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.

 

Do You Believe Our Military Would Not Defend The American People?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bringthelight
Im glad people like you are defending us Hunted. Most solider aren't dones and they can actually think for themselves.


Thanks Light! I'm American and my family is American. Theres no way in hell I would take the governments side over my family and friends.




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bringthelight
 



If there really is a super-evil force behind the curtains pulling all the strings, dont you think that when we get to the point of FEMA concentration camps our policemen and soldiers will wake up?


No, I don't think most of them will. Especially without a powerful wakeup call, and that would take a powerful revolutionary leader. The reason that I don't think they will "wake up" is the "boiled frog syndrome." The water's already bubbling now, and so many people are still oblivious as to what is going on.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


So what they did , follow orders and revoke on the fly the rights of American citizens, is perfectly justified because of the "disaster zone?" Is that what you're saying? That terrifies me. Should the day ever come that a 2nd American Revolution be warranted would that not also qualify as a "disaster?"

I'm a little fuzzy as to where exactly the average military man draws the line. As you have pointed out they are the ones with the tanks and bombs and rockets so knowing where this line is and approximately how much the citizenry must endure on their own before the average military man gets it through his head he is on the wrong side would be a nice thing to know.

If tackling a woman and confiscating her revolver for fear she may "snipe" some military isn't the line we're in more trouble than I thought.

And sorry but your mocking me for wanting to keep my property and freedoms kind of does make you the bad guy.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by TheHunted
 


So what they did , follow orders and revoke on the fly the rights of American citizens, is perfectly justified because of the "disaster zone?" Is that what you're saying? That terrifies me. Should the day ever come that a 2nd American Revolution be warranted would that not also qualify as a "disaster?"

I'm a little fuzzy as to where exactly the average military man draws the line. As you have pointed out they are the ones with the tanks and bombs and rockets so knowing where this line is and approximately how much the citizenry must endure on their own before the average military man gets it through his head he is on the wrong side would be a nice thing to know.

If tackling a woman and confiscating her revolver for fear she may "snipe" some military isn't the line we're in more trouble than I thought.

And sorry but your mocking me for wanting to keep my property and freedoms kind of does make you the bad guy.


Mocking you? I would never do such a thing!

Question- How many hostile zones have you been in?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


Unless you count two murder-a-day New Haven none but I don't think that's the point. If being in a "hostile zone" is all one needs then who decides what a "hostile zone" is and who decides when said zone is no longer hostile and what happens to those who question the hostility of said zone etc... ?

Where in that chain are the people who would defend the citizenry and when is it do they say "enough?"

Is there some quantitative formula for revoking rights or is it based on feeling or the order of one or a group of men?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by TheHunted
 


Unless you count two murder-a-day New Haven none but I don't think that's the point. If being in a "hostile zone" is all one needs then who decides what a "hostile zone" is and who decides when said zone is no longer hostile and what happens to those who question the hostility of said zone etc... ?

Where in that chain are the people who would defend the citizenry and when is it do they say "enough?"

Is there some quantitative formula for revoking rights or is it based on feeling or the order of one or a group of men?



Not impressed by New Haven. Born, raised, and reside in Flint, MI which has the third highest crime rate in the United States. Very irrelevent.

Rights were not being infringed. Many Guardsmen have done multiple tours in Iraq which produces many woman and children suicide bombers. How do you tell who is or is not the enemy?

These soldiers didn't disarm because she had a weapon. She was disarmed because she could have posed a threat. They have already been fire upon just for trying to protect Americans from that same gunfire.

Do you have any suggestions on how the situation should have been handled? Let me guess, wait until they were shot at?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


The same rules that any gun owner would abide by for self defense. If someone is behaving like a nut waving a gun around I think that qualifies as a threat. If somebody is pointing a gun at you that qualifies as a threat. If you see some guy propped up in a window scanning his barrel side to side I think you can call that a threat.

Somebody with a gun in their hand down to their side is not a threat. Somebody with a holstered gun is not a threat. Somebody carrying their rifle in any position that isnt aimed at you is not a threat.

It's almost as easy as playing Hogans Alley. I thought you guys were trained to recognize potential threats?

Somebody wearing a belt of explosives is different of course. Did they experience many car bombs, IEDs and suicide vests in the Big Easy?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted

A natural disaster turned the area into a hostile zone. The Guard was being targeted by gun fire.


Show me proof that the national guard was being fired upon by citizens. Show me anything credible, because I am not finding a single thing that indicates that was more than a rumor or a myth.

There is this;

www.reason.com...


And the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms arrested a 21-year-old man in the Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans on September 6 for firing a handgun out his window while helicopters flew nearby.



The Air Force, to which the Air National Guard reports, also has zero record of helicopter sniping. "We investigated one incident and it turned out to have been shooting on the ground, not at the helicopter," Air Force Maj. Mike Young told The New York Times on September 29.

Aside from the local National Guard, the other government agency with scores of helicopters over New Orleans was the U.S. Coast Guard, which rescued more than 33,000 people. "Coast Guard helicopters," says spokeswoman Jolie Shifflet, "were not fired on during Hurricane Katrina rescue operations."

How about the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), the all-volunteer, Air Force�assisting network of around 58,000 private Cessna pilots, 68 of whom flew a total of 833 aid missions after the hurricane? "To my knowledge," says CAP Public Affairs Manager Jim Tynan, "none of our pilots on any Katrina-related mission were taking ground fire."


So one moron shooting out his window justifies suspending the constitution?

www.gunsandammomag.com...


In time it became clear that the police superintendent's gun-confiscation order stood on shaky legal ground. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation challenged the order in federal court. On September 12 the court issued a restraining order against the New Orleans Police Department. No more guns could be confiscated, but the guns that had already been confiscated would not be returned to their rightful owners.


All I could find was one National guardsman getting shot in the leg as he and a man scuffled over his weapon;

www.foxnews.com...


A National Guard military policeman was shot in the leg as the two scuffled for the MP's rifle, police Capt. Ernie Demmo said. The man was arrested.


And I read something about a policeman being shot but I can no longer find the link. Please feel free to show us any credible tales you can uncover that my 45 minutes of intense searching cannot.


I found more reports about police firing upon civilians then any thing else.

Thats why I dont trust you to protect us from the government.

Not only do you blindly obey in the heat of the moment when adrenaline is high, but you also dont take the time after the fact to find out if what you did was justified.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by TheHunted
 


The same rules that any gun owner would abide by for self defense. If someone is behaving like a nut waving a gun around I think that qualifies as a threat. If somebody is pointing a gun at you that qualifies as a threat. If you see some guy propped up in a window scanning his barrel side to side I think you can call that a threat.

Somebody with a gun in their hand down to their side is not a threat. Somebody with a holstered gun is not a threat. Somebody carrying their rifle in any position that isnt aimed at you is not a threat.

It's almost as easy as playing Hogans Alley. I thought you guys were trained to recognize potential threats?

Somebody wearing a belt of explosives is different of course. Did they experience many car bombs, IEDs and suicide vests in the Big Easy?


Its easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback. Especially if you have never experienced such a situation.

See its not about IED's or Vest Bombs, its about being fired upon and reacting as if your life is in danger. Every thing becomes a potential threat. They did not shoot her. You act as if she was not capable of pulling the gun up and shooting. All you see is a youtube video. With first hand experience you have no idea.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted


See its not about IED's or Vest Bombs, its about being fired upon and reacting as if your life is in danger. Every thing becomes a potential threat. They did not shoot her. You act as if she was not capable of pulling the gun up and shooting. All you see is a youtube video. With first hand experience you have no idea.


Clap. Clap. Clap. Very dramatic.

Lets not forget that if they were not in her house, trying to force her to leave, and trying to take her weapons, there would have been no problem at all.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by TheHunted


See its not about IED's or Vest Bombs, its about being fired upon and reacting as if your life is in danger. Every thing becomes a potential threat. They did not shoot her. You act as if she was not capable of pulling the gun up and shooting. All you see is a youtube video. With first hand experience you have no idea.


Clap. Clap. Clap. Very dramatic.

Lets not forget that if they were not in her house, trying to force her to leave, and trying to take her weapons, there would have been no problem at all.


Were thay not doing there job? Protecting Americans from the debris and criminals. If they wouldn't have went you would be crying that the Guardsmen weren doing their jobs.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


I am still waiting for you to demonstrate to the public here that there was "a combat zone" in Katrina that justified the disarming of the public BEING their legitimate job.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Here's an example reported from the BBC.


Overnight, a national guard was shot outside the stadium, but he was not seriously injured, a National Guard officer said.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


Thats the guy who was scuffling with someone over his rifle that got shot in the leg during the scuffle. Thats the one incident involving the guard I was able to find and report in my post. We dont know what started the scuffle, and for all we know the guy could have been sticking his gun in someones face and they decided to try to shove it up his rump. No details are given about the circumstances other than the two men were struggling over the weapon. Its quite possible the guardsman is the one who pulled the trigger himself accidentally. This is hardly civilians firing upon the police and the national guard.

So are you seriously telling me that one guy who got into a personal conflict with one other guy, regardless whether or not one guy was a guardsman, justifies suspending the whole populations right to bear arms and makes New Orleans a combat zone? That can happen any where at any time in this country.




[edit on 29-9-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


Regardless of the reason real or perceived threat they were running around nullifying the Constitution. What if she had fired back? Here come a bunch of armed soldiers down the street Constitution suspended to remove your firearms. What if she fired back at her percieved or real threat? Is it might equals right in that situation? A military can do no wrong trumping of her liberty and possibly her life?

If she had been killed for firing would anyone have been held responsible? How about after the Congress passed an unecesary resolution after the fact promising us that what should have never happened in the first place will never happen again? Was anyone held accountable then?

When confronted with a heavily armed force than can by all rights get away with murder and worse yet get away with suspending the Constitution where is the line when a citizen becomes justified for defending themself and when does the unit of the heavily armed force start to question what they are doing?

I treat this like she was shot because she may have well been. Would have taken an order to shoot all who resist forced relocation or confiscation of property to get some of those soldiers to stop and think?

As far as I know I'm not Monday quarterbacking. Identifying a threat is basic training for even the most rudimentary of NRA classes and the police departments that I have worked with have similar criteria (I'm not a cop). I would assume the military would have at least trained this into the soldiers. Unless the plan is for the military to view any and all individuals including American citizens within 100 yards of a firearm as a threat. If thats the case then we certainly have a problem.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


The Superdome was at capacity and the guy tried forcing his way inside. When a soldier tried stopping him he was shot.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


New Orleans was a hostile zone during that time. Crime in the city was at an all time high. People were actually sniping people off from bridges. The National Guard who was there trying to restore order were being used as target practice as well. Anybody with a weapon was a posible threat.


My boys are spread all over the armed forces and I have a tremendous respect for the things you guys go through. But, this entire quote I have an issue with. If New Orleans was a hostile place after a flood, imagine an all out depression. Imagine the looting, the guns, the crime when there isn't money to pay for the infrastructure and means necessary to combat those crimes.

Because one person shot at somebody does not mean all responsible gun owners are going to snipe random people. Most of us do not think of anything but "this will be the leverage I need to ensure the safety of my life." Not, "Anarchy! I don't know what that means, but I like it!"

This means, if anybody and everybody is perceived as a possible threat, that would make a viable enemy of all guardsman and police. If they do not trust law abiding citizens in their own homes with weapons, and even 75 year old women. Where do our rights as citizens disappear and your right for safety as a soldier replace them?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


I havent found anything anywhere saying that the man he was scuffling with shot him. Only that "he was shot as they scuffled over the MP's weapon."

Again, does that one incident, no matter how you spin it, justify disarming the whole populace?

If so, if the military and police are that jumpy maybe they need to think about another career. Something more peaceful and safer. Cause guess what? In the military and law enforcement you sometimes get in harms way. Especially when tensions run high. If you dont like it, dont change the Constitution, change jobs.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


New Orleans was a hostile zone during that time. Crime in the city was at an all time high. People were actually sniping people off from bridges. The National Guard who was there trying to restore order were being used as target practice as well. Anybody with a weapon was a posible threat. Don't know if you ever been in a combat zone, you take nothing for granted.

Why would I want to put a bullet in your head? Because we disagreed in another thread. Sounds like you are holding a grudge. You never know we may see eye to eye on other things. I don't want to see you get shot...Stop making me out to be the bad guy.


Please explain to me why these people that were inside of their own house were perceived as a threat and had their weapons confiscated. www.youtube.com...

I don't recall seeing any of these people "sniping" military.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Trustnoone1987]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 





I understand what you are saying but do disagree. Soldiers are no different then you and me. I'm sure there plenty that visit ATS daily. If it came down to the government or the people they would join their friends and family to do battle.

That sums it up beautifully, in my opinion.
People can disagree about politics, but I have no use for anyone that does not realize that the military are OUR SONS, DAUGHTERS, SPOUSES, and GRANDCHILDREN. They would not turn their guns on their own family.
They deserve our unqualified support. You can disagree with the war that they may be fighting. Take that up with the politicians that sent them there, not our soldiers.
I , for one, thank God every night for our brave service members, and pray that they stay safe, and all come home. Anyone that does not feel the same, is a sorry soul.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join