Soliders Warn of Coming Gun Confiscation and War Against Patriots

That's a government wet dream.... The day the government decides to take our guns away, they will have a big problem in their hands, I have several friends in the Army and none of them will follow those orders... It's a good subject to scare people but in reality it will never happens unless the government is looking for a self suicide.

reply to post by tkwasny


For those who don't understand the pressure of soldiers who have taken the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, what about Kent State?

Those young soldiers fired upon American citizens. Now whether it was right or not according to the chain of command or the Constitution, that will always be debated. But put yourself into their shoes and consider what pressure they were under.

I don't think throwing rocks justifies getting shot, but since we don't know actually how the first shot was fired, then the debate remains in the air. But the soldiers in the National Guard were sent there by Governor Rhodes to quench a four day riot in which personal property was being damaged.

I am from Ohio, I was born in 1967, my parents were there. I remember them talking about Kent State and the rioting. I think they were just as shocked by the shooting, so for those of us whose parents talked about this, it does raise some issues. Ohioans did not forget Kent State, I don't think they ever will. But the discussions were always about whether or not Governor Rhodes had the right to call up the National Guard.

The governors of each state can call up the guard any time he feels there is a need to do so, and usually it is for natural disasters. But as Ohioans still remember Kent State, we will always wonder what these young soldiers were faced with. I am sure they didn't want to shoot, but they were trained to do so.

But you have to ask yourself, in the light of rioting, whose loyalty did those soldiers belong to at that moment? It's a tough call for them. So I don't want to insert my own psychology onto a soldier, I don't walk in his army boots. But soldiers joined the military for a reason and took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Soldiers don't have it easy, but let's not make it any harder for them. They are to protect and defend the Constitution, and thereby protect my rights. How can they accomplish this with duplicitous laws that are held for some people and denied for others?

I am not going to say either side was right when it comes to Kent State, but as an Ohioan, I did not forget.

riffraff

JackSparrow17
They can have mine peacefully. I won't fight the government if it came down to it, even disagreeing with them to the extent that I do. My beliefs don't make me well suited to being a revolutionary. I think it's wrong that they plan on doing that, but I'd rather not get involved with either side in a supposed conflict.

Go back to France! Lol! No, Seriously. The man who tries to take away my guns is my sworn enemy.
I know you think you are being peaceful and progressive, but it is your duty as an American citizen to hold on to your guns, as per the constitution. They should make kids recite the declaration of independence and pledge allegiance to the constitution, not the flag. Then people could see this issue clearly.

"When in the course of human events.....it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Nathan Hale died for nothin, I suppose.

edit on 25-10-2013 by riffraff because: (no reason given)

I'm definitely not progressive. Just a pacifist. If they take away any guns I may or may not have, then I'll just have to find a way to protect my family with my K-Bar, or the big steel pipe I have. I have a real nice baseball swing. Ouch. I'm not interested in reciting any national anthems, pledges of allegiance, declarations of independence. Nope. I don't buy into all of that nationalistic hullabaloo.

Do I hate the government? Yup. Taxes too high? Yup. Do they encroach upon my God-given rights? Yup. Does that give me the right to react violently? Nope. Ever see the movie The Patriot? My story would be Mel Gibson's up to the point the English Colonel kills his kid. I'd give medical and/or food aid to whomever needed it, but as for me and my house, we will not succumb to violence.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I don't think throwing rocks justifies getting shot, but since we don't know actually how the first shot was fired, then the debate remains in the air. But the soldiers in the National Guard were sent there by Governor Rhodes to quench a four day riot in which personal property was being damaged.

I was in the military at that time and there were those who believed a little napalm on a few choice Universities was a good plan of action..

The atmosphere of the time was of a deep divide between the military and protesters of the war. Stories were being told of service men and women who only the week before were in combat coming back to the states and being spat upon at airports like LAX. Many/most of the protesters could not separate the nations policy of war from the soldiers who were drafted to carry out the governments war plans. The shooting happened in 1970 and I remember seeing helmets where it was written, " Army 4 protesters 0".

That whole time in America's history was one of danger and divide; IMO we are lucky it did not get much worse..

reply to post by WarminIndy



Kent State was over 40 years ago.

Soldiers do not exist in an information vacuum.

Kent State should be a harsh reminder. It can happen, very easily. This was a college protesting Cambodia. Let SNAP benefits cease for a month and tell me what Baltimore will look like?

Benefits like that ending would not only cause there to be no food but a source of income for undesirables will dry up also. EBT for 25 cents on the dollar for meth or crack is a very very large reality. Suddenly people have no food and no drugs and you think there will not be issues? Again, more zombies.

reply to post by projectvxn


"Soldiers do not exist in an information vacuum."

Quite right projectvxn.

They exist in a maelstrom of false propaganda, gung ho music to hype them up, and drugs to desensitise them.

So your point is .....?

Do remember to factor in the success anyone would have recruiting mercenaries in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, N.Korea etc., to initiate America into the harsh realities of being invaded.

No other country has made as many enemies as America has, projectvxn .
This really is a bad time to be complacent.

mistersmith.

reply to post by mistersmith

They exist in a maelstrom of false propaganda, gung ho music to hype them up, and drugs to desensitise them.

Ok..What? No one has given me an desensitizing drugs. I've yet to see someone in psyops come over to my battalion and try to convince me the American people's guns need to be confiscated, and I listen to music from all over the world...

The other day my group and I were on our way to the airfield listening to the Barbie Girl song...Yes...So nefarious.

Please stop watching movies.

727Sky
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I don't think throwing rocks justifies getting shot, but since we don't know actually how the first shot was fired, then the debate remains in the air. But the soldiers in the National Guard were sent there by Governor Rhodes to quench a four day riot in which personal property was being damaged.

I was in the military at that time and there were those who believed a little napalm on a few choice Universities was a good plan of action..

The atmosphere of the time was of a deep divide between the military and protesters of the war. Stories were being told of service men and women who only the week before were in combat coming back to the states and being spat upon at airports like LAX. Many/most of the protesters could not separate the nations policy of war from the soldiers who were drafted to carry out the governments war plans. The shooting happened in 1970 and I remember seeing helmets where it was written, " Army 4 protesters 0".

That whole time in America's history was one of danger and divide; IMO we are lucky it did not get much worse..

I do remember that. I might have been young, but my parents did talk about this. I remember my dad taking us to see the movie Billy Jack which was the biggest anti-war protest movie ever, and we all grew up with MASH which was also an anti-Vietnam war protest.

I don't think I would ever spit on a soldier, and even today when I see former soldiers from your era, I always thank them, and sometimes they shake my hand.

I think it comes down to this, as my parents and you come from the Greatest Generation and I was born to Generation X, at that time our country went through the greatest cultural shift in the history of this country. We grew up with the rhetoric from both sides. And since then, as we became adults, it was put onto us for us to not allow another Vietnam. We were babies then, but we grew up in that first generation post-Vietnam, as the Baby Boomers were that first generation post-WWII.

We, as Generation X, didn't have the same rhetoric that surrounded our parents as young children. We heard about the Great Depression of our grandparents, but it seemed so long ago to us and we didn't really know what it felt like living in that time. But the identity of Generation X was born during the Vietnam Era. I think that's why Reaganomics worked for us, because it was no longer about the Hippie Era or the Sexual Revolution. It gave us a new rhetoric, one that told us that maybe the government really cared about what we could accomplish. But it wasn't our generation that put man on the moon, we had to keep man in space. That's why the Space Shuttle disaster was meaningful to us.

I can see my parents' perspective in questioning the government over Kent State, but I can see also how it wasn't so one-sided.

We were born during the time of conflict, and I think that formed our identity. We were allowed to question everything, even our parents. And we then saw from our parents, that loyalty is only something one shows if they know which side they want to follow. My dad was a staunch Southern Democrat and it is from his side that I learned that the government isn't for the people, just the rich. Yes, the elitist philosophy is nothing new. My mom was a northern Republican, it is from her that I learned the government is made up of people that come from rich and poor alike. But both of them taught me that I am a citizen of this country and I can choose to fight as a citizen or give in as a citizen, the choice was mine.

I do see this current talk of revolution as useless. If history has taught us anything, it's that we can't win just on loyalty alone. As Billy Jack said "When policemen break the law, then there is no more law, just the fight for survival".



Americans are saying "on this reservation, I AM the law". But if you don't know just what you are up against, it doesn't make sense to take on the whole town unless you know you can win. I don't think the young people today can win.

I think the young should see Billy Jack, it was a movie that demonized one side and promoted another, but as duplicitous as it was, it did show the mentality of both. I can't agree with the demonization of white people, but I can't dismiss either the continued subjection of other people. But it seems to make more sense for this day and time. Take the movie for what you will, it was a protest movie to begin with, and yet it does raise serious questions regarding the mentality of people from that era.

reply to post by WarminIndy


If you had any knowledge of the Kent State shooting you would also know that those Soldiers thought that they were being fired upon. There are even recordings of a shot/firecracker going off before they opened fire. It was a tense moment in history that went bad.

I don't say that in the Soldiers defense. I have always taught and led my Soldiers that you just don't pray and spray unless you have a legitimate target. And if you just wound them, they are to provide 1st aid once the area is secure.

My guys actually listened to me. We're not robots. Though I think that many college kids are exactly that.

and let me clarify, as another poster did. I do not think that they were heartless bastards at Kent State. They were more just as young as some of the students but it shows you what can happen. A misunderstanding or a loud noise can lead to those dead.

Then, as some say in Texas, if you fire upon them you are not only putting yourself but then others in danger as there will be indiscriminate shooting. A very scary thought indeed and hopefully it does not come to that. I mean, if it does, I am sure we will not be discussing it on here anymore...

projectvxn
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Kent State was over 40 years ago.

Soldiers do not exist in an information vacuum.

Kent State was yesterday for Ohio.

It wasn't so long ago. As I said, I remember it, and I was a child. It was something that became the rhetoric of this country for a very long time.

I remember it like it was yesterday. I remember my dad being in that town and coming home talking about the rioting, I remember he and my grandparents discussing the right of Governor Rhodes to call up the guard, and every year since then, Ohioans began to question if everything that happened, would the guard be called up?

They were called up in Detroit, they were called up in Arkansas, they were called up in Los Angeles. My brother was stationed in at Oakland Alameda Naval Air Base and every sailor, soldier and airman had to be physically escorted to their homes by the guardsmen because of rioting that began in Los Angeles.

Kent State has proven that when rhetoric gets out of hand, and leaves the state with little recourse, there is only one outcome. Make your speeches in the public forum, go before the government for redress of grievances, but don't ever think that if you want revolution, that the government isn't going to answer back. It will.

Kent State should never be forgotten.

TDawgRex
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

If you had any knowledge of the Kent State shooting you would also know that those Soldiers thought that they were being fired upon. There are even recordings of a shot/firecracker going off before they opened fire. It was a tense moment in history that went bad.

I don't say that in the Soldiers defense. I have always taught and led my Soldiers that you just don't pray and spray unless you have a legitimate target. And if you just wound them, they are to provide 1st aid once the area is secure.

My guys actually listened to me. We're not robots. Though I think that many college kids are exactly that.

Yes, I know. I think that I did say that in my earlier post. There were reports of gunfire from somewhere that they responded with gunfire back. But the four kids they shot only had rocks.

I do agree, it was really a tough place, because most of the Guard were young men also. The debate continues, but like I said, I am not going to push for either side being right.

What I am doing is simply reminding people that Kent State was not just a random incident, it began with a purpose for both sides, which ultimately led to four students being killed.

That's the point, to what extreme does rhetoric and radicalization lead? It seems a lot of people are calling for a revolution based on rhetoric alone. And they are asking others to join in for a cause that may ultimately kill them. The American Revolution and the Civil War were precipitated first by rhetoric. Just because we have the outcome today of the Constitution and no slavery, doesn't mean every revolution will end the same way.

The Bolshevik Revolution led to Communism in Russia. The People's Revolution led to Communism in China and North Korea, and look at North Korea now.

Not every revolution is good, and every revolution has a winning and a losing side. But ultimately the side that loses is the side that had the most death. I don't think rhetoric is enough to justify asking someone else to join a fight. And it's a bad idea to call for a revolution against the side that you don't know what they are capable of.

matafuchs
and let me clarify, as another poster did. I do not think that they were heartless bastards at Kent State. They were more just as young as some of the students but it shows you what can happen. A misunderstanding or a loud noise can lead to those dead.

Then, as some say in Texas, if you fire upon them you are not only putting yourself but then others in danger as there will be indiscriminate shooting. A very scary thought indeed and hopefully it does not come to that. I mean, if it does, I am sure we will not be discussing it on here anymore...

I hope to God it never comes to that any more.

They weren't heartless bastards, they were young men simply doing their job. I am sure they had mental processes they had to work through in the first place.

But the Guard being called up in Arkansas was to protect the Little Rock black students to enter the high school. So it served a good purpose at that time.

Guardmen have a tough job. Let's not make it harder for them.

People have an inflated idea on how good our military is. We haven't won a war since ww2 and countries with almost no resources have held us at bay for 10 years. As for drones a scoped 30-06 will take them out quite easily and they will not be able to use them indiscriminately like they do in the middle east. While we are on the subject what is to stop the civvies from not fighting the military at all and just going around taking out the people behind the military. Cut off the head the body dies. Do you really believe that the grunts, who are our children, will just follow orders to shoot their friends, family, or neighbors? There is no way to accomplish this.

reply to post by mistersmith

ShotInTheDark ~ Lol Amen dude i'm so glad I live in Texas! My family has 8 guns (My two little sisters each have a revolver with a registered license) and I have a deer rifle and colt 45! I'd love to see them try and take my family alive! haha

mistersmith ~ What on God's earth makes you think they want to take you alive ?

Because he lives in fantasy land. Prolly a result of to many video games and unrealistic TV programming.

A couple of thing to think about when TPTB start cracking down.

1.) They will most like cut all communications; Media blackout, Cut power to large regions of the US, Internet and cell phones will most likely go down. My reasoning to this is that the govt wouldn't want everyone to know about this at once.

2.) Shutdown all commercial flights, set up blockades on the interstate highway systems, and major bridges, they can essentially cut off whole cites.

3.) Possible use of a false flag scenario to cause mass fear and use this as a reason to impement absolute control, for example the use of Multiple Fuel-Air devices MOAB / Daisy-cutter? to simulate a Terrorist / Tactical nuclear attack. Imagine how the general pop would react to sudden news of multiple nukes and then all power/ coms go down, very frightening indeed.

reply to post by WarminIndy

WarminIndy ~ Which is why I have to ask why hemp is outlawed as a means of producing useful items. (BTW, not an endorsement of drug abuse as per ATS terms), I am asking specifically about why hemp is illegal if they can make clothing, ropes, paper and other useful things from it.

(Nope, no discussion about the legality of certain drugs, just a plant that can be useful). I hope no one takes this in the wrong direction, I am just simply making a point about a multipurpose plant.

People used to make things with it, so has the lumber industry forced it out? But I do realize people are stupid and do other things with it, but if it saves trees, then why not use it.

ATS mods, I am not endorsing the use of certain drugs, I'm just asking about the use of a plant for good things. I hope you don't think I am suggesting otherwise.

This would be a wonderful thing for our country. My great grandfather farmed hemp when the government needed it for ship rope during WWI or WWII, possibly both but I can't really recall which for sure. The government would give farmers tax credits for hemp, basically buying it.

People should know that there is hemp which is a non drug cultivar and the other three, sativa, indica and ruderalis which are drug cultivars. So, you are not advocating drug use in any way.

I saw an article recently from 1938 in Popular Mechanics magazine describing more than 25,000 uses for hemp ranging from dynamite to cellophane. The stuff is pretty amazing and they knew it even way back in the early 1900's. We could use hemp to make just about everything we use in our modern world except for electronics, metals, concrete, some other obvious stuff. If the world were on board with bio-diesal then Texas could replace it's entire oil industry with bio-diesal from hemp. If I were allowed to do so I'd farm it.

GoldenBrain71
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

This would be a wonderful thing for our country. My great grandfather farmed hemp when the government needed it for ship rope during WWI or WWII, possibly both but I can't really recall which for sure. The government would give farmers tax credits for hemp, basically buying it.

People should know that there is hemp which is a non drug cultivar and the other three, sativa, indica and ruderalis which are drug cultivars. So, you are not advocating drug use in any way.

I saw an article recently from 1938 in Popular Mechanics magazine describing more than 25,000 uses for hemp ranging from dynamite to cellophane. The stuff is pretty amazing and they knew it even way back in the early 1900's. We could use hemp to make just about everything we use in our modern world except for electronics, metals, concrete, some other obvious stuff. If the world were on board with bio-diesal then Texas could replace it's entire oil industry with bio-diesal from hemp. If I were allowed to do so I'd farm it.

Wow, I had no idea of that many uses. That's amazing.

But you have to ask then what the real purpose was in making the non-drug cultivar illegal? If the government knows that you can make bio-diesel with it, and that you can use it for everything, then the government loses control over a lot of industries.

And if it can be used to manufacture things without the need to cause pollution, then that reduces pollution then the EPA can't fine anyone. And if they can't fine anyone, they can't be funded, therefore there would limit the EPA. And you would think this would be a good thing to plant, if it reduces Carbon emissions. Wouldn't that then reduce Global Warming? If the government knew that Global Warming could be reduced significantly, then why wouldn't the government allow this method? It's because they are making money off Global Warming.

Simply amazing. I had no idea of that many uses.

I think people who want a revolution need to know where to get their resources in the event it is protracted, and since this is valuable information, they need to know about it. Thank you.

Right, they have been "coming for your guns" as long as I've been alive (55 years). That tripe is getting a little old. I think people are starting to realize it is nothing but republican fear mongering.

Psst...The Iraqiis hate your freedom and they have big mushroom cloud for you.