I have been sitting on this for a week now, but I've got to ask, am I the only one that still believes in the goodness of America?  A week ago there was a thread in which guys were spouting off that they'd open up on the police, military, etc... in a SHTF situation.  This seems insane to me!  We have been given a Republic in which the founders created a means for the peaceful prevention of tyranny.  Am I alone in believing that things like voting, petitioning, and peaceful demonstration is a means of preserving our rights?  On 9/11 I decided to join the National Guard.  I am 32 years old, have a family, and have no prior service in the armed forces.  I just decided that I had to do something and did it.  When I hear guys saying that they'd open fire on somebody like me, well, thats a pretty sad day in my book.  I am as pro Second Ammendment as the next guy around here, and I took an oath to defend the Constitution that I hold sacred and mean with all of my heart.  Instead of imagining the worst, we need to realize the best use of our efforts is in making sure to vote in the right people, write letters, send emails, and introduce others to the world of shooting.  Its easy to get jaded when you see some of whats going on, but I for one still believe in America and am loyal to the idea of America.  I just think that shooting your mouth off and saying that you'd take a shot at a police officer or National Guardsman is stupid and offensive.  Benjamin Franklin said "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it" I think we can and I think we can by using the system of government people like Franklin handed down to us.

Nope. I will stand right beside you.  Especially after 9-11, the attitude of some people in the online gun community---not all, and definitely not a majority, but some vocal individuals---makes me ill.  This country is still worth fighting for, no matter what the cynics say.

I don't think they mean you but any group whose agenda is to disarm the citizens.

It is at this point that all else has failed.

Many would view those who still wear the uniform of those sent to disarm the populace as the enemy at this point. As they would be serving an out of control government.

The government is to comply with the constitution and the bill of rights, not the other way around.

It defeats the need, purpose, of these documents if view any other way.

If there is a civil war in our country, I'll take whichever side supports the constitution and bill of rights.

JackBurton, are you saying you would fight against the constitution and bill of rights?

Diminished 2nd Amendment rights

Diminished 4th Amendment rights

52% Taxation without proper repressentation

And on and on and on........

Still feel like a Republic to you?  Yes I believe in my country and the system it was founded on.  But in todays world a LEO can stop me for any silly reason (seatbelt law), I can be taxed for stupid ass stuff (Cigerrette tax), and be censored because I don't follow the statis quo (Pro-Life, Catholic, Etc.).

All of the above crap was brought onto this country by voters and elected officials.  I will continue to vote and be verbal in my community, but will also plan for contiginency.

Sgtar15

The only reason we'd have reason to open up on the police and military is if they were given orders to suppress people's constituional right to replace their government. If they refused the order, then of course we wouldn't do anything - we're not the killers the liberal media makes us out to be. But if they started shooting at us, then they choose their own destruction. Most people here believe the latter will happen. Today the oath to the contitution is just a ceromonial affair.

I am saying that I took a solemn oath to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."



Not for me it wasn't!

It wasn't for me either.

Short point :

Just because someone wears the appropriate uniform DOESN'T automatically make him a good guy , its his actions that count .

Jack you and I got off on the wrong foot with the whole religion issue, and we will probably NEVER agree on that topic, but I'm right there with you on this one and the terrorism one.

I don't think all is lost.

I don't think it will come to a revoltution/civil war/race war.

And I don't think shooting cops and soldiers is ther answer.

I also don't happen to believe everything is rosy, and I think we will always have fewer freedoms than intended.

But radical solutions and acts of violence will not bring those lost freedoms back either.

But it damn sure don't make him automatically the enemy. Most of them took the oath to defend the Constitution, not a illegal act of oppression.

Then I don't get what's bothering you. I thought the people talking about firing on police/military would be doing so to defend the constitution.

I never said it automatically {makes him )the enemy , I meant you shouldn't automatically trust him either . After a couple of DWB stops you would know what I mean .

Jack,

We believe in this country also, that's why we would be willing to fight to hold or retake our freedoms, without which, we are not America.  I really doubt there is a single person in here who wants to fire upon a police officer, federal agent, or member of our military. We are, however, freedom loving Americans and in order to protect that freedom for our families and ourselves, we will fight and do what is necessary.  If a person of authority attempts to take away our freedoms their authority is null and void and they are an enemy to freedom and the constitution, and thus, an enemy to America.  I would never want to fire upon the aforemention groups - or anyone for that matter, but if they tried to take my freedom and place me in the chains of oppression would I do it?  In milliseconds, without hesitation.

I,like you, certainly hope it never comes down to that, but if all the voting and letter writing in the world fails (Which we have been doing for years BTW) and our government crosses the lines of oppression too far anyway, then the teeth of liberty are going to put holes in their asses.

So long as law enforcement and the government uphold their oath they have no need to fear freedom loving Americans.  If they choose to break that oath and remove our freedom, they must be willing to accept the consequences.

Mike

I've never taken the oath, since I've never joined the military.  But.... as a citizen of this country, I feel that it is my obligation..... that's just me.

That sums it all up I think,and if I may add a little extra of my OPINION or comment,You are in the ND now,what if you were given the order to seize ALL firearms from US citizines in your community one day when the Govenor of your state feels the need to(SHTF) would you do it? Im sorry but if you were in my community doing that I would have NO choice but to protect my freedom and my rights against a tyrant goverment with the use of deadly force.

I think there is a law that states military can forcibly take over your house and help themselves to whatever thats in your house in a situation such as SHTF.  Maybe they need food or maybe they need your house as a commad post.  Whatever reason it maybe, they will do anything they want, and they will get anything they want. That can be problematic for most of us.  I have huge respect for law enforcement and military folks but they can't kick me out of my own house and take my food and stuff specially when my survival counted on it.  They might go door to door to confiscate legally owned guns.  Will I defend very little that I own?  You betcha.  What would you do if this really happens?  These things already happened here in L.A.  During heavily armed Hollywood bank robbery, cops went to the local gun store called B&B and borrowed their AR15s.  During the LA riot, Federal government tried to relocate B&B's entire inventory to a government storage facility.  Scary huh?

Constitution, Amendment III:

if they need food/water,
let 'em go to wal-mart...

JackBurton, I am with you.  I still love this country and pray to God that you are never asked to carry out an unlawful order.

The oath is sacred, but only if the  individuals uttering it, understand the Constitution that they are protecting and defending.  I fear that most do not.

Hell, look at Ted Kennedy and Slick Willie.  These are 2 smart guys who break their oaths daily.

I believe that the only way to change things is through legal means, or at most civil disobediance, like MLK.

Aren't the weapons that the 2nd Amendment intended to protect nearly completely banned?  

They are banned by laws that violate the Constitution.

Virtually all LEO's -- sworn to uphold the Constitution -- are willing to initiate force against citizens who possess modern M16's.

Would it be wrong for a citizen to use force to protect himself in this case?

JackBurton, RikWriter, SteyrAUG, BillofRights, what do you all think of this scenario?

Err...this is my very first post on the forums so please forgive any offense.



Amendment III.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.



Amendment IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

 

Amendment V.
...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.



Amendment II.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Some try, most die. It's your right to exercise. You could also exercise your right to try to get out fast and hide out until you can regroup and begin the hunt.

AS far as what will really happen if the SHTF goes, there's a lot of big talk that leads nowhere. The only one of the first ten amendments to the constution that isn't already regularly being violated by current law or government practice is the third.

Executive Orders on the books that can be activated during a "national emergency":

EO10995:Seizure of ALL PRINT AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA in the United States.

EO10997:Seizure of ALL ELECTRIC POWER, FUELS, AND MINERALS, public and private.

EO10998:Seizure of FOOD SUPPLIES AND RESOURCES, public and private, including farms and equipment.

EO10999:Seizure of ALL MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, including cars, trucks or any other vehicles, INCLUDING CONTROL OVER HIGHWAYS, HARBORS, AND WATERWAYS.

EO11000:Seizure of ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE for work forces under federal supervision; it allows the government to SPLIT UP FAMILIES if they believe it is necessary.

EO11001:Seizure of ALL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE FACILITIES, public and private.

EO11002:REGISTRATION BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL of all men, women, and children for government service.

EO11003:Seizure of ALL AIRPORTS AND AIRCRAFT.

EO11004:Seizure of ALL HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITIES; authority to establish FORCED RELOCATION and to designate areas that must be abandoned as "unsafe." Establishment of NEW LOCATIONS FOR POPULATION GROUPS; building of new housing on public land.

EO11005:Seizure of ALL RAILROADS, INLAND WATERWAYS, AND STORAGE WAREHOUSES,  public and private.

EO11051:Authorizes the Office of Emergency Planning to put the above order into effect IN TIMES OF INCREASED INTERNATIONAL OR FINANCIAL CRISIS.

EO11490:A compilation of some 23 previous Executive Orders, signed by Nixon on October 28, 1969, outlining emergency functions which are to be performed by some 28 Executive Departments and Agencies.
WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARES A NATIONAL EMERGENCY...at which time the Executive Branch can:
*Take over all communications media;
*Seize all sources of power;
*Take charge of all food resources;
*Control all highways and seaports;
*Seize all railroads, inland waterways, airports, storage facilities;
*Commandeer all civilians to work under federal supervision;
*Control all activities relating to health, education, and welfare;
*Shift any segment of the population from one locality to another;
*Take over farms, ranches, timberized properties;
*Regulate the amount of your own money you may withdraw from your bank, or savings and loan institution.

Some people on here were saying that they would just start firing on cops and soldiers, period.  They did not qualify it as to whether they were taking guns or not.  They did not qualify it all, as if to say they would just open fire on cops or soldiers on sight without regard as to what they were doing.

Blindly opening fire on a cop or a soldier is not defending the Constitution.  That cop or soldier may be faithful to the Constituional oath he/she took and may be in the process of coming over to our side.

I'm against blindly firing on cops and soldiers without regard as to what they are doing. I didn't realize that people here were advocating that.

[b]Imbro[/b]... Scary list but I notice there's nothing there about confiscating guns. [:\]


Anyway, I suppose most don't realize that that we ARE NOT living under the Constitution and we ARE under a state of National Emergency - ever since in March 1933 - and [b]has not been recinded yet![/b]

According to the 1973 [url=http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm]United States Senate Report 93-549[/url],

[i]"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national
emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes."[/i]



And when Congress declares a National Emergency, the Constitution is automatically suspended.

So actually, we have not been living under the Constitution for almost 70 years!!

That would be a dicey problem for government if they issued an order for all civilian arms to be seized.  What law would they cite besides "martial law"?  If public insurrection were widespread enough to bring this about you can be certain that conditions were pretty desperate.  Certainly at this time there is a divided opinion about the 2nd and it is still not resolved by the Supremes to EVERYONE'S satisfaction.  How would a soldier or LEO react to orders to confiscate?  Some would consider it an "illegal" order at the least, and at the worst "ill-advised".  There would still be some that would attempt it but my guess is that they would be few in the long run.

I stand with the Constitution and those that would seek to deminish the Bill of Rights are not true Americans. If soldiers or LEOs were to force Americans on an issue contrary to their rights under The Bill of Rights, then they must be a foreign force that need tending to. I think the Declaration gives us that right.

I am a veteran of the US Army. I served with the 10th Mountain Division and am now in the National Guard. If I was ever given the order to take away any freedoms, I would decline. I will defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. That includes the president, members of congress, senators, LEOs, and even my fellow soldiers. Freedom is all that matters.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." Thomas Jefferson

What makes you think that a cop will shoot you for posessing an illegal (or legal) machine gun?

They won't.

Therefore you would not be justified in shooting them, when all they do is arrest.

If someone had a clear intent to kill, you would be justified, however you will still be judged by the infamous '12'.

BTW - Finish explaining your position on YOUR thread, and don't hijack this one.

Great for the both of you, but due to the rampant abuse by LEOs of their powers (and use of powers they don't have) you can bet that half of if not more of LEOs skim over the Constitution and never look at it again. These are the same people who will plant drug evidence, trick people into allowing illegal searches and follow an order to forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens.


The "radical" solutions and "acts of violence" are what put those freedoms down on paper in the first place. Unless something changes radically politically in the next 10 years, the same solution will be required to restore those freedoms from people who didn't even have the power to take them away.


See, there's that big loophole: "but in a manner to be prescribed by law." What law is on the books that details this "manner"?


Uh, I doubt very much law-abiding gun owners here were stating that.


A cop that goes in after somebody with a machine gun isn't going to knock on your door and politely ask that you "turn in" yourself and your machine gun. He and 6 of his buddies are going to don the "jack-booted thug" outfit, break down your door in the middle of the night without warning and seek to put their own machine gun in your face. They will intentionally create a situation that you will be forced to fire on them for attempting to arrest you via an illegal, unconstitutional order. That's the only justification you need.

The above scenario is unlikely to happen with a machine gun or assault rifle but it is much more likely to happen with a semiautomatic rifle (given the level of SAR possession).

Would that have been Camp Drum back then or Fort Drum as in recent? How did you like the mud around there?

As for the rest, well put!

That would be Fort Drum(frozed tundra hell). HHC 4 bat. 31st Infantry Reg.
God, Guns, and Guts made America free!

I'm not sure why I would be forced to fire to stop an 'attempted arrest'.  Sorry.

[:K]

This is the ONLY way to be sure you are on the right side!
Well said!

Thank you, sir.

Whatever goodness that exists is certainly well hidden underneath all the bureacratic nonsense that has stolen nearly all of the idealized "freedoms" that this nation's founders fought and died for.  The goodness I see is in the hearts and minds of the people who have come to the conclusion that government in all forms sucks to high heaven and we need a lot less of it before we end up with so much of it that it kills most of us (think Cambodia).

As far as firing on public officials, I have no great zeal or desire to harm anyone.  But at the same time, I will have to defend my life if need be.  More than likely I will be taken by surprise and killed.  That will be that.  If that time ever does come, dying will be better than facing a kangaroo court and a life prison sentence.  Like that asshole pipe bomb kid--as I watched that whole buncha bs go down, I kept thinking "kid, you're going to wish you went out in a blaze of glory because your life isn't going to be worth a hill of beans after the federal government gets through with you."  I hope that jackass is prosecuted, so don't misconstrue my point here.  I also kind of wondered why the little slimebucket didn't go after the real source of his torment instead of cowardly taking on old ladies and innocent farmer types.  

6shooter, that is what I've been trying to impress upon you. In my experience westman431 is the standard and the norm.

Believe this if nothing else. If the LE community and military were even generally made up of the types you think, the crackdown would have happened LONG AGO.

It is only because the vast majority of those who serve, or work for the government, are dedicated to their oath that such a dramatic takeover is not possible. People like Jack and westman431 and the millions of others wouldn't stand for it.

Please consider that before you see them as a potential threat to your freedom. It is a slap in the face.

And what do you suppose is the "real" source of his torment?

His Mommy & Daddy.......

SteyrAUG, I DO realize it, about westman431 and countless other members of the military and law enforcement. I do NOT think that all government employees should be killed indiscriminately.

I'm not anti-government or an anarchist, I'm pro-Constitution. My allies are everyone who supports the Consitution, and I know this includes many government employees. I have immense respect for the pro-Constitution members of the military and law-enforcement.

I'm not hoping for a civil war. My greatest dream is that the armed members of the government tell the legislators "no, we will not follow that illegal order." No bloodshed is what I want.

westman431 is not the first member of the government I've known who supports the Constitution. I know there are others like him -- on this website, and my real-life friends -- and that's why I partake in discussions like these instead of standing outside and blasting away at everyone wearing a badge.

I would appreciate it if I were seen as I am: squarely pro-Constitution, not a psycho, a criminal, or a cop-hater.

However, when it comes to LEO's, I'm not as optimistic as you. On another thread today, we discussed machineguns produced after 1986. The Constitution says citizens can have them, but the LEO's on that thread say we cannot. So we have a little problem here.

Assume for the sake of argument that laws preventing me from legally owning a recently manufactured M16 are unconstitutional.

Cop pulls me over for having (illegally) an M16. Attempts arrest. Would i be justified in resisting arrest?

Apparently you don't. Again, we're talking about an illegal forced entry illegally attempting to confiscate a constitutionally-protected firearm and therefore illegally arresting its owner. Feel free to let us know how exactly you would would put a stop to it if not opening fire - something like "Please, Officers, this is totally illegal and unconstitutional. Go back to your duties. I'll be sending you the bill for the door and frame."

And this is why gun confiscation is happening SLOOOOOOOOOWLY. Incrementally. One gun-owner at a time.

Exactly, an all out ban with marching-door-to-door confiscations would bring about massive armed resistance.

Instead we'll ban this feature, ban that feature, add a tax here, background check there, ban guns for felons (if they're still dangerous why are the no longer in prison?), ban AP ammo, and on and on and on.

The average person thinks any one of these are "reasonable restrictioins" to our rkba (ala not yelling "fire" in the theater.)

Where will the line be drawn? At what point will LE folks say enough is enough and no longer enforce the laws that are enabling the incremental destruction of our right to arms?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

Is a LE who enforces a law preventing me from owning a newly manufactured M16 enforcing an un-constitutional law?

[b]AMEN!!![/b]

Thank you Steyr (and we can agree to disagree about the religious issues, I hope you saw my apology, I meant it for you as well as Ben)!  I refuse to believe that EVERYone in the FBI, CIA, ATF, HRT, DOJ, LE, military, etc... is out to strip away the Constitution, and I think that those of you who do have allowed your paranoia to get the best of you.  I am squarely on the side of the Constitution, as are most of the guys in my unit, and all of the guys I shoot with (most of whom are current and retired LEOs and ex-military) are.  I understand where the concern comes from (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzalez, etc...) but in my experience the government officials I know and have met are straight up for the Constitution.  Steyr is right again, it is precisely because of the men and women in government who won't stand for it that such a takeover has not occurred; and I do feel as though my face has been slapped.  

JackBurton and SteyrAUG,

Virtually all LEO's today are willing to confiscate newly made M16's. How can you claim confidence that LEO's will uphold the Constitution, when they already are willing to violate it?

OK FIRST the constitution DOES NOT specifically mention any firearm, let alone those that have yet to be invented. But I believe the intenet is to have weapons comparable to that of a opposing military force, which would include M16s.

SECOND, LEs do NOT make the laws. OUR representatives do. LEs are NOT asked about this. "Hey guys would this law be ok?" LEs are only tasked with enforcing the laws that exists. It is not at their discretion to obey or disobey an EXISTING LAW.

THIRD, the problem is with elected officials who sign laws that seem to contradict the Constitution. You have a problem with the 86' Machine Gun ban, that was Ronald Reagan not LEs. Next time vote for a more reliable Republican. Assault Weapons, that was George Bush in 89. Next time vote for a more reliable Republican. The 94' Ban, not the Republicans fault.

But this is all nothing new. Before you were even born the 1934 NFA act violated the constitution. So do the drug laws the NFA was patterned after. Slavery violated the very wording of the Constitution. You gonna go back in time and kill LEs? Southerners?

Hell Libof76 pointed out how our aid to Israel is a direct violation of the US Constitution, are you oppposed to that? Or our you selective about the Constitution like many of our elected official?

You wanna change something, you get it done BY MEANS of the constitution.

Do you actually believe if YOU and others shoot enough people the government is gonna see your point about you being able to have machine guns?

6Shooter just wants to kill a cop,for some dumb ass reason I just can't figure out yet.  6shooter you get every post locked for this samer ass dumb post!  You are a cop,I am a cop every damn dime you spend some of that money goes to fund a cop!

Along with firemen,Gov agencies,.ect  When as you or some one so appropo put it the SHTF police,fire-dept, hell every man women and child wil pick up the torch.   Nobody thats an american will be against you.

You must have an axe to grind with the police,get over it man they have familys to and will be fighting right along side of you!  And many of use took that pledge over forty years ago and have the arms to fulfill it.


Bob    edited to say Jack Burton you won't be alone in your strife.