AR15.Com Archives
 MARINES WILLING TO SHOOT AMERICANS TO CONFISCATE GUNS?
marte616  [Member]
12/25/2008 7:22:02 PM
All,

We are all (most everyone) talking about the New World Order, UN-sponsored disarmament, OBambi's Second Ammendment stance, and RHAMBO EMMANUEL'S PLANS FOR A CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE!!!!! etc,etc...

I think it would be within the subject, and timely, for you all to read thes article below. It is 12 years old, but still very relevant and eye opening. Now, before anyone with a chip on their shoulder accuses me of Jarhead-bashing, let it be known that I am a retired USN Chief Petty Officer and served many years with our Nation's finest-so not bashing going on.

LIke FOX NEWS-I report, you decide!

SHOOT AMERICANS' SURVEY RESULTS
One in Four Marines Would Fire
Results are in from the U.S. military "shoot Americans"
survey-and they are disquieting.
By Mike Blair

About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps base in southern California.

In addition, more that four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force."

The SPOTLIGHT has been provided the results to the survey contained in a master's degree thesis, reportedly undertaken by a student at the Naval -More-Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, to determine "unit cohesion" when soldiers are assigned to "non-traditional missions."

Few stories published in The SPOTLIGHT have created such a stir as when it was revealed in this newspaper's July 25, 1994 issue that the survey had been taken at the Marine base.

On May 10, 1994, the survey was undertaken by Navy Lt Cmdr. Ernest G Cunningham, purportedly as research for his thesis, Peacekeeping and UN Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion, at the Marine base, located on the southeast corner of the Mojave Desert, about 70 miles due east of San Bernadino, California, just east of Los Angeles.

RECEIVED DEGREE

Cunningham turned in the thesis for printing on March 20 and was graduated from the Postgraduate School on March 23, receiving his Master of Science in Manpower, Personnel and Training Analysis degree.

According to U.S. navy and Marine Corps officials, Cunningham administered the survey to 300 Marine veterans of the Persian Gulf War and the earlier invasion of Panama in the base auditorium.

He had the cooperation and permission of the base's public affairs officer, But Cunningham did not have consent of the base commander, Brig. Gen. Russell H. Sutton. In fact, Sutton didn't know about the survey until afterwards.

The results of the survey contained 46 questions dealing with the Marines" willingness to perform "non-traditional" missions.

Question 46, dealing with a gun confiscation scenario, jolted both the Marines and the Navy, as well as the Department of Defense, numerous members of the House and Senate and virtually every American concerned about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the people's right to keep and bear arms."

VERY DISTURBING

This is how the question was posed to the Marines:

"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.

Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."

The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the Statement.

According to the results given in Cunningham's thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question.

Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens."

Of that total, 18.67 percent, or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent, or 23 Marines, indicated that they "strongly agree."

A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing at citizens.

Of the total, 42.33 percent, or 127, indicated they "strongly disagree" and 19.33 percent, or 58, indicated they "disagree."

In his thesis, Cunningham noted: "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on their response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission,"

However, it becomes clear that a poll would be useful in determining which soldiers, and in this case Marines, would be willing to undertake such a mission, to fire upon U.S. citizens."

In other words, if a commander asked the men of his unit to raise their hands in a simple poll, he could determine the position of such servicemen and those who responded in the affirmative could be talked for such a mission.

This is just one of the reasons the question, not to mention the fact that it was allowed to be asked, is obviously potentially dangerous.

In fact, several months before the survey was taken at Twenty-Nine Palms, The SPOTLIGHT, Modern Gun magazine and other publications revealed the question posed by Cunningham in his survey had been asked of members of a U.S. Seal (Sea-Air-Land) team.

In addition, despite Navy and Marine Corps denials, there have been dozens of reports, unconfirmed, that the survey has been given to other servicemen, as well as various federal law enforcement agents.

FURTHER SURVEYS?

In fact, Cunningham notes: "If the results of this survey elicit concerns in the areas queried, then further studies are warranted. Perhaps, a random sample survey should be conducted to determine whether the results of this survey are valid for the entire Marine Corps and/or Army. Also, a survey could provide an indication of the volunteer pool that would seek service in units dedicated to, and specialized in, peacekeeping operations..."

Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis, that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative-that they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force..."

"Furthermore," Cunningham notes, "43 percent of the soldiers strongly agreed...

"Federal troops have been restricted from participation with local police authorities to quell domestic violence since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That being the case, it was surprising that these soldiers seemed to not know the legal restrictions placed on them by the act."

He also noted, however, that "In May 1992, 4,000 U.S. Army and Marine soldiers were ordered by President George Bush to augment city and county law enforcement and state National Guard during the riot in Los Angeles, California, following the Rodney King trial.

"Since 1981," Cunningham states, "the majority of today's All Volunteer Force has been exposed to and participated in an environment of expanding non-traditional missions when Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981. This act enabled the military to participate in the drug war. This cooperative alliance of military and civilian police efforts in the name of national security may have eroded the demarcation between civilian law enforcement and our military institution first established by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878."

The results of another question, No. 45, posed by the survey, indicates American soldiers are not eager to swear allegiance to the United Nations, although nearly on in four would do so.

Question 45 states:

"I would swear to the following code: `I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense'."

A total of 69.33 percent, or 208 Marines of those surveyed, indicated that they disagreed, with 117, or 39 percent, indicating they strongly disagreed.

On the other hand, 71 Marines, or 23.66 percent, indicated they would be willing to swear such allegiance to the UN, with 19, or 6.33 percent indicating they were strongly in favor of doing so.

"For thousands of years," Cunningham notes in his thesis, "military organizations have required their soldiers to swear to some form of code or allegiance. A code provides a standard for the soldiers to live up to and, in many cases, to die for. A code can be a powerful tool for establishing and sustaining unit cohesion. But what if the mission a soldier is assigned to perform counters or confuses the code he has sworn to uphold? Question 45 was presented to determine if the soldiers would swear to such a code."

No one knows if the American personnel traveling in the helicopter shot down over Iraq by friendly fire" in April 1994 would have sworn allegiance to such a code. Yet, Vice President Albert Gore stated that these Americans "died in the service of the United Nations."

"It is patently clear," a retired high-ranking Army officer told The SPOTLIGHT, "That this survey raises some very serious issues, not the least of which is that U.S. servicemen are not being properly educated as to the limits of their service in the civilian sector. This is most dangerous, and, I should think, the Congress has an obligation to the people to take a careful look at this, not to mention the people at the Pentagon."
ftldrben  [Member]
12/25/2008 7:34:15 PM
Interesting...

Buy with 3 out of 4 NOT WILLING to fire upon American citizens you'd have more of a conflict with the armed services verses WITH them.

But if, for some reason, they all decide it's cool to shoot citizens...

I hope they realize the consequences of that decision...because it'll be clear to them very soon after they commence such an atrocity.
cobra-ak  [Team Member]
12/25/2008 7:44:08 PM
Marines will say "aye, aye, Sir!" follow orders but it does not mean they will actually interpret that order to mean what it really means....does it mean shooting women and children, does it mean shooting a homeowner with a firearm inside his property? Sketchy
gunsho11b  [Member]
12/25/2008 7:58:14 PM
That would be one fucking order I would glady disobey.
nationwide  [Team Member]
12/25/2008 8:40:29 PM
Welcome to 2005.

There were members of the OK National Guard on video saying they would.

YouTube is full of the stuff. Anyone who doesn't know doesn't want to IMHO.
geoisdef  [Team Member]
12/25/2008 11:21:17 PM
haha i lol'd at that.
Devildog1068A1  [Member]
12/26/2008 1:52:57 AM
I guess, as a command security manager, I would have to recommend a rereading of the Posse Comitatus Act, as well as Executive Order 12333 and 12334, which provides for intelligence oversight on non-collection on US citizens. Obviously, anything further is even worse. I think that, at that point, someone else would decline that order for me and the rest of the command.

Look at it this way: In New Orleans, the National Guard even knew their limits. Guns were confiscated by police, with the NG guys just standing in the background, looking scary and intimidating with their M16s. I would not have been fooled by their presence, although their reaction would have been interesting, but not really considered, as I was overwhelmed and killed by the fatty minions working for Ray.
Now we'll have Obamites, ignorant of law, driven by the popular-vote/vote-people-off-the-island-TV show mentality working at it.

However, the most likely scenario is going to be a frog-being-boiled-slowly scenario; people really are that stupid, and it will work, eventually....but not for this Marine.
marte616  [Member]
12/26/2008 9:35:32 AM
Guys,

This link from the Jews for Preservation of Firearm Ownership allows you to download and open a movie about our 2A rights and a hypothetical scenario I pose on my posting earlier. Enjoy and forward to everyone you know!

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/2a-today-download.htm


December 23rd 2008
Getting Ready for Something Big?

Have you taken time to reflect on four situations?

The movement to implement micro stamping of ammo and turning your current ammo stock into contraband.

Chicago Mayor Daly is holding a high profile January conference of "gun violence victims" to promote more "gun control" laws.

LA Police Chief advocating 50 Cal gun and ammo ban.

A standing army being utilized to quell unrest. What might the excuse be - shooting massacre, economic meltdown?
marte616  [Member]
12/26/2008 9:48:58 AM
More fuel for the fire, from someone whom is actually smart...Copied and pasted under the "reasonable use" provisions for internet material, and by giving the author proper recognition:

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] writes the Pro Libertate blog.


http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/grigg-question-46.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w66.html



""Civilian disarmament is integral to any military occupation, whether it's carried out in the service of "peacekeeping," colonialism, or genocide (and those categories do tend to blend at the margins). Since 1994, the US military has been involved in a series of occupation missions – in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere. Nearly all of them involve some large-scale disarmament initiative. Recently in Iraq, US military personnel have been confiscating toy guns from Iraqi children.

Many of those military personnel are Guardsmen and Reservists who will return to jobs in "civilian" law enforcement well-versed in the logic of civilian disarmament as a necessity for "force protection." Others are military personnel who will be fast-tracked into law enforcement careers once they come home and look for work in an exceptionally bad labor market. Still others will serve "dwell-time" missions stateside as part of Northern Command's homeland security force.

It would be immensely useful – and probably quite horrifying – to have those personnel take Guy Cunningham's "Combat Arms Survey," and examine their responses to the notorious Question 46. How many of them would be willing to shoot Americans in order to confiscate their guns if ordered to do so?

Obviously, I can't provide an answer to that question that is anything other than speculation. I do recall an incident in late 2001, during a speaking tour in support of a book dealing with the subject of civilian disarmament.

The tour took me to Memphis, Tennessee, where I addressed a large audience who had gathered in a very well-appointed hotel. Just down the hall from our meeting, a ballroom had been rented for a formal event involving recruiters for the various branches of the military.

The hallways were full of young officers and non-coms in formal military attire. At one point I spied two of them – one of them a Marine – examining a poster advertising the subject of my speech, "Civilian Disarmament." The Marine turned to his buddy and, with what appeared to be an approving smirk, commented: "Sounds like a good idea."""

December 22, 2008

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] writes the Pro Libertate blog.
LibertyRevolution  [Member]
12/26/2008 11:19:39 AM
Hopefully those in uniform, be it law enforcement or Military remember they took an oath to uphold the constitution, and if these orders come down then those giving them are domestic enemies and should be treated as such , and those orders that infringe on Liberty and Freedom best be rejected and understood that their families are subject to the same orders they are being told to carry out.... whether it be infringing on the 2nd or suspending habeus Corpus / Martial Law or whatever....

Sharpshooter  [Member]
12/26/2008 2:44:45 PM
This is nothing really new there are studies like this all the time. This type of thing is used to gauge to what level the troops and civil authorities can be counted on to carry out the wishes of those in charge. Should it be determined we need to be ptotected for our own good. I remember a study done at a LEO academy a few years ago that had far worse results IMO. With something like 3 out of 5 stating that they would do what was ordered by their superiors in order to establish order and maintain the peace. A big part of this crap stems from the fact that although all the troops take an oath to protect and defend the people and constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Almost NONE of them could probably tell you anything about the constitution, our government, history or laws. It is a breakdown of system at the most basic level starting in elementary school because of our screwed up educational system and lack of values in general. Most of those guys are swearing an oath to the GOV and not the the NATION.
Espada  [Member]
12/28/2008 6:41:54 PM
"It is a breakdown of system at the most basic level starting in elementary school because of our screwed up educational system and lack of values in general."

There it is, in a nutshell. Throw in no qualifications for voter registration, and
it's "bread and circuses" time in America.
ARfoxone  [Team Member]
12/28/2008 6:48:59 PM
Then 1 in 4 Marines would become FF KIA .
Erschlagen_Du  [Member]
12/28/2008 7:31:50 PM
I don't know. More than half of the police officers left the city of New Orleans when shit got bad (Katrina '05). So I mean between the deserters, police looting themselves, etc. they were at a loss for any plan. There were some weapon confiscations in the city as well. Most videos show the LEO's rolling four deep guns drawn. Kind of hard to argue with 4 guys ready to shoot @ any resistance. That's why we evacuated, with our guns to a safe place with family and friends and their guns too.
SWATH  [Member]
12/29/2008 3:06:00 AM
They should do a survey of citizens to find out how many of them would shoot a Marine who was trying to disarm them.
BLITZ999  [Member]
12/29/2008 5:16:16 PM
Does anyone think they would go into the gang infested areas of the larger cities and ask those nice people for their guns.
Erschlagen_Du  [Member]
12/29/2008 5:45:27 PM
Probably where they would start. Then slowly work their way into harder areas to disarm such as perhaps rural areas. I think this is where they would see more resistance. That's one of the main reasons I'm moving about an hour from new orleans. When the shit goes down I don't want to be in any major city. I feel safer with the trees as my backdrop.
SilentType  [Team Member]
12/29/2008 6:11:39 PM
Will Marines and Cops go door to door for confiscations if ordered to do so?

You bet your rear-end. Don't think for one single second they will not.

That said, I can say with confidence that Marines are not going to hold up well shooting civilians living in the suburbs over firearms bans. That wouldn't last very long before you'd have some serious problems in the ranks.

If Obama or anyone else was stupid enough to issue such a "nation wide" order without some sort of serious justification beyond "Guns are Bad" it would be civil war. The military would fracture and states would leave the union...it would be bad and the end of us as a nation.

Katrina there was civil-disorder and the orders to confiscate was on a local scale. That provided the justification in the minds of LEOs to justify the confiscations and use of force against law abiding civilians. I suspect that had they taken fire and started to loose people and have to kill civilians in mass it wouldn't have continued for very long.

People start seeing their neighbor's house who they knew to be a normal Joe in their nice middle class neighborhood burned to the ground by ATF agents it's going to have pretty negative results.

Neither the Aussies or Brits have done door-to-door confiscations and I believe it's for the reasons above.


Nakanokalronin  [Member]
12/31/2008 5:30:49 PM
Originally Posted By SilentType:If Obama or anyone else was stupid enough to issue such a "nation wide" order without some sort of serious justification beyond "Guns are Bad" it would be civil war. The military would fracture and states would leave the union...it would be bad and the end of us as a nation.


Would Obama even care if this country went under? Its not like he believes in American ways anyhow.
Debater  [Member]
1/1/2009 4:24:18 PM
any law enforcement would.
army_eod  [Team Member]
1/1/2009 4:30:11 PM
Let's review.

Second Amendment.

Oath of Enlistment/Office; something about supporting and defending the Constitution.

Order given to violate Constitution = ILLEGAL ORDER.

As an officer I cannot issue an ILLEGAL ORDER or expect my men to do same. That is a Court Martial offense.

Think about it all.

However, if performing a legal duty in CONUS for .mil, I take fire; I return fire. Different situation.
Postal0311  [Life Member]
1/1/2009 4:45:30 PM
Push come to shove, most people will easily follow orders like that.

In no time when I was in the service were we ever taught to disobey an illegal order. In fact we were taught to follow all orders, and if you have a problem with one, report it to the chain of command after the event.

Remember the Mil vs Civilian mentality. They believe that they are right, and following a righteous order. The order would not have come down the chain of command if it were not right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
AR-180  [Member]
1/1/2009 4:51:39 PM
This will end poorly.

coldair  [Team Member]
1/1/2009 4:58:19 PM
Originally Posted By AR-180:
This will end poorly.


the future
Northwoods51  [Member]
1/1/2009 5:38:01 PM
Originally Posted By army_eod:
Let's review.

Second Amendment.

Oath of Enlistment/Office; something about supporting and defending the Constitution.

Order given to violate Constitution = ILLEGAL ORDER.

As an officer I cannot issue an ILLEGAL ORDER or expect my men to do same. That is a Court Martial offense.

Think about it all.

However, if performing a legal duty in CONUS for .mil, I take fire; I return fire. Different situation.


So, here is a question to consider:

In Viet-Nam, certain areas were declared "free-fire zones". The upper levels of command could, and did, declare large and small sections of the country free-fire zones were anything moving was, simply by being there, designated an "enemy" to be killed, no questions asked. Lots of old men, women, children and infants were killed in these "zones". Least you think this never happened, please consider that My Lai was located in one of these zones. Lt. Caley (sp?) followed orders and gave orders to kill everyone in that village. If ANY of Caley's men had refused to follow those orders they faced immediate execution for refusing to obey orders during a combat operation. He could have simply blown their head off. Instantly.

If there is an order to confiscate civilian weapons, martial law is declared and certain suburbs are declared "too dangerous" for LEO and military personnel to conduct "pacification operations" and are therefore declared "free-fire zones" do you obey orders to kill everyone in that free-fire zone or do you refuse and face court martial and execution?

My bet is, that just like My Lai, not one single person in uniform, either LEO or military will ever disobey any order. When they proceed to carry out those orders in the suburbs, that is when the real civil war will start. The LEOs and military will have only 3 choices; obedience, desertion, or execution.

Maybe I'm wrong. Experience tells me I'm not.

What will you do?
UMDRanger  [Member]
1/2/2009 9:47:19 AM
I'd like to think we've come a long ways since Vietnam. The military has gone through a great transformation. Just look at how we conduct Basic Combat Training, deal with issues regarding mental health, the over emphasis on safety. I think we learned a lot about our mistakes during Vietnam, and found ways to fix some of them. Just look at the difference between how Vietnam Vets were treated upon returning home compared to OIF and OEF Vets.

You will still have people who blindly follow orders, but the "me" generation has brought with it "individual thinking".

Just my two cents. I make no claims to be an expert.
geronimo666  [Member]
1/2/2009 3:26:25 PM
The human experience is such that the best actions come after careful deliberation and to get someone to carry out objectionable actions you train them for it. In watching "innocents betrayed" by JFPO one of the dictators says if "we kill 3 million citizens the rest will obey" and thats true. Instill fear and you get instant compliance. I wonder if they will start up Human sacrifice again, that always keeps people in line. But that works both ways. If the citizens kill a bunch of police or soldiers, their morale will be broken. In the book "on killing" Grossman makes the point that only 25% of the soldiers could kill face to face thruout history untill the military started training with silouet and pop up targets so that in Viet Nam the percentage was up to 65% and has gotten higher with newer techniques. Alexander Soljanizen (?) said what really made us burn later in the camps was thinking that if we had used weapons to kill those rounding them up door to door, in no time the number of dissadent collectors would run out. In stead 2/3's of the city was rounded up and sent to siberia. My daughter's going thru basic now, and the brainwashing applied there is staggering.
SilentType  [Team Member]
1/2/2009 4:49:43 PM
Originally Posted By geronimo666:
The human experience is such that the best actions come after careful deliberation and to get someone to carry out objectionable actions you train them for it. In watching "innocents betrayed" by JFPO one of the dictators says if "we kill 3 million citizens the rest will obey" and thats true. Instill fear and you get instant compliance. I wonder if they will start up Human sacrifice again, that always keeps people in line. But that works both ways. If the citizens kill a bunch of police or soldiers, their morale will be broken. In the book "on killing" Grossman makes the point that only 25% of the soldiers could kill face to face thruout history untill the military started training with silouet and pop up targets so that in Viet Nam the percentage was up to 65% and has gotten higher with newer techniques. Alexander Soljanizen (?) said what really made us burn later in the camps was thinking that if we had used weapons to kill those rounding them up door to door, in no time the number of dissadent collectors would run out. In stead 2/3's of the city was rounded up and sent to siberia. My daughter's going thru basic now, and the brainwashing applied there is staggering.


It's not brainwashing. The military doesn't breed zombies or construct robots (we subcontract that out to BAE systems and the like ). Military basic training is about teaching individuals to follow detailed instructions and pay attention to details, not to make them mindless drones.

The NAZI's knew that ordering even Waffen SS soldiers to kill by firing squad would risk a harmful effect on moral. That is one of the reasons that the Germans used gas chambers. It was easier to have a couple of individuals suited for the task drop some Zyklon B to gas Jews then having mass firing lines. In addition, concetration camps took the killing out of the German cities and towns.

A confiscation by force that resulted in multiple shootouts would happen, but if over and over again soldiers witnessed by communities had to kill folks that looked very much like those in their own families it would be destructive to the core and would fracture our military.
SilentType  [Team Member]
1/2/2009 4:56:41 PM
Originally Posted By Nakanokalronin:
Originally Posted By SilentType:If Obama or anyone else was stupid enough to issue such a "nation wide" order without some sort of serious justification beyond "Guns are Bad" it would be civil war. The military would fracture and states would leave the union...it would be bad and the end of us as a nation.


Would Obama even care if this country went under? Its not like he believes in American ways anyhow.


I don't know.

I dont' believe anyone can speak intelligently about what Obama really cares about since he has never been a leader of men able to choose a path or direction for anything or anyone.

I believe we can make an educated guess and say based on his statements, prior acts, and past associates he obviously doesn't "care" for the country we presently are.

marko16  [Member]
1/2/2009 9:39:54 PM
The question begs as to why they asked in the first place. Almost like whats our odds of pulling this off. I'm more disturbed some group put in this effort to see how they will disarm us.

StagArmslower  [Member]
1/2/2009 11:21:05 PM
Whoever gives the order will feed the soldiers with bulshit, like its enemy, criminal, maniac etc. They will never know the real reason. It is enough to insulate them for a while from access to information and send them away for action.
NWTimmy  [Member]
1/3/2009 5:49:24 PM
I live in decent "blue collar" type neighborhood. The kind where everyone has a 3 br/2 bath house and about a 1/4 acre. I can't name one person in my neighborhood that doesn't own at least one firearm. Given, some of them are hunting rifles, but most have at least one hand gun and a few of us have the evil black rifles.

If the cops came into my neighborhood, they would be smart to send more than one unit. After the first house was "hit", that would spell the end for that one unit. With the massive population in the states, and the limited number of LE and .mil available, they would be stretched so thin, they would be basically ineffective.

I know they won't visit my place though...none of my cool toys are "registered" to me...just the hunting rifle. Come and get it. I'll gladly hand over that piece of shit.
JohnOBonno  [Member]
1/4/2009 11:17:06 PM
Originally Posted By BLITZ999:
Does anyone think they would go into the gang infested areas of the larger cities and ask those nice people for their guns.


Ultimately I believe that job will be up to you and me.
Dave_A  [Team Member]
1/5/2009 4:08:23 AM
No one is going to confiscate guns door-to-door...

It's just a stupid armchair-commando fantasy, that gives some folks here their 'justified chance' to 'shoot it out with the man'....

If guns are ever banned, they will simply get them piecemeal, one possession bust at a time... Just like over in the UK - there was no 'house to house' collection for the various gun bans that were passed there (Yes, I know, Brits can own limited types of guns in limited situations)...

Why spend the blood and treasure to 'round them up' when you can just pass a law, get a certain level of compliance, and catch the rest as they show up...
FrankSymptoms  [Team Member]
1/5/2009 4:32:56 AM
Originally Posted By StagArmslower:
Whoever gives the order will feed the soldiers with bulshit, like its enemy, criminal, maniac etc. They will never know the real reason. It is enough to insulate them for a while from access to information and send them away for action.


That. They'll be given a Waco story and then let loose.

Frankly, it is likelier that the soldiers doing the confiscations will be wearing blue helmets, and won't speak English as a primary tongue.
cnatra  [Team Member]
1/5/2009 4:50:18 AM
StagPower  [Member]
1/5/2009 10:51:00 AM
1. It won't be a national bun confiscation all in one day thing. It will be city by city, block by block. Boil the frog slowly.

2. If the Marines, or Army for that matter are ordered to do it, the lower rank n file will most likely do as ordered. It will be the high ranking generals who are never seen that make will the difference between this being a go or no-go. And at that, they will all have to agree. If one general says no, he will have an early retirement at the very least.

3. Blue helmets -yup.

4. Local LEO- yup with military support.

StagPower
garrotter  [Member]
1/5/2009 3:27:07 PM
3. Blue helmets -yup.

4. Local LEO- yup with military support.

Think we're 10-20 years from that.

FIRST, lower the standard of living and let em starve

Second, spin ANY response to the next phase...then maybe the blue helmets....
Chosen  [Member]
1/5/2009 4:18:44 PM
That article is from 1994.

There are no survey results to reference. No survey of that kind exists anywhere.

Google only turns up 4 results, all of which are cut and pastes with the same content.

I would have to deny this article until I see the actual survey from a reliable and notable source. The main reason is that I know a few Marines, none would do this.

roadhog481  [Member]
1/5/2009 4:35:08 PM
just speaking of the Marines at the time at my station south of los angeles. The attitude towards civillians at the time was very poor. Either we did not think about it or we were hated by pretty much everone around the base for one reason or another. you can factor that into some kind of freudian "you don't like me so i don't like you harder" scenerio. I would say that 3/4 of them not shooting at civillians would reason with the others and soon it would be 9/10'ths. but i would not go any lower than that just because of all the gung ho, obey orders at any cost dudes that i served with.

Semper Fi
Daryl
bugle  [Member]
1/5/2009 4:44:25 PM
Originally Posted By FrankSymptoms:
Originally Posted By StagArmslower:
Frankly, it is likelier that the soldiers doing the confiscations will be wearing blue helmets, and won't speak English as a primary tongue.

Or foreigneres from China or elsewhere will be recruited into our military for this purpose.

"Foreign Assets" who don't identify with the Founding Fathers could be fed rhetoric about "racist gun owners" and would not hesitate to go door to door.
natethreet  [Team Member]
1/5/2009 5:05:33 PM
oh boy
BigArn  [Member]
1/6/2009 12:50:39 PM
Originally Posted By SWATH:
They should do a survey of citizens to find out how many of them would shoot a Marine who was trying to disarm them.


I'll start that, count me in!!!

JHMC79  [Team Member]
1/6/2009 12:58:30 PM
So what are the other 75% going to do?


My hope is frag the CO that issued the order, and go up the chain from there.

flyboy1788  [Team Member]
1/6/2009 2:58:54 PM
Originally Posted By BigArn:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
They should do a survey of citizens to find out how many of them would shoot a Marine who was trying to disarm them.


I'll start that, count me in!!!



Yep. "The enemy is anyone who is going to get you killed, no matter what side he is on"
StagArmslower  [Member]
1/6/2009 4:10:36 PM
If the confiscation would be a new world order what kind of new world and what kind of new order we could expect? Will it be new world of oppressed and poor people? Would this guarantee enough GDP to sustain the oppressors with taxes? Production would drop; would this be worth for oppressors to bring country to poverty level? I know that small group of oppressors can live comfortably exploiting populous but than the military component would have to live better than populous to continue the process of oppression. This in turn could not be supported for long. This of course is picture of the country without chance for change in mid term so chances for political changes would have to be blocked by change of the Constitution to not to allow for it. Besides weaken country would be attacked easily by outside powers. Would it be even possible in the vast country like USA?
Meadowmuffin  [Member]
1/6/2009 5:55:57 PM
In public testimonials nine out of ten marines agree that the tenth marine doesnt know what he is talking about.
PraesulPresul1  [Member]
1/6/2009 6:15:42 PM
Originally Posted By SilentType:

Katrina there was civil-disorder and the orders to confiscate was on a local scale. That provided the justification in the minds of LEOs to justify the confiscations and use of force against law abiding civilians. I suspect that had they taken fire and started to loose people and have to kill civilians in mass it wouldn't have continued for very long.




This has been my point many times. All of the Guardsmen and LEO's followed their orders and all citizens basically handed them over....some with a little fight but no rounds discharged to my knowledge. I even work with a LA Guardsman who is basically one of us and he took several weapons. He doesn't freely admit it but I believe he still possess some of them.

If I get stuck in this situation, I will probably have a horrible boat accident in one of the bayous........
Erschlagen_Du  [Member]
1/6/2009 8:01:11 PM
The F'd up thing with Katrina was the amount of bullshyat the police/Nat. Guard were pulling. I've heard so many stories from friends and family. Robbing jewelry stores, wal-mart, etc., even a Saint's players home. There were even banks robbed via a mysterious hole in the wall resembling a Duck. Duck as in amphibious vehicle, not a quacker owned by a local Sheriff's office. Hmmm? I'm more worried about the ones that will hide behind their badge or uniform to do their dirt. I think most soldiers would see what the real deal is. It's the criminals in uniform we have to worry about. When the time comes I'll be ready to do what I feel is right, and may GOD choose one to favor from there.
Erschlagen_Du  [Member]
1/6/2009 8:10:54 PM
....what really gets me steamed is the videos you see on the net. The ones of a U.S. soldier or soldiers doing stupid sh*t. Killing puppies, talking sh*t to people/little kids that don't understand you(so you think), throwing flash bangs at people walking down the road, etc, etc. Bring that sh*t to our streets here and your liable to get your head popped and start some sh*t off
DSB  [Team Member]
1/6/2009 9:21:34 PM
Originally Posted By Northwoods51:
Originally Posted By army_eod:
Let's review.

Second Amendment.

Oath of Enlistment/Office; something about supporting and defending the Constitution.

Order given to violate Constitution = ILLEGAL ORDER.

As an officer I cannot issue an ILLEGAL ORDER or expect my men to do same. That is a Court Martial offense.

Think about it all.

However, if performing a legal duty in CONUS for .mil, I take fire; I return fire. Different situation.


So, here is a question to consider:

In Viet-Nam, certain areas were declared "free-fire zones". The upper levels of command could, and did, declare large and small sections of the country free-fire zones were anything moving was, simply by being there, designated an "enemy" to be killed, no questions asked. Lots of old men, women, children and infants were killed in these "zones". Least you think this never happened, please consider that My Lai was located in one of these zones. Lt. Caley (sp?) followed orders and gave orders to kill everyone in that village. If ANY of Caley's men had refused to follow those orders they faced immediate execution for refusing to obey orders during a combat operation. He could have simply blown their head off. Instantly.

If there is an order to confiscate civilian weapons, martial law is declared and certain suburbs are declared "too dangerous" for LEO and military personnel to conduct "pacification operations" and are therefore declared "free-fire zones" do you obey orders to kill everyone in that free-fire zone or do you refuse and face court martial and execution?

My bet is, that just like My Lai, not one single person in uniform, either LEO or military will ever disobey any order. When they proceed to carry out those orders in the suburbs, that is when the real civil war will start. The LEOs and military will have only 3 choices; obedience, desertion, or execution.

Maybe I'm wrong. Experience tells me I'm not.

What will you do?


I have disobeyed several orders in my career. You better be right, and I was, but it is not uncommon. In the military you are trained to take orders, but also to ensure the orders are legal. Everyone knows people go to jail with the excuse, "I was ordered to do it".