National Guard Reaction? - Page 5

National Guard Reaction?

This is a discussion on National Guard Reaction? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by dp1911 What a load. There were many, many people who voted against this, but unfortunately they were outnumbered & out-voted by big ...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 109
Like Tree502Likes

Thread: National Guard Reaction?

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array graydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    3,741
    Quote Originally Posted by dp1911 View Post
    What a load. There were many, many people who voted against this, but unfortunately they were outnumbered & out-voted by big cities bought and paid for by Bloomberg.

    Have you seen what the people of VA are doing, the people you're saying should sell their guns? Thank God they're not taking your advice
    Absolutely. And here's the latest map of 2A sanctuaries:
    OldChap, dp1911, Militant and 2 others like this.
    Ride hard, shoot straight, always speak the truth

  2. #62
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,043
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    You are severely stretching what I wrote. The Americans who were targeted in the last administration were in a foreign land and who had taken the conscious decision to carry out terrorist operations against Americans and other western peoples. Would I be in favor of bombing a section of a city in which a few terrorists, or a group of them, carried out an action against thew citizens, think the Boston bombing? No, of course not. But I would favor killing them. You don't capture and try enemy combatants in a court of law. You kill them. Can you imagine trying to capture Jap soldiers on Iwo Jima and take them to court? Of course not. The Marines did their damnedest to kill every one of those b*****ds and they did a heck of a good job of this. We should take the same approach to terrorists who come over here to kill Americans. They are the enemy and supposedly, we are at war with terrorists. And war means killing people and breaking their things.
    Ideally, the system should revoke the citizenship of those citizens who take up arms against the American people first. Such is rarely possible because of the speed of modern war and the plethora of lawyers who know only what drivel has been beaten into their feeble brains.

    @Havok The way the founding fathers envisioned it, the answer to your question is that the free press should learn of malfeasance (or innocence) on the part of the government, bring that governmental crime to the attention of We the People of the United States of America, who actually ARE the Government (not our representatives or bureaucrats) and in whom all the ultimate power and authority rests and who are responsible to mandate the apparatus of law and order to correct the issue.

    It's easy to see where we have abdicated our power, and have failed to restrain the free press from becoming an organ of a political party.

    Sorry for so many posts. So much to say, so little coffee. I will say that this discussion should happen in every school in America, such that citizens actually discuss these issues vital to the survival of the republic.
    Havok, Mjolnir and Rock and Glock like this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    In the extreme it is We The People. But as others have posted, I rather doubt that will come to pass. What I would like to see is tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of well armed people banding together and sending the message of, "Not today, Not tomorrow, Not ever" to Richmond.
    But what are those people actually going to do? Stand there and take pictures for facebook while everyone else says "meh" and shrugs it of?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    You are severely stretching what I wrote. The Americans who were targeted in the last administration were in a foreign land and who had taken the conscious decision to carry out terrorist operations against Americans and other western peoples. Would I be in favor of bombing a section of a city in which a few terrorists, or a group of them, carried out an action against thew citizens, think the Boston bombing? No, of course not. But I would favor killing them. You don't capture and try enemy combatants in a court of law. You kill them. Can you imagine trying to capture Jap soldiers on Iwo Jima and take them to court? Of course not. The Marines did their damnedest to kill every one of those b*****ds and they did a heck of a good job of this. We should take the same approach to terrorists who come over here to kill Americans. They are the enemy and supposedly, we are at war with terrorists. And war means killing people and breaking their things.
    So being OCONUS vs CONUS is where we determine whether a US citizen should have a trial, and be convicted of a Jury of his peers, vs dropping a bomb from a remote control plane and saying "tell the news to report that it was ok because hes a terrorist". As far as capturing and trying enemy combatants, thats somewhat, but not entirely true, but I see your point. Regardless, I am talking about US citizens here. While we are arguing over whether police or the guard will kill US citizens over guns and red flag laws, people here are showing support for dropping bombs on them. So should we really be surprised when police or military follow orders to do such things? You call it a stretch. Think back just a few years, lets say 10 years, and see if you would have believed that the word "terrorist" would someday be applied to someone just because they are an NRA member, or that a teacher could file a risk protection order and have guns confiscated from a students parent they have never met. What about if someone would have told you that the FBI, FISC, CIA, all the way up to the POTUS would all work together to try to overthrow a future POTUS? All of that was a "stretch" at one point, and when the waters are tested, and buzzwords like "terrorism" are seen as what gains approval, then it will be latched on to. Its how people became ok with drone striking a US citizen, how people became ok with being spied on, etc. The idea that a bill would be introduced in the Virginia legislature to fire LEO's who wont confiscate guns would have been seen as a stretch a week or two ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    If you're talking about Al-Awlaki, he made his allegiances pretty clear, on the web for all to see.
    So?
    OldChap, CWOUSCG, Mjolnir and 1 others like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #64
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post

    @Havok The way the founding fathers envisioned it, the answer to your question is that the free press should learn of malfeasance (or innocence) on the part of the government, bring that governmental crime to the attention of We the People of the United States of America, who actually ARE the Government (not our representatives or bureaucrats) and in whom all the ultimate power and authority rests and who are responsible to mandate the apparatus of law and order to correct the issue.

    It's easy to see where we have abdicated our power, and have failed to restrain the free press from becoming an organ of a political party.

    Sorry for so many posts. So much to say, so little coffee. I will say that this discussion should happen in every school in America, such that citizens actually discuss these issues vital to the survival of the republic.
    I agree that it should be that way, but whats the solution for when they get a significant amount of the population on their side?
    OldChap likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  6. #65
    Senior Member Array beebee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    FarLeft NY
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    A couple of points. First, this is exactly my point. How can anyone actually believe this will/does happen to their precious families and still live in that country? My answer? They should move away - immediately. OR my second point would violate forum rules, but most of us know how to stop such atrocities. There are a great many folks who have the knowledge, skills, training, and access to things that would make fighting the Taliban look like a picnic.

    And all this talk, but no one has explained the extraordinary things taking place in VA at the COUNTY LEVEL. Declaring 2nd Amendment sanctuary status, deputizing citizens, organizing militias. If everyone believes any response will be immediately overwhelmed by force of arms (as many here seem to claim), why all this? You'll have to explain it as something other than armed resistance on a state-wide scale.

    Most of you know that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in a county (in almost all states) is not a police chief, but an elected County Sheriff. Are we not seeing a response by Chief LEO's in what now seems to be a huge majority of counties in VA? If the conclusion is so foregone, how do you explain it?

    I need to make one other slightly pertinent point. Those of you who say the only role of police and military is to obey orders ala robots, have missed something in your education. The UCMJ and law enforcement handbooks, not to mention state and federal law, do not state that every order must be obeyed regardless, it states that every LAWFUL (not Constitutional) order must be obeyed.

    The plan was to have flag officers who were moral (lawful) people issue moral (lawful) orders to those subordinate to them. It was assumed that moral leaders would not issue immoral, unlawful orders and thus violate the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. History has shown us what happens when unlawful orders are followed (or lawful orders are misconstrued or misunderstood in execution resulting in unlawful conduct). People are charged, tried, and go to prison. Some of you maybe missed my comment about such things, so I will state it again:

    If you are a soldier or LEO, you are held responsible for every order you must obey and held equally responsible for every order you are duty-bound not to obey. YOU are expected to understand what orders are lawful and what orders are unlawful - you...and no one will take the fall in your place. Fail at either point and you can land in prison - or at least you should. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.
    Your appraisal is somewhat more optimistic than mine, and I pray to God, that mine is ridiculed in the near future, and put on a wall of shame somewhere on this forum to be laughed at, and yours is held up to a standard we should all strive for... bob
    Havok, Henry9008, OldChap and 2 others like this.

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,505
    Quote Originally Posted by dp1911 View Post
    What a load. There were many, many people who voted against this, but unfortunately they were outnumbered & out-voted by big cities bought and paid for by Bloomberg.

    Have you seen what the people of VA are doing, the people you're saying should sell their guns? Thank God they're not taking your advice
    The people of VA wanted free stuff and socialism . It was there choice . Now they must live with it. Unlikely the few that see it different will do much of anything.
    gatorbait51 and OldChap like this.
    Yes Taurus really does suck. But in fairness they sure turned it around fast on warranty repair. Time will tell

  8. #67
    VIP Member
    Array Rockymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Idaho!
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    A couple of points. First, this is exactly my point. How can anyone actually believe this will/does happen to their precious families and still live in that country? My answer? They should move away - immediately. OR my second point would violate forum rules, but most of us know how to stop such atrocities. There are a great many folks who have the knowledge, skills, training, and access to things that would make fighting the Taliban look like a picnic.

    And all this talk, but no one has explained the extraordinary things taking place in VA at the COUNTY LEVEL. Declaring 2nd Amendment sanctuary status, deputizing citizens, organizing militias. If everyone believes any response will be immediately overwhelmed by force of arms (as many here seem to claim), why all this? You'll have to explain it as something other than armed resistance on a state-wide scale.

    Most of you know that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in a county (in almost all states) is not a police chief, but an elected County Sheriff. Are we not seeing a response by Chief LEO's in what now seems to be a huge majority of counties in VA? If the conclusion is so foregone, how do you explain it?

    I need to make one other slightly pertinent point. Those of you who say the only role of police and military is to obey orders ala robots, have missed something in your education. The UCMJ and law enforcement handbooks, not to mention state and federal law, do not state that every order must be obeyed regardless, it states that every LAWFUL (not Constitutional) order must be obeyed.

    The plan was to have flag officers who were moral (lawful) people issue moral (lawful) orders to those subordinate to them. It was assumed that moral leaders would not issue immoral, unlawful orders and thus violate the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. History has shown us what happens when unlawful orders are followed (or lawful orders are misconstrued or misunderstood in execution resulting in unlawful conduct). People are charged, tried, and go to prison. Some of you maybe missed my comment about such things, so I will state it again:

    If you are a soldier or LEO, you are held responsible for every order you must obey and held equally responsible for every order you are duty-bound not to obey. YOU are expected to understand what orders are lawful and what orders are unlawful - you...and no one will take the fall in your place. Fail at either point and you can land in prison - or at least you should. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.
    So help me out here, as I am trying to make sense of the duties required of the enforcement folks as it relates to existing law(s).... If law enforcement/military officers are ordered to enforce a law that is on the books, they should do so, correct? If the consensus is that said law is unconstitutional, they may feel obligated not to enforce said law....however....until the law is deemed unconstitutional by the courts; is it not still the law? And if that is so...shouldn’t LEOs enforce them?

    In my mind, even if a given law appears to be unconstitutional, I don’t see how LEOs can justify ignoring them until a court actually strikes down the law.

    From my personal perspective, I am not saying I want what I and many others perceive to be unconstitutional laws
    enforced. But at the same time, law enforcement/military is in a no-win situation if they are to decide which laws to enforce, or not, based upon their opinion of them being unconstitutional.

    “Orders” given by a superior not based in law, are a different matter IMHO, and may be considered ignorable if deemed unconstitutional. In any case....it’s no small decision on the part of an enforcement officer to not follow orders.
    "Once that bell rings, you're on your own. It's just you and the other guy.” - Joe Lewis

    “I’m not obsessive about cleaning my guns. I like them like my martinis and my women....a ‘little’ dirty.....”

    Member: GOA, SAF, ISAA






  9. #68
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,715
    So can anybody explain with any supporting court opinions or precedents why the threatened actions involving the National Guard would be illegal?
    Forget the federal Constitution. This is not federal law they are talking about enforcing. Even if it was they are in the Fourth Circuit which has held bans on military style rifles are constitutional.

    The Virginia Constitution says the Governor has to enforce the laws of the state.

    The Virginia Constitution says the Governor is the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the state.

    The Virginia Constitution says the Governor can use the National Guard to enforce the laws of the state.

    You want them to follow the Constitution? That is what they plan to do.

    Treason includes such things as levying war against the Commonwealth or resisting the application of its laws under color of its authority.

    And what is the purpose of this "county militia" ?
    Last edited by mcp1810; December 21st, 2019 at 04:35 PM.
    Mjolnir likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #69
    VIP Member
    Array gatorbait51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Loozianna
    Posts
    5,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    I do indeed remember the public reaction. Half the people I knew thought the guard was justified and the victims had it coming, while the other half were outraged. In any event, nobody got lynched over it.

    The civil authority after Katrina had no compunction about confiscating guns from the law-abiding.
    It was in selected areas of Orleans parish, areas that interestingly enough produced no looters . Those that did seemed to have been over looked. The confiscated firearms were put in .50 Cal cans, allowed to rust and hey, sorry. The surrounding parishes not only did not confiscate, they encourages staying armed and alert.
    I'd be interested in knowing where the Guardsman was from. Side note, we had NJ State Cops here who could not get over real people had firearms, knew how to use them and at least two discovered citizen back up .I wonder if any of it stuck? Nawwwww
    EN MI VIDA AL MAL NO TEMER…, POR QUE EN MI CORAZ”N Y MIS DOS .38 SUPER COLT.

    The Totalitarian State in America will not arise at the point of a gun. It will come with a message of

    "We only want what's best for you. It's for your own good."

  11. #70
    Senior Member Array CreedDryrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    OREGON
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    @CreedDryrot Come on now. You think everyone jumps out of bed every day saying, "I'm gonna go out and shoot me some citizens for running a red light today?" I see people on this forum every day saying they'd shoot someone who breaks in their home at zero dark thirty. You think they would just do that because they enjoyed it? Really??? Or do you suppose there might be some valid reason?

    I don't believe I said anything like that. What I did say is that police are already doing this and it's not the moral quandary you're thinking it is. All that needs to take place is for a law to be in place and for it to be spun properly. A red flag law is the perfect spin, I'm sure there are more down the pipeline ready to be put in place. Yes, some officers may see it for what it is, but spin it and most will toe the line and enforce it like anything else. You're thinking police won't take up arms against citizens or disarm citizens but as a former police officer you should be aware that every weapon a police officer has on them is there to be used against a fellow citizen.

    Like your example of bombing a city... I'm sure the other member and their flight crew might have had a moral difficulty if they got an order over the radio to bomb Des Moines, IA. But if the order explained that a biological weapon was just detonated in Des Moines, IA and if the city wasn't destroyed out right it would kill the rest of the US within 72 hours, I bet their moral difficulties might have vanished.

    Morality isn't based on the action, it's based on the reason for the action. Humans have a fantastic world history of causing attrocities against one another, morally. Find the right reason and we'll all be going door to door to take away people's weapons.
    M1911A1 likes this.

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,043
    @Rockymonster Concerning LEO's...It isn't that they must make a decision on Constitutionality so much as decide on lawful or unlawful actions. For instance, if an actor is arrested and handcuffed, unless I've missed something, there is no provision that tells you how that person must be treated per se in the Constitution. You could technically beat him with a rubber hose as long as it didn't rise to the standard of cruel and unusual punishment. However, I think most of us would deem that beating to be unlawful, and indeed, there are laws of assault that would apply. Laws are community morality codified.

    So the officer is expected to restrain any impulses to beat a handcuffed actor - in other words, expected to act in a lawful manner. That lawful act may or may not be spelled out in the Constitution. Should a supervisor order the officer to beat the actor, the officer is duty-bound to act lawfully and not obey - even if it is perceived as disobeying a "lawful" order. So we see that it is possible to be given a lawful order to carry out an unlawful action. That is a fine line that must be observed, and indeed, we require all who have the authority of the government to behave in such a manner.

    If a supervisor orders an officer to invade a home with no probable cause, no exigency, no warrant, do violence to the occupants, and seize their property in the name of the government without due process, then following that (lawful) order would cause the officer (and the one issuing the order) to be guilty of committing an unlawful act. I fail to see a great deal of difference between that and criminal home invaders.

    @mcp1801 While the VA leadership claim such powers, they cannot "spin" away the clause about DUE PROCESS. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You claim to be acting lawfully, then do so. Don't claim legality while breaking the law in almost every other area. Our problem is we have a dual tier system of justice in which we refuse to charge those in power and authority when they break the law. They begin to feel they will never be held to accounts. If you want to see what happens in that circumstance, look at the French Revolution.

    @CreedDryrot
    You're thinking police won't take up arms against citizens or disarm citizens but as a former police officer you should be aware that every weapon a police officer has on them is there to be used against a fellow citizen.
    Not exactly. Those things are there to restrain someone who thinks they ought to go on a murder spree and kill innocent civilians, or rape children, or rob banks, or invade your home, or put a gun to your child's head or knife to the throat. Police are charged with maintaining the peace. Sometimes violence must be used to accomplish that worthy goal. Carrying a gun? What about you? Which fellow citizen would you consider using that weapon against? You need to understand that police operate with some freedoms you don't have, and a great many restrictions you don't have in such situations.

    BTW the simple definition of morality is: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. That sort of ties the action and the reason together into one. You cannot just dismiss one and not the other.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,715
    From the Virginia Constitution,
    That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or taken except for public use.  No private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just compensation to the owner thereof.  No more private property may be taken than necessary to achieve the stated public use.  Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages to the residue caused by the taking.
    So while an outright confiscation of ARs and AKs would be unconstitutional a forced sale to the government at market price would not be.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  14. #73
    Senior Member Array CreedDryrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    OREGON
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post

    @CreedDryrot
    Not exactly. Those things are there to restrain someone who thinks they ought to go on a murder spree and kill innocent civilians, or rape children, or rob banks, or invade your home, or put a gun to your child's head or knife to the throat. Police are charged with maintaining the peace. Sometimes violence must be used to accomplish that worthy goal. Carrying a gun? What about you? Which fellow citizen would you consider using that weapon against? You need to understand that police operate with some freedoms you don't have, and a great many restrictions you don't have in such situations.
    I think you forget that I'm a retired officer. And you just made my point. "Sometimes violence must be used to accomplish that worthy goal". Exactly what I'm saying. Make going door to door and disarming folks that 'worthy goal' with the proper reasoning and spin, and most officers will be happy to do it.

    To answer your other question, "Which fellow citizen would you consider using that weapon against?" I used everything I had at hand to keep fellow citizens from hurting/killing me, other citizens, and themselves. And at the end of the day, I felt good about it. Again, you're making my point for me.
    M1911A1 likes this.

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,043
    Quote Originally Posted by CreedDryrot View Post
    I think you forget that I'm a retired officer. And you just made my point. "Sometimes violence must be used to accomplish that worthy goal". Exactly what I'm saying. Make going door to door and disarming folks that 'worthy goal' with the proper reasoning and spin, and most officers will be happy to do it.

    To answer your other question, "Which fellow citizen would you consider using that weapon against?" I used everything I had at hand to keep fellow citizens from hurting/killing me, other citizens, and themselves. And at the end of the day, I felt good about it. Again, you're making my point for me.
    My comment about you having a gun was in reference to you as a civilian. Right now. Why do you own a gun now? Which fellow citizen would you use it against? Would you use it to protect your family? IF the answer is "I would use it to protect my family or myself against someone breaking the law by trying to kill me or my family" that is basically the same reason you would have used it when you were on the job, is it not? But maybe I'm not understanding what you said. So here it is:

    I don't believe I said anything like that. What I did say is that police are already doing this and it's not the moral quandary you're thinking it is. All that needs to take place is for a law to be in place and for it to be spun properly. A red flag law is the perfect spin, I'm sure there are more down the pipeline ready to be put in place. Yes, some officers may see it for what it is, but spin it and most will toe the line and enforce it like anything else. You're thinking police won't take up arms against citizens or disarm citizens but as a former police officer you should be aware that every weapon a police officer has on them is there to be used against a fellow citizen.
    To which I replied:

    Those things are there to restrain someone who thinks they ought to go on a murder spree and kill innocent civilians, or rape children, or rob banks, or invade your home, or put a gun to your child's head or knife to the throat.
    Are you saying you would undertake what I have highlighted without probable cause, exigent circumstances, or a warrant? Where do you draw a line and say, "Not me...I won't go to prison for obeying an unlawful order?"

    I think we may just have to agree to disagree. Let's wait and see what the response is.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  16. #75
    Senior Member Array Geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    930
    Before the New Orleans Police pulled their Gestapo action, I'd have bet good money that it wouldn't ever happen in the USA. I'd have lost a bundle. Those "officers" of the NO PD deserved to be shot down on the spot - too bad it didn't happen. Now, if it happens again, it will be accepted by a lot of people. Our freedoms are in dire straits.
    M1911A1 and OldChap like this.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •