative nature; as Jesus said: the one who is sent is under the authority of the one sending.
The Chain-of-Command is such that your unit's commander is under their commander is under their commander until the point where they are under the President -- any order coming outside of this chain is not authoritative, for if it is then the entire military structure is compromised. Furthermore, as the Constitution specifically placed the President into the position of Commander-in-Chief any scenario where your orders's authority do not originate from the President (or the Constitution itself, as in Art 4, Sec 4) are contrary the Constitution and therefore illegal orders.
Are you bound to follow illegal orders? No.
So having your deployment orders coming from the SecDef is either (a) because the President has delegated the authority thereunto (and thus your orders's authority comes from the President) OR (b) they represent the exercise of usurped power.
Please also enlighten me on the number of citizens who were “happily killed” by these same officers? And again, enlighten me on the statistical model used to determine that the behavior of the famously corrupt NY police department translates to the balance of the republic.
My comment stands true, yours was an ignorant generalization.
Are you bound to follow illegal orders? No.
This is correct. I have never received deployment orders since obama has been in office. Other orders I’ve received (ie day to day functioning) would have been given regardless of who was in office. All orders I’ve received have been within the battalion and thus I see them as legal orders.
Any order coming from obama would be invalid.
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.