Posted on 03/05/2013 2:07:52 AM PST by ZachJones
(Are you sure? A military comprised primarily of sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of gun owning families.)
It is time for Americans to start thinking seriously about the possibility that their sons and daughters may be put in the untenable position going house-to-house, confiscating firearms and ammunition from their friends and family? What will they do?
Throughout the military - the kids, grandkids, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews and friends of veterans and gun enthusiasts are likely weighing the possibilities of such an order and just how far they personally would be willing to go in carrying out something that would rip the very fabric of this nation apart and go against everything they’ve sworn to protect. In thinking the unthinkable, certainly they must be questioning the end game and who are the real good guys. Especially, when they see...
...If you are on the ‘progressive’ left, what do you think? Are you sure? Really?
Let’s look at a few demographics that might cause you on the left to reassess your certainty.
In 2001, a survey was completed by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in North Carolina of the 50 states, DC and Territories asking people nationwide if there are any guns in their homes. The percentage of people having guns in their homes ranged from 59.7% in Wyoming to...
(Excerpt) Read more at international.to ...
First you underestimate rednecks. Second your assuming they will not meet opposition while roaming the countryside. Third they will be way out of their element.
A point that is not being made is that the military does not need to put boots on the ground. The military is not needed to fire TLAMs. I have two daughters in the Navy who know that the mindset of the average sailor or officer is different than that of a Marine or soldier.
It took me a minute to chew on your comment after I replied. I believe you have a Hollywood view of rednecks. Let me let you in on something your urban view of things may have blinded of. Us rednecks are very talented in many things (we don’t need the yellow pages or Angie’s list). I can build a house myself. Block,brick,or wood. I have a firm grasp of electrical theory. I can weld well enough to be employed as a welder. I have never taken my vehicles to a ASC certified mechanic. I have been shooting what you call a high powered rifle since I was 9 and 22’s and shotguns before that. I can track game and humans across many types of terrain. I can trap and grow a garden large enough to feed 5 families at nearly zero cost. I can easily servive for long periods of time with a bow and arrows in the woods and can conceal myself enough to get within clubbing distance of you. This list can go on but I don’t want to give other country folk the impression I’m stupid.
Whoa, ease up on the baseball bat there! I have no doubt rednecks and others could do a very good job of defending themselves. I was merely addressing the possibility of the military getting a squad of youts together that would delight in trying it in the first place. They could.
I hadn’t really looked at it from the angle you suggest, and once I do, I find that I agree with you: such a band of bruthas would have their collective a$$ handed to them, if they’re ever seen again.
“Why are you F’ing idiots comparing the actions out our noble warriors in Iraq to taking illegal and unconstitutional actions against the American people...which they would never do?” TG
Please see the New Orleans video. National guard was used in gun confiscation.
Also see the history of the “bonus marchers.” General MacArthur led the burning out of veterans from their camps in DC.
All these men, the bonus marchers, wanted could have easily been solved with a promissory note, which they could use to get a loan.
MacArthur’s career...well, let’s just say it did not suffer.
I think as recently as Waco the Army loaned tanks (not sure about personnel) to the FBI to carry out the deadly final raid.
That said, I have the utmost respect for the US armed forces. They get put in very difficult positions, and their first instinct is to do as they are ordered. They will be put in a very difficult moral dilemma.
I am not so sure. When you start impacting people’s livelihood, careers, and future, the line is not so clear. I think many of the soldiers would follow orders, because of what they face by disobeying the orders—prison,loss of job, etc. It would need to be a flash-mob sort of mentality to occur for many to actually disobey that order. This sort of thing occurs daily in jobs everywhere, an employee has a problem with a supervisor, but push come to shove, it is likely not going to happen that a fellow employee will stand with em because of the potential loss of job and all that goes with it by standing with the employee.
There have been instances wher GIs have stood up against wrong doing regardless of the negative effects. Travis Riots is one example.
I know of entire work sections that have refused to work because of stupid orders. They were threatened with all types of legal actions and they just said “go ahead”.
When stuff gets crazy the GIs will make a stand and careers be damned. It happened before and will happen again.
Nowadays Cuomo would burn it down if they saw someone load eight Bullets (instead of seven) into a 10 Round Magazine.
Thanks for the correction... Got my gov’t sponsored massacres mixed up.
“Also see the history of the “bonus marchers.” General MacArthur led the burning out of veterans from their camps in DC.”
That’s NOT what happened. Thousands of commies infiltrated the Bonus March. When the soldiers got to DC, the commie red flag wavers broke off and took over buildings under construction in DC. The DC cops tried to evict the commies, and they were met with bottles, rocks and gunfire. At least one cop died and many were injured.
MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton led the troops to disgorge the commies.
The 1930s was a violent period where commie immigrants from Europe, who were invited in by Woodrow KKK Wilson, tried to ignite a commie revolution in America.
This entire episode has been rewritten by the leftist liars on the web.
We will see I hope you are right.
We will see.
Dang! I missed it too...
Kinda hard to keep’em straight sometimes. It doesn’t really matter unless you are a real stickler for details. One massacre is about as good as the next I guess.
Did you hear about the no-knock raid where the cops got the wrong house and killed the guy coming out of his bedroom? Forget which one exactly. Oh well, to quote Hillary, “Does it really matter”
I haven’t read that book, but I do know what MacArthur and Eisenhower did to the bonus marchers.
The bonus marchers were in the right too.
Lets not even speak of Wounded Knee.
I hope you guys are right, I wouldn’t want American soldiers fighting against Americans either.
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-surreal-world-of-u-s-homeland-security
But notice carefully: TSA is always accompanied by a “real” LEO, be it police HP or Sheriff.
They were present at some campaign events...really? Not a lot of transportation going on there...
The bumbling barneys are left to check your undies at the airport...the more advanced are being deployed.
Resist when you can.
Thank you. My plan once I am retired is to use the hell out of my free speech. The politicians will get tired of hearing from me.
Right about now, nothing would surprise me...
And the only counter for it is to be prepared. We have to find out who will be GIVING THE ORDERS, where they live and work, how they travel, their personal habits, how to best catch them alone. Like the leftist newsrag did to legal gun owners, we should publish their names, home addresses, workplaces and personal data. They are the primary targets when the confiscations begin.
We also need to locate the DHS armories and barracks or other quarters so "accidents" can be arranged for the underlings, and as a source of resupply for Patriots.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX89.html
from PBS.org
People & Events
The Bonus March (May-July, 1932)
Few images from the Great Depression are more indelible than the rout of the Bonus Marchers. At the time, the sight of the federal government turning on its own citizens — veterans, no less — raised doubts about the fate of the republic. It still has the power to shock decades later.
From the start, 1932 promised to be a difficult year for the country, as the Depression deepened and frustrations mounted. In December of 1931, there was a small, communist-led hunger march on Washington; a few weeks later, a Pittsburgh priest led an army of 12,000 jobless men there to agitate for unemployment legislation. In March, a riot at Ford’s River Rouge plant in Michigan left four dead and over fifty wounded. Thus, when a band of jobless veterans, led by a former cannery worker named Walter W. Walters, began arriving in the capital in May, tensions were high. Calling themselves the “Bonus Expeditionary Forces,” they demanded early payment of a bonus Congress had promised them for their service in World War I.
Army Chief of Staff MacArthur was convinced that the march was a communist conspiracy to undermine the government of the United States, and that “the movement was actually far deeper and more dangerous than an effort to secure funds from a nearly depleted federal treasury.” But that was simply not the case. MacArthur’s own General Staff intelligence division reported in June that only three of the twenty-six leaders of the Bonus March were communists. And the percentage within the rank and file was likely even smaller; several commanders reported to MacArthur that most of the men seemed to be vehemently anti-Communist, if anything. According to journalist and eyewitness Joseph C. Harsch, “This was not a revolutionary situation. This was a bunch of people in great distress wanting help.... These were simply veterans from World War I who were out of luck, out of money, and wanted to get their bonus — and they needed the money at that moment.”
At first, it seemed as though order might be maintained. Walters, organizing the various encampments along military lines, announced that there would be “no panhandling, no drinking, no radicalism,” and that the marchers were simply “going to stay until the veterans’ bill is passed.” The government also did its part, as Washington Police Superintendent Pelham D. Glassford treated his fellow veterans with considerable respect and care. But by the end of June, the movement had swelled to more than 20,000 tired, hungry and frustrated men. Conflict was inevitable.
The marchers were encouraged when the House of Representatives passed the Patman veterans bill on June 15, despite President Hoover’s vow to veto it. But on June 17 the bill was defeated in the Senate, and tempers began to flare on both sides. On July 21, with the Army preparing to step in at any moment, Glassford was ordered to begin evacuating several buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue, using force if necessary. A week later, on the steamy morning of July 28, several Marchers rushed Glassford’s police and began throwing bricks. President Hoover ordered the Secretary of War to “surround the affected area and clear it without delay.”
Conspicuously led by MacArthur, Army troops (including Major George S. Patton, Jr.) formed infantry cordons and began pushing the veterans out, destroying their makeshift camps as they went. Although no weapons were fired, cavalry advanced with swords drawn, and some blood was shed. By nightfall, hundreds had been injured by gas (including a baby who died), bricks, clubs, bayonets, and sabers.
Next came the most controversial moment in the whole affair — a moment that directly involved General MacArthur. Secretary of War Hurley twice sent orders to MacArthur indicating that the President, worried that the government reaction might look overly harsh, did not wish the Army to pursue the Bonus Marchers across the bridge into their main encampment on the other side of the Anacostia River. But MacArthur, according to his aide Dwight Eisenhower, “said he was too busy,” did not want to be “bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders,” and sent his men across the bridge anyway, after pausing several hours to allow as many people as possible to evacuate. A fire soon erupted in the camp. While it’s not clear which side started the blaze, the sight of the great fire became the signature image of the greatest unrest our nation’s capital has ever known.
Although many Americans applauded the government’s action as an unfortunate but necessary move to maintain law and order, most of the press was less sympathetic. “Flames rose high over the desolate Anacostia flats at midnight tonight,” read the first sentence of the “New York Times” account, “and a pitiful stream of refugee veterans of the World War walked out of their home of the past two months, going they knew not where.”
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.