It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fire upon US Citizens???

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I was doing some surfing on the Internet and came across this. The end is very disturbing, and I was wondering if anyone has ever seen this before, or what you guys know about this. Read the whole thing here. Pay close attention to the very end. www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

DD Form 3206 (Rev 2/96)
JOINT SERVICES TRAINING COMBAT ARMS SURVEY


This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regard to non-traditional missions. All responses are confidential and official.


Write your answers directly on the form. In Part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.


Date:_____________


Part A (Confidential when filled in)


Part 1. Demographics.


1. Branch of Service:
Army [ ] USAF [ ] Navy [ ] Marines [ ] ANG [ ] NG [ ] USCG [ ] Other:[________]


2. Pay Grade: (E-6, O-4, etc): [_____________]


3. MOS, AFSC or Specialty Code and Description: [_____________]


4. Highest level of education: Less than 12 [ ] 13 [ ] 14 [ ] 15 [ ] 16 [ ] More than 16 [ ]


5. How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield? [___]


6. How many months did you serve in Somalia? [___]


7. Where did you spend most of your childhood? City: [____] County: [____] State: [____]
.
.
.
45. I would swear to the following oath: [SD D A SA NO]


"I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I swear and affirm to support and defend the Charter of the United Nations and I am prepared to give my life in its defense."


46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority. Consider the following statement: [SD D A SA NO]


"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."




posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by glan
"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearmsbanned by the United States government."


I am assuming that you are talking about what I have just quoted. If this is the case, I really don't see what is wrong here. A police officer would do the exact same thing in this case. I have bolded the words that I feel are key in this quote. I don't think that there is much to discuss on this topic, but please correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final

Originally posted by glan
"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearmsbanned by the United States government."


I am assuming that you are talking about what I have just quoted. If this is the case, I really don't see what is wrong here. A police officer would do the exact same thing in this case. I have bolded the words that I feel are key in this quote. I don't think that there is much to discuss on this topic, but please correct me if I am wrong.


I don't know where you live, but I live in CA. Everyday our gun rights are taken away. First come the guns then comes the control. Not to mention my second adenmdment.

"A well regulated Militia, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by glan

Originally posted by The_Final
"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearmsbanned by the United States government."


"A well regulated Militia, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



I too live in CA and it says if we are to resist or to refuse confiscation of BANNED firearms in America. You can keep you legal firearms but its the RPG's that we can't have laying around.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The fathers of our constitution gave us the right to bear arms so that we may protect ourselves from another possible impedding government foreign or not. I will not let my arms go just because the government said "ok times up people, we are going to leave you defensless now". Nope, not going to fly with me.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final

Originally posted by glan

Originally posted by The_Final
"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearmsbanned by the United States government."


"A well regulated Militia, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



I too live in CA and it says if we are to resist or to refuse confiscation of BANNED firearms in America. You can keep you legal firearms but its the RPG's that we can't have laying around.


Ok and this is what happens when they decide to ban All weapons? And your ok with this?

I would like to know when this came out if anyone has any additional info on it.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathabeanz
I will not let my arms go just because the government said "ok times up people, we are going to leave you defensless now". Nope, not going to fly with me.


What are you talking about? The government is not saying "ok times up people, we are going to leave you defensless now" They are taking away dangerous weaponary that they have deemed unsafe and have thus banned a civilian from owning. They are not leaving us defenceless, we can still have a variety of firearms to own.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by Nathabeanz
I will not let my arms go just because the government said "ok times up people, we are going to leave you defensless now". Nope, not going to fly with me.


What are you talking about? The government is not saying "ok times up people, we are going to leave you defensless now" They are taking away dangerous weaponary that they have deemed unsafe and have thus banned a civilian from owning. They are not leaving us defenceless, we can still have a variety of firearms to own.

Sorry i missed the key word in the article that i thought said all instead of some.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by Nathabeanz]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final

Originally posted by Nathabeanz
I will not let my arms go just because the government said "ok times up people, we are going to leave you defensless now". Nope, not going to fly with me.


What are you talking about? The government is not saying "ok times up people, we are going to leave you defensless now" They are taking away dangerous weaponary that they have deemed unsafe and have thus banned a civilian from owning. They are not leaving us defenceless, we can still have a variety of firearms to own.


Final compare what we are allowed to own in CA compared to neveda or most other states. My Dad owns a Gun Shop in Stockton, and we'v went from having 1000 guns on display to about 300 in just recent years DUE TO GUN LAWS. Time IS up...at least for CA then it just spreads for other states as an example of how peacfull things are in a gun free state.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Quoted from the first post on this topic:


Originally posted by glan
"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."


It says right there that soldiers will only fire on citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of BANNED firearms. I think that is the either or that you were looking for?



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final
Quoted from the first post on this topic:


Originally posted by glan
"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."


It says right there that soldiers will only fire on citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of BANNED firearms. I think that is the either or that you were looking for?


And I refuse to give up my FN/FAL, AR-15 that I LEGALLY bought...That is now Banned in CA. Come fire upon me now.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final
Quoted from the first post on this topic:


Originally posted by glan
"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."


It says right there that soldiers will only fire on citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of BANNED firearms. I think that is the either or that you were looking for?


Yes. But i do think that it is something that will progressivly become an issue from some to all.


df1

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final
They are taking away dangerous weaponary that they have deemed unsafe and have thus banned a civilian from owning. They are not leaving us defenceless, we can still have a variety of firearms to own.

Do you think the criminals are going to comply with the law? I suspect not, so law abiding citizens are going to be left with pop guns to defend themselves against criminals with automatic weapons. Just lovely.

Private citizens should be able to own any weapons that the police are entitled to use.
.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Originally posted by glan
Final compare what we are allowed to own in CA compared to neveda or most other states. My Dad owns a Gun Shop in Stockton, and we'v went from having 1000 guns on display to about 300 in just recent years DUE TO GUN LAWS. Time IS up...at least for CA then it just spreads for other states as an example of how peacfull things are in a gun free state.

We should be kept under more strict rules than other states because we are a border state, and have a lot more exports and importants that many other states, allowing the trafficing and selling of a larger arsenal of weaponary. There will never be a gun free state due to the second amendment. They may have a lot of restrictions but it will always be possible to own a firearm. I found a site where they list all the Dangerous gun bans of 2005


[Edited to change subject of the post]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I too have a pre-ban California "assualt weapon" that they can pry from my cold dead hands.

That would be the begining of civil war in this Country as "militia" members withdraw from California and seek refuge in other States, heavily armed. Waiting for the POPO to catch up to them.....

There are too many unknowns in society that have guns that any plan of forced forfiture will never work in this Country and least not without a fight.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by The_Final
They are taking away dangerous weaponary that they have deemed unsafe and have thus banned a civilian from owning. They are not leaving us defenceless, we can still have a variety of firearms to own.

Do you think the criminals are going to comply with the law? I suspect not, so law abiding citizens are going to be left with pop guns to defend themselves against criminals with automatic weapons. Just lovely.

Private citizens should be able to own any weapons that the police are entitled to use.
.


No but if they patrol traffcing of weapon XYZ then their will be a greater reduction of the export/import of weapon XYZ. Ofcourse criminals won't comply with the law but we can do our best to make it harder for them to recieve such weaponary. No that is why we have police officers...swat teams...and an array of departments for our defences. If private citizens were able to own any gun that a police officer could, what would make them a power? They would just be another civilan getting paid to carry around that gun. There has to be some power that the police have over civilians or else there would be no use for them.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I see the reasons to worry, but dont...

there are far more armed civilians than there are guns in the whole armed forces...

if the army was ever turned on its own people for anything other than a local disturbance... the south would ride again my friend... and they would be joined by the north and west and east... (well, maybe not ALL the east).

Every military person I have ever known, has said they would never support a domestic action... so a good portion of the military would walk out also...

I don't know what part of the country you are from... but around here, they can take RPGS and auto fires all they want...
If they ever try to take our hunting rifles, and sport guns... they wont succeed.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Before everyone hold hands and starts chanting "pried from my cold, dead fingers," what makes anyone believe this is a real DD Form? Has anyone been in the military? Has anyone ever seen a military form so poorly contrived?

Posse comitatus anyone?

Try doing a search and see what you come up with, nothing but conspiracy sites referencing each other.

You may now commence claiming it's classified, that the government doesn't want us to know (but they'll expect a multitude of DOD and DOT personnel to complete this "form"). And why would I mention DOT personnel?

Form Monkeys, not just for dotting “I’s” and crossing “T’s” anymore…



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final
There has to be some power that the police have over civilians or else there would be no use for them.


One thing that would make them a power is the Law abiding citizens would own them, not the criminal. But when that power decides to over power the Law Abiding citizens we need guns other than the .25 Raven
. Goto Nevada you can own whatever you want. There aren’t any problems there.

If a criminal wants a gun he goes and gets one. They don't have a waiting period, background check; if they have an un-paid traffic violation it doesn't prevent them from getting one. I legally own all mine....Mine are the ones their after.
[edited big quote try to keep quotes to one level -nygdan]


[edit on 24-8-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Before everyone hold hands and starts chanting "pried from my cold, dead fingers," what makes anyone believe this is a real DD Form? Has anyone been in the military? Has anyone ever seen a military form so poorly contrived?

Posse comitatus anyone?

Try doing a search and see what you come up with, nothing but conspiracy sites referencing each other.

You may now commence claiming it's classified, that the government doesn't want us to know (but they'll expect a multitude of DOD and DOT personnel to complete this "form"). And why would I mention DOT personnel?

Form Monkeys, not just for dotting “I’s” and crossing “T’s” anymore…


Good Call


I am actually dissapointed with myself for not thinking of such and idea. I just normally trust the poster. On few occasions I know not to trust the poster on obvious things such as Masons eat babies!!!! I also agree that ever solider I have talked to if it came to the people vs. the state we would have the guys on our side


On a personal note.....Mirthful Me how do you always come up with a lil line after you post? Whenever I see a post from you I always just jump straight to the bottom to see your catch phrase.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join