Army Servicewoman Brags about Enforcing ‘Martial Law’ on U.S. Citizens: Obey or ‘Become the Enemy’ with Guns ‘Pointed at You’

Big League Politics ^ | 08/27/2021 | Shane Trejo

[delchiante]

Quote
Some of the Dims are wanting the military to implement the door-to-door vaccinations against Americans who say they’ll fight it with our 2nd amendment rights.

If the Banana Republic gets to the point they are going door to door with jackboots and White Coats..

That’s a recipe for 1775 and 1776 replaying

[rlmorel]

If you have already seen one of my posts like this, I apologize for posting it again. If you haven't had a chance, read the linked article below from Jude Eden.

But it is things like this that fill me with dread at the idea of our military forces getting into a battle with an ostensible military peer who will actively attempt to wrest air control from us and interdict our supply chain...like China.

---

I created this graph to make the point...it isn't about disrespect. It is about simple ability to perform physical tasks, and how that ability to perform physical tasks can make or break success of a mission:

The graph above compares average male physical capability and body structure as compared to average women. The red hatched area is the the physical area where the negatives from a PHYSICAL perspective (This ignores and does not include logistical and morale based issues completely) the DISADVANTAGES of allowing females into combat units outweighs the positives. (Note, the only positives in my mind in any case no matter what are Politically Correct based positives, there are no operational positives of any kind. This only displays the physical negatives.)

All the assumptions above the graph after the word "NOTE:" are medically studied and accepted from mainstream medical sources. It starts with the basic premise that the strongest woman is 25% weaker than the strongest man (at best, some say the difference is closer to 30-35%) and goes from there. There are two other assumptions I have made: the curve with the average male strength is broader than the overlapping curve with the average female strength, because I believe that across the male gender, physical strength is innately more broadly distributed by nature than it is withe females, simply due to the production of testosterone in our bodies.

With all that said, there is always going to be some woman at some level who can best a man at some level, but when you get to the top of the physical strength and prowess pyramid that special forces operate at, there is no woman at the top of the female pyramid who can best them. It won't happen.

Even if an individual woman can train to get close to the standards (Unless they were lowered, which I have no doubt is the case here) due to her lesser bone mass and muscle mass, she is going to be far more susceptible to injury. In the linked article below which shows indisputable military studies on this exact subject, women suffer disproportionately.

See this passage from the article

font size=5>Women in Combat: The Question of Standards, by Jude Eden

Note: I cannot recommend this article highly enough. The author, who knows of what she speaks, has no illusion. She obviously did not fall for the Hollywood portrayals.

"...In other words, a platoon of the top female CrossFitters is still no match for a platoon of the top male CrossFitters. It does not matter that one individual female CrossFitter may be stronger and faster than one particular male. The idea that one woman somewhere might someday be able to make the infantry standard is totally inadequate to justify putting women in combat units. Women have to be able to consistently and predictably make and maintain the men’s standards in order to demonstrate equal ability and be useful in combat.

Even on a lower general standard, women break at far higher rates than men, with longer-term injuries. More women leave the military, when or before their contracts are up. Women are regularly unavailable for duty for female issues. Chicago Tribune correspondent Kirsten Scharnberg reports in a 2005 article that women suffer post-traumatic stress disorder more acutely than men do.

In his 2013 book Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat, retired Army col. Robert Maginnis describes several studies showing the physical suffering of women in combat:

A U.S. Navy study found the risk of anterior cruciate ligament injury associated with military training is almost ten times higher for women than for men.

A sex-blind study by the British military found that women were injured 7.5 times more often than men while training to the same standards. …

Women suffer twice as many lower-extremity injuries as men, an Army study found, and they fatigue much more quickly because of the difference in ‘size of muscle,’ which makes them more vulnerable to non-battle injury.

Marine Cpt. Katie Petronio writes of Officer Candidate School, “of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS [the Basic School] in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males.”

Another thing to consider-because women do not have a naturally occurring source of steroids (testosterone) that men have, they have to train far, far harder to reach any level of physical strength and proficiency that even approaches what men can obtain naturally, and if they do get injured (or pregnant) and cannot train, it takes far, far longer to even approach their own previous physical high-water fitness mark. And that has significant implications on injuries, even those incurred while training, never mind combat.

For a really good reality-based assessment of this situation, written by a female Marine, check this link below by Jude Eden, USMC on women in combat and training that is linked above.

Here, from that article I linked to above, is the passage that says it all:

"...Meanwhile, the argument to maintain the combat exclusion makes itself easily in every aspect. Including women in combat units is bad for combat, bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the country.

The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time.

Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times.

The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, and longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer injuries. They just keep never getting pregnant.

The combat units have needs that women cannot meet. Women have needs that life in a combat unit cannot accommodate without accepting significant disadvantage and much greater expense. Where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 percent of women cannot, there is no gap women need to fill..."

In the excerpt above, she is referring to the test for physical ability that artillery personnel have to pass. I watched a video a while back of a USMC artillery unit, and they were humping 155mm artillery shells off the back of a truck. They were pulling them off at chest height, duckwalking them over 15 yards, putting them on the ground, then going back and getting another one.

I think they are somewhere around 100 lbs per round.

Sure, there are women somewhere who could do that. But the average woman could not. Especially not repeatedly.

When in a combat situation, I can certainly imagine times where that nice loader and transporter thingie is not going to be available, or you are simply in a situation where you gotta move the rounds fast using muscles and a bunch of people.

[Texas resident]

AR’s, Mini 14’s, 30.06’s, 270’s, 243’s, 308’s and on and on.

Whoo hooo.

[ex91B10]

Bring it on woman.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

The US military, National Guard, Police number about 2,500,000 men.
VS.
20,000,000 civilian semi-auto rifle owners, and maybe 75 million other firearm owners, and over 400,000,000 firearms out there. 250,000,000 high cap magazines in private hands.

And the government thinks they can “regulate” that?

[ex91B10]

http://myplace.frontier.com/~maripaul/handgun_against_an_army.htm

[Pilsner]

Perhaps SSG "Death Wish" Bronson ought to read up on the extent the military is authorized to use deadly force when supporting civilian authorities.

FM 3-28 CIVIL SUPPORT OPERATIONS.

The Use of Force

5-54. Federal military forces supporting law enforcement often have severe restrictions on the use of force. Soldiers in Title 10 status may only use deadly force when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed and it is reasonably necessary—

• To protect federal military when the commander reasonably believes a person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
• To protect yourself and other federal military from imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
• To protect persons not affiliated with DOD in the vicinity from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, if directly related to the assigned mission.
• To prevent the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital national security or inherently dangerous property.
• To prevent the sabotage of a national critical infrastructure.
• To prevent a serious offense that involves imminent death or serious bodily harm against any person, if directly related to the assigned mission.

I do not see any authority to shoot unarmed people for failing to stay inside their residences.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

Good stuff. Great for logical thinking folk, but meaningless to the treasonous communists in charge. They've got their agenda, and they're sticking to it.

 

 

[MortMan]

BC discharge.

[Keyhopper]

Gender fluid.... snickering....good one🤗

[LegendHasIt]

Maybe one of the 25,000+ muslims they are shipping into Ft Bliss will run into her behind the barracks and give her an education, so we don’t have to.

[doorgunner69]

Hey bitch, I do head shots, your body armor will not save you.

[doorgunner69]

Here is the lezbo:

[griswold3]

Still think they won’t shoot civilians ? “Just following orders”

[itsahoot]

The American military is your enemy, little miss nuggets.

Oh sure, I am confident that the woke Joint Chiefs wouldn't go along with her. </s>

[Night Hides Not]

What’s being shown in many of them is that lack of fitness....surprised the heck out of me.

Don't be surprised, physical fitness is optional in today's military.

My last assignment was as CO for a HQs Battery, i.e. cooks and clerks. For example, the CG's staff was in my battery. I had them for an hour a day, which was spent on calisthenics and a two mile run in formation. I had great support from the bird Colonels they worked for.

Our pass rate on the PT test was 98.5%, a mark today's unit commanders would die for. The obvious exceptions would be for combat units, Ranger companies, etc.

[rlmorel]

I know. As I said, this battle has been fought and lost, and now, as we head into a new world of peril, the piper is going to get paid.

[TalBlack]

Nice try making it about me. I made an observation based upon your remarks. YOU don’t or won’t have his back. If that was out of line spell out for me how so.

[JimRed]

Her TikTok account can be found under the handle, @nuggets_n_chicken. She has posted many other videos doubling down on her comments, making it clear she pines for the day when she can enforce martial law on U.S. citizens.

So, hunting her down and cleansing the gene pool of her would not be murder; it would be preemptive self-defense.

[Hot Tabasco]

YOU don’t or won’t have his back.

You're right, it was about you. At least I'm honest about you.

You never had the back of the individuals I posted earlier did you? You're the mighty keyboard warrior, why didn't you?