Strictly speaking that would have been a sheridan, since ACAVs had one .50 and 2 M-60s, but yes I think that would have been the reaction if they saw armed adversaries blocking their way. What I can't seem to understand is why these people who are obviously enemies are allowed to run rampant - and yes I know it's to maximize the disruption so that the Democrats can blame Trump and usher in the same sort of Marxist utopia that is currently enjoyed by Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. BUT why are we letting them get away with it?
Old M-60A1 guy here. I assume that the 152 gun had a beehive round available, but not sure.
Unfortunately, it's all about politics at the moment.
Far too many fence sitters, that Trump must win, who would jump ship if there was even a perception of a "heavy handed" law enforcement response from the federal level.
Once Trump wins re-election, and the (R)'s keep the Senate (at least), then Trump can respond and call this was it obviously is...an Insurrection.
Trump has the Authority. Its right there, enshrined in the Constitution followed by federal law.
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
Regarding the federal government's constitutional powers...
U.S Constitution - Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
10 U.S. Code CHAPTER 13INSURRECTION
10 U.S. Code §?252.Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
10 U.S. Code §?253.Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
The president has the authority to safeguard the Constitutional rights of United States citizens within the territory of the United States where the state &/or local governments fail those United States citizens.
Past presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act 19 times, both with the request of the Governor of the affected state, and without their request. Note that every one of those 19 previous invocations of the act, were due to violence or disorder in a single city or single state/territory. President Trump invoking the act due to NATION WIDE violence, looting, arson and depravity of civil rights is certainly lawful and warranted.
List of invocations of Insurrection Act
Notice something about the incidents where the states did NOT ask for help, but the feds went in anyway? ALL having to do with race/race relations.
Prior to the 1807 Insurrection Act, President Washington used his federal authority and personally lead nearly 13,000 militia to put down a rebelion on the enactment of an excise tax.
In January 1791, President George Washington's Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed a seemingly innocuous excise tax "upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same."1 What Congress failed to predict was the vehement rejection of this tax by Americans living on the frontier of Western Pennsylvania. By 1794, the Whiskey Rebellion threatened the stability of the nascent United States and forced President Washington to personally lead the United States militia westward to stop the rebels.
George Washington reviewing the troops being deployed against the Whiskey Rebellion - Washington Reviewing the Western Army, at Fort Cumberland, Maryland, ca.1795....
However, by 1794 the protests became violent. In July, nearly 400 whiskey rebels near Pittsburgh set fire to the home of John Neville, the regional tax collection supervisor. Left with little recourse and at the urgings of Secretary Hamilton, Washington organized a militia force of 12,950 men and led them towards Western Pennsylvania, warning locals "not to abet, aid, or comfort the Insurgents aforesaid, as they will answer the contrary at their peril.
The calling of the militia had the desired effect of essentially ending the Whiskey Rebellion. By the time the militia reached Pittsburgh, the rebels had dispersed and could not be found. The militia apprehended approximately 150 men and tried them for treason. A paucity of evidence and the inability to obtain witnesses hampered the trials. Two men, John Mitchell and Philip Weigel, were found guilty of treason, though both were pardoned by President Washington. By 1802, then President Thomas Jefferson repealed the excise tax on whiskey.
It isn’t only the Marxist utopia that is a problem. Today on Jeff Kuhner WRKO Boston, a caller who was born in Portugal and frequently visits there said that Portugal has a European style government. It isn’t exactly communist but the people there just eake out a living. Jeff Kuhner who has family in Croatia describes how people go to a cafe and slowly sip a coffee for hours while nibbling on a bisquit. That is what they serve in a cafe in Croatia. Not starvation level but the people are controlled. The same thing in Portugal.