Fire upon US Citizens???

Originally posted by glan
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.

Well there has to be some reason to live in a state where all our nuclear waste goes Just Kidding, I go up to the mountains their all the time. Although the population of Nevada isn't like here in CA. Also their is a different state of mind in Nevada then in California. That is why we have Governers and we seperated our country into states so we can have better control and personailzed laws to the state that needs them.

Originally posted by glan
"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."

I don't think that this is a real application, its one of those 'omg the globalists are going to take over the word' type frauds.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't think that this is a real application, its one of those 'omg the globalists are going to take over the word' type frauds.

Yea I am thinking that the whole site in which this form was taken from is bunk.
Wake Up America I dunno that was just a personal opinion check it out for yourself and form your own opinion of the site. I am just interested to see if any solider is so well "disiplined" ( I guess that would be the word) that they would attack a fellow citizen in a State vs. People attack.

Originally posted by The_Final
No that is why we have police officers...swat teams...and an array of departments for our defences.

The police can not protect everyone. Ask a policeman and he will tell you the same thing. This being the case, civilians require the ability to protect themselves. It would give me no satisfaction for the police to show up 10 minutes after they are needed to carry away the dead bodies of my family and arrest the criminal.
.

I doubt that any soldier would actually admit something so horrible. I would hope/pray they would say no.

I seen a guy that just got back from the Iraq War and asked him a few questions with regards to my thoughts, and that was one of my questions he said "of course not", but who's to say?

couple of things
1) ask any police officer if their job is to protect and serve as it was in the past. You will be surprised by the answer I think.
2) as to wondering if any soldier is so disciplined as to follow order to fire upon civilians, I remind you of the events that occured on May 4th 1970 at Kent State University where the National Guard had been called upon to quell a student Anti-Vietnam War Protest. A number of students (unarmed) were killed and injured.

Not to mention Ruby Ridge, Waco, Rainbow Farm, etc.

Originally posted by The_Final
Good Call

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.

The form is flawed in many ways, form being syntactically incorrect in the Desert Shield/Storm (that's the way it should be phrased) to including the USCG (actually under the Department of Transportation DOT). The other glaring factor is that quite honestly, the civilian leadership, and the brass of the DOD really don't care what the rank and file enlisted and junior officers think.

If they did, do you think we would have "don't ask, don't tell?"

Catch Phrase Monkeys, not just for the end of the post anymore...

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
2) as to wondering if any soldier is so disciplined as to follow order to fire upon civilians, I remind you of the events that occured on May 4th 1970 at Kent State University where the National Guard had been called upon to quell a student Anti-Vietnam War Protest. A number of students (unarmed) were killed and injured.

I am talking about such a thing on a much larger scale, where it is quite nearly a war (if not a war). But you also have to realize that, the national gaurd is used to domestic stuff, soliders are used to seeing the enemy as a tank, or a helicopter, not a family armed.

Well I think I found the source of the survey.

The U.S. Military Has Distributed a Survey Among Soldiers That Prepares Them For Shooting Civilians Who Resist Gun Control-Fiction!

More here.
www.truthorfiction.com...

Soldiers are not made to think they are made to commit, and take orders. If a soldier was orderedto fire upon citizens 9 out of 10 probably would.

True, I understand what you are aiming at. But the example that I gave is just one.
At the very begining of US history the Military have been called upon to (possibly) fire upon our own people. The first case that really tested the discipline of the militia was the Whiskey Rebellion wher the president called upon the militia to put down the rioting that the Whiskey tax had caused. The federal goverment were sitting on pins and needles hoping that the militia would obey History of the Whiskey Rebellion

would / could such happen today in one word yes. The whiskey rebellion called up 12500 troops which back in 1791 was a huge chunk of the male population of the US.

Then you may also remember in the past that our federal troops have been called upon in a much larger scale, back during the Civil War.

by Lobo

I found this today, and almost fell over. This is someone's sick top 10 idea's of why guns should be banned.

1. Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion.
2. Some .004 % (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned
3. Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.
4. Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun law Washington [D.C.], violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration is caused by the criminal's cowardly avoidance of armed householders and concealed carry civilians. This criminal migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere.
5. Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people everywhere.
6. No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect them by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.
7. Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens should completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children.
8. Guns owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens.
9. Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipates the fantasies created by violent video games and TV. Ignorance once lost, can never be restored and needs to be protected.
10. Guns reduce people's reliance on the Police and Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in "rights." No person has the right to question authority. No person should be less then 100% dependent on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to establish the Order the authorities want

CALIFORNIA GUN CONTROL
Senate Enacts Four of the Strongest Gun Laws in America This Year, Governor Davis Signs New Bills to Protect Kids From Guns

Pay close attention to the part in BOLD

For Immediate Release:
08-27-1999 Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
California completed action on the strongest package of gun control bills ever enacted by a state in one year as Governor Gray Davis today signed two more far-reaching gun safety bills. The measures signed today will require all handguns manufactured or sold in California to meet consumer product safety standards and require every gun sold to be equipped with a state-approved child-safety lock. Last month, Gov. Davis signed the nation’s strongest ban on assault weapons and a bill limiting handgun purchases to no more than one per month to block gun trafficking.
"California hit a grand slam against gun violence this year," said Luis Tolley, Western Director of Handgun Control. "These are four of the strongest gun control laws ever enacted in America. We hope that Congress and other states will follow California’s example and pass sensible measures to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals and kids. Voting parents are sick and tired of gun violence threatening our kids and our communities."
The handgun safety standards bill signed today, SB 15 by Senator Richard Polanco, will create one of the toughest handgun safety testing requirements in the country. All handgun models sold by gun dealers would have to be tested by independent laboratories certified by the state. The tests include dropping the handgun six times to make sure it does not fire inappropriately and firing 600 rounds to make sure it does not jam, misfire or break apart. Only handguns that pass the tests and are approved by the state could be manufactured or sold.
The child-safety lock bills, AB 106 by Assemblyman Jack Scott and SB 130 by Senator Tom Hayden, will create the nation’s first standards and testing program for gun locks and require that all guns sold in the state after December 31, 2001 be equipped with a state-approved child-safety lock.
Earlier this year, Gov. Davis signed SB 23, the nation’s toughest ban on assault weapons and rapid-fire ammunition magazines and AB 202, a measure that limited handgun buyers to no more than one handgun purchase per month.
California’s Grand Slam:
---Establish strict safety standards and testing for all handguns manufactured or sold in the state.
---Ban the sale of all assault weapons and rapid-fire ammunition magazines that hold over 10 rounds.
---Prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun per month in order to stop gun trafficking.
---Require that all guns sold in the state be equipped with a state-approved child-safety lock.

6. No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect them by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.

That made me sick, when I read that I honestly felt like punching a hole through my screen. Whoever wrote this was a complete moron. No intelligent thought was put into that article.Every single one of their "top 10 reasons" prove to the reader their lunacy and their desire to be sterile.


Glan I feel that by your use of the bold ability you have compeltely ruined the article for anyone who is just skimming through. What you have in bold:

We hope that Congress and other states will follow California’s example

You make the reader assume that they want states to follow the above 10 rules. When in fact the whole quote should look more like this:

We hope that Congress and other states will follow California’s example and pass sensible measures to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals and kids. Voting parents are sick and tired of gun violence threatening our kids and our communities

The measures they are talking about are:

---Establish strict safety standards and testing for all handguns manufactured or sold in the state.
---Ban the sale of all assault weapons and rapid-fire ammunition magazines that hold over 10 rounds.
---Prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun per month in order to stop gun trafficking.
---Require that all guns sold in the state be equipped with a state-approved child-safety lock.

I feel that everyone can agree that these were smart decision and by no means impede the citizen of their second amendment. I hope that this will clear up people who got tooo hot headed by reading only the bold.

Originally posted by The_Final

6. No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect them by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.

That made me sick, when I read that I honestly felt like punching a hole through my screen. Whoever wrote this was a complete moron. No intelligent thought was put into that article.Every single one of their "top 10 reasons" prove to the reader their lunacy and their desire to be sterile.


Glan I feel that by your use of the bold ability you have compeltely ruined the article for anyone who is just skimming through. What you have in bold:

We hope that Congress and other states will follow California’s example

You make the reader assume that they want states to follow the above 10 rules. When in fact the whole quote should look more like this:

We hope that Congress and other states will follow California’s example and pass sensible measures to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals and kids. Voting parents are sick and tired of gun violence threatening our kids and our communities

The measures they are talking about are:

---Establish strict safety standards and testing for all handguns manufactured or sold in the state.
---Ban the sale of all assault weapons and rapid-fire ammunition magazines that hold over 10 rounds.
---Prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun per month in order to stop gun trafficking.
---Require that all guns sold in the state be equipped with a state-approved child-safety lock.

I feel that everyone can agree that these were smart decision and by no means impede the citizen of their second amendment. I hope that this will clear up people who got tooo hot headed by reading only the bold.

I think your right The_Final thanks for pointing that out for me. You know how I meant it though correct?

Uh, if you think that such regulations do not inhibit the 2nd Amendment, you clearly have not the first idea what the amendment is about.

Standardized safety? What, are you that easily confused?

"Assault weapons" (A media-created term that means nothing in the military world) with no more than 10 round mags? Why do you suggest no more than 10 round mags? Will the government, be it the U.S. or the U.N., be restricted to the same? I think not.

Do you think such restrictions prevent gun crime? Let's see, what has higher gun crimes, Mississippi, Alabama or D.C.? Which has the strictest gun laws? No, your restrictions forced upon the citizen do nothing but restrict the citizen.

Look, that crap has been a failure since the they were shoved down our throats, and they will continue to do nothing more than hinder the citizen and further the agenda of the NWO.

Originally posted by The_Final

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't think that this is a real application, its one of those 'omg the globalists are going to take over the word' type frauds.

Yea I am thinking that the whole site in which this form was taken from is bunk.
Wake Up America I dunno that was just a personal opinion check it out for yourself and form your own opinion of the site. I am just interested to see if any solider is so well "disiplined" ( I guess that would be the word) that they would attack a fellow citizen in a State vs. People attack.

Well, it happened in Ohio, and at Waco it was ATF agents at least (along with ruby ridge no?). I'd think that a soldier in the US Army would fire upon a US citizen that was trying to kill him no? I mean, in the end, if a guy refuses to comply with the law and is shooting at you, you're going to shoot back.

where it is quite nearly a war

Well, historically anyways the Confederates fired upon US citizens and the federal government in the civil war, despite having taken oaths to not do so.

Double M
really don't care what the rank and file enlisted and junior officers think.

Hell, some of them would probably be pretty upset if they heard that they

glan
This is someone's sick top 10 idea's of why guns should be banned

Not for nothing, but this list also sounds like somethign that was made to make the other side look stupid. These reasons are absurd, where is there any documentation to show that these are actually comming from the gun control lobby? I'm thinking it doesn't, I'm not convinced either way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

Wait Wait Wait In NO WAY do I agree that those laws passed where good decisions.

---Establish strict safety standards and testing for all handguns manufactured or sold in the state.
---Ban the sale of all assault weapons and rapid-fire ammunition magazines that hold over 10 rounds.
---Prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun per month in order to stop gun trafficking.
---Require that all guns sold in the state be equipped with a state-approved child-safety lock.
This law alone took away a huge amount of Hand Guns, and not just junky Guns, GOOD GUNS

We called this the Drop Test
Commencing January 1, 2001, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail, to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into California for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend any "unsafe handgun."
"Unsafe handgun" means any firearm capable of being concealed on or about the person that lacks a safety device, or fails a 600-round firing requirement test, or fails a drop test, as conducted by an independent laboratory certified by the Attorney General.
Any concealable firearm manufactured in California , imported into California for sale, kept for sale, or offered or exposed for sale shall be tested within a reasonable period of time by an independent laboratory certified by the Attorney General to determine if it is an "unsafe handgun."
The California Department of Justice is required to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all concealable firearms that are not "unsafe handguns."
Exempt from the testing and roster listing requirements are: transfers by non-dealers that are processed through a dealer licenced by California, or processed through a sheriff`s department in a county of less than 200,000 persons; transfers to certain law enforcement personnel; transfers to certain representatives of governmental agencies; infrequent transfers by gift, bequest succession or by other means to a immediate family member if such transfer is reported within 30 days to the Department of Justice and if the person taking title obtains a basic firearm safety certificate; infrequent loans of firearms between person who are personally known to each other if the loan does not exceed 30 days; delivery of a firearm to a licensed gunsmith for service or repair; transfer to federally licensed dealers who reside outside of California; loan of a firearm for the purpose of shooting at targets if the loan occurs on the premises of a licensed target facility; transfers to certain persons who take title by operation of law if they comply with certain other requirements; transfer of unloaded firearms to a wholesaler from a licensed manufacturer, importer or wholesaler; loans of unloaded firearms for use as a prop in an entertainment event; firearms that are listed as curios and relics by BATF; the return of a firearm to a licensed dealer for service or repair; the return by a licensed dealer of a firearm to its owner where that firearm was initially delivered to that licensee for the purpose of consignment sale or as collateral for a loan.
The "unsafe handgun" provisions also do not apply to a single-action revolver that has at least a five cartridge capacity with a barrel length of not less than three inches and which meets any of the following specifications: was manufactured prior to 1900 and is a curio or relic as listed by the BATF; or has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at least seven and one-half inches; or has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at least seven and one-half inches and is currently approved for importation into the United States.


These laws do nothing more than just dwiddle our guns away our gun rights little by little, but these where a HUGE STEP towards banning ALL Guns...They sure make it sound pretty to those of you who are anti-gun.

These are all B/S laws, and the part in bold I was wanting people to relize what their plan/thoughts really are. They take away all of our Gun-Rights, and then other states are supposed to follow.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by glan]

You guys totally missed the point of what question #46 was all about. It was a hypothetical scenario to help determine the individual's tendency toward using deadly force. Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree, No Opinion. This doesn't mean this is what they will have to do necessarily. On the other hand, it could also be used to demonstrate their level of committment to the service. You want troops who will follow orders.