Anyone see this ?
A petition to deport Piers Morgan has been sent to the White House following his gun control rant…
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Our saving grace will be the military itself, if it’s not taken care of before it gets to them.[/quote]
Jay,
What gives you so much confidence in the military?
I thought they were under the government and obeyed their orders?
[/quote]
I grew up with the Army all around me. My dad retired as a high-ranking senior NCO. I have a lot of contact with the military through my job, my family, and my extra-curricular activities. I have discussed these things with many of the military folks around me, and you would be hard pressed to find even one who would knowingly break their oath and act against the citizens.
They are bound to follow all lawful orders. Lawful meaning Constitutional, as they are bound to uphold the Constitution first and foremost. No citizen is bound to follow a law that is unconstitutional and no LEO, GI, or court is bound to uphold said law.
One problem among the younger GI’s is uncertainty about what is constitutional and what is not, but this is one issue that is certain. They will stand with us.[/quote]
I will agree that a large portion of junior enlisted soldiers wouldnt know what is/is not
constitutional. As much as i hate to admit it there are some pretty smart officers. An officers oath makes no reference to the president only the defense of the constitution. God help us if it ever came to that point but unconstitutional orders wouldnt be followed by our armed forces of that I am certain.
Edit
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Anyone see this ?
A petition to deport Piers Morgan has been sent to the White House following his gun control rant…
I would just be happy if they took him off TV. He is very uneducated about guns yet speaks as an expert. “These weapons shoot 30 rounds at once” <— No asshole they shoot once every time the trigger is pulled. He always makes gun rights supporters seem as though they are uneducated and backwards. He presents certain facts that support his opinion while denying facts that do not. My head hurts just watching the news as of late.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Our saving grace will be the military itself, if it’s not taken care of before it gets to them.[/quote]
Jay,
What gives you so much confidence in the military?
I thought they were under the government and obeyed their orders?
[/quote]
here is the oath of enlistment and notice the defense of the constitution is mentioned first. UCMJ states unlawful orders are not to be obeyed. Who gives the unlawful order is of no consequence.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.[/quote]
Right on, and God bless the keepers of that oath.[/quote]
Jay and ShreadtoDeath,
Thank you for that information.
I hope you are right!
I wish to live side by side with more people of integrity.
And I sincerely hope this saying I hear that the Constitution is “a living, breathing document” does not mean it will be twisted to be whatever who is in power want it to be.
That would be terrible because we could literally have the military turned against us a current government decided “we” the citizens are the enemy.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Anyone see this ?
A petition to deport Piers Morgan has been sent to the White House following his gun control rant…
I hope he gets deported and I hope Jeremy Clarkson punches him in the face again.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Our saving grace will be the military itself, if it’s not taken care of before it gets to them.[/quote]
Jay,
What gives you so much confidence in the military?
I thought they were under the government and obeyed their orders?
[/quote]
here is the oath of enlistment and notice the defense of the constitution is mentioned first. UCMJ states unlawful orders are not to be obeyed. Who gives the unlawful order is of no consequence.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.[/quote]
Right on, and God bless the keepers of that oath.[/quote]
Jay and ShreadtoDeath,
Thank you for that information.
I hope you are right!
I wish to live side by side with more people of integrity.
And I sincerely hope this saying I hear that the Constitution is “a living, breathing document” does not mean it will be twisted to be whatever who is in power want it to be.
That would be terrible because we could literally have the military turned against us a current government decided “we” the citizens are the enemy.
[/quote]
That would be my only real concern with this. That someone would over time alter the constitution to suite their needs.
The scary reality is that UN troops are training alongside U.S. reservists right now. They are training for ‘disaster response’ but some of their drills include door-kicking under the guise of busting meth labs.
This stuff is not just speculation, either. And you can say what you want about infowars and Alex Jones, but these are direct interviews with military leadership. Sorry about the long vid again.
Another, just to cement the seriousness of the situation:
There were reported confiscations after Sandy as well, with at least one unit refusing the order, but I don’t know the details.
From a friend of mine who is an editor at Small Arms Review:
Worth a watch, especially for those who propose to ban “assault rifles” while not really knowing what “assault rifles” really means or who get all their ‘gun info’ from the mainstream (including FOX) media. In other words, educate yourself.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This is the sickening, saddening reality that befalls an unarmed nation. Not even 17,000 armed peace-keeping troops can protect these people.
http://worldpress.org/Africa/3945.cfm[/quote]
The DRC isn’t an unarmed nation. All the armed citizens just so happen to belong to warring tribes and militias. However, I don’t think most people in that nation necessarily have the resources to purchase many weapons for self-defense.[/quote]
That is true. It would have been better stated as unarmed people rather than unarmed nation.
Not having the resources to provide for your own defense is a horrible situation.[/quote]
I remember hearing about a militia entering a village and they literally beat people to death or killed them with machetes. If those villagers had some weapons it would probably be enough of a deterrent brazen attacks like that.[/quote]
Absolutely horrendous. Take the weapons from the guilty and give them to the villages of the victims, and things would take an upward turn rather quickly.
I think the biggest problem I have with the situation is that there are so many armed UN troops in their country, and nothing is being done to help them.
U.N. ‘peacekeeping’ is a joke.[/quote]
When M23 briefly took control of a city the national army pretty much threw down their arms and hauled ass. UN troops didn’t do anything about it under the guise of only being there to protect citizens, they allowed abductions and property destruction though. I can’t say I care too much for UN troops, too many bad stories about them from bringing crime and prostitution with them to not really accomplishing anything.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
~Samuel Adams~
"Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.
If you dismiss this by saying, “Of course they have armed guards – they get Secret Service protection,” then you’ve missed the larger point.
The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC’s David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren’t used (and weren’t even allowed).
Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."
Guns are only for the ruling class! Didn’t you know that!? Unfortunately for them, they have the situation backwards;
We The People are the ruling class. There is a reason they are called Public Servants.
For imposing unconstitutional law on us, THEY are the traitors! THEY are the rebels! THEY are the insurgents! THEY are the people that our Constitution and Founders warned us about!
~Patrick Henry~ Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
~Patrick Henry~ I wish I knew the date and setting of this quote. If anybody knows, please post it!
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You know the worst thing about this? It nullifies some of the advantage the law-abiding citizen has in protecting his home and family. It gives criminals a good resource for choosing which houses to burglarize. Also, if there’s a house they really want to grab something from, and the owner is on the list, they are more apt to be armed and take violent action toward any resistance they meet.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
~Patrick Henry~ I wish I knew the date and setting of this quote. If anybody knows, please post it!
[/quote]
Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.
Couldn’t have been 1836. Patrick Henry died in 1799. I’m pretty sure that quote was from before his speech at St. John’s, during the time when the British were trying to disarm the Colonists. Anybody who hasn’t read his speech from St. Johns really should;
[quote]No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free–if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death![/quote]
~Patrick Henry~ Speech to the Virginia Convention at St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 25, 1775
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
From a friend of mine who is an editor at Small Arms Review:
Worth a watch, especially for those who propose to ban “assault rifles” while not really knowing what “assault rifles” really means or who get all their ‘gun info’ from the mainstream (including FOX) media. In other words, educate yourself.[/quote]
It’s hard to follow what some people are trying to accomplish. If you ban high cap mags there’ll still be low cap mags, ban assault rifles and there’s “regular” rifles, ban semi-auto and there’s bolt action or firearms you’ve to manually load a round into the chamber. I would rather people that want to ban firearms just be honest with others and themselves and say they want to ban all firearms, not jump on high cap mags and semi-automatic rifles when it’s convenient. To not even realize that firearms will still be sold in stores even if you ban semi-auto rifles shows a lack of research to me, that probably means they’re using rhetoric that appeals to them rather than actually caring about the issue.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.
[/quote]
The book was published in 1836
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
[quote]b89 wrote:
It’s hard to follow what some people are trying to accomplish.[/quote]
