|10 Topic Subscribe|
|2 pages [ << < ( 1 ) 2 NEXT >> ] 1836 views|
|Scorpion Power||Scorpion Power|
|12-26-2008 04:19 PM 9 years ago||Post 1|
I think it would be within the subject, and timely, for you all to read thes article below. It is 12 years old, but still very relevant and eye opening. Now, before anyone with a chip on their shoulder accuses me of Jarhead-bashing, let it be known that I am a retired USN Chief Petty Officer and served many years with our Nation's finest-so not bashing going on.LIke FOX NEWS-I report, you decide!SHOOT AMERICANS' SURVEY RESULTS
|12-26-2008 05:03 PM 9 years ago||Post 2|
Before the hate comes my way, know this: I am an O.I.F. Veteran and US Army veteran of 8 years.
That this survey raises some very serious issues, not the least of which is that U.S. servicemen are not being properly educated as to the limits of their service in the civilian sector.
|12-27-2008 12:01 AM 9 years ago||Post 3|
So. California, Orange County.
fwiw..If it ever comes to this...It will be patriots vs. traitors...
|12-31-2008 03:48 AM 9 years ago||Post 4|
Beauklahoma,peoples republic of mexifornia,USSA
patriots vs. traitors...?Define please.
|12-31-2008 04:22 AM 9 years ago||Post 5|
patriot - follows the views as set forth by government and 'established' views. also see sheeple.traitor - those who think outside the box and question government mandates, action, and prepackaged 'american' propaganda. also see critical thinker.
|12-31-2008 04:30 AM 9 years ago||Post 6|
He who has the military behind them decides whos a patriot and whos a traitor, just ask Adolf.
|12-31-2008 04:37 AM 9 years ago||Post 7|
kinda like our sobriety and seatbelt checkpoints, conditioning us into the aspect of martial law, schools going into lockdown , the atrocious checks at the airports, bad enough our economy has tanked, yes it's coming.
Smile! people will wonder what you're up to!!
|12-31-2008 04:51 AM 9 years ago||Post 8|
I hate to even think of what would happen to our country if such orders were given to the military. I can't say what I would do, but I KNOW what many would do, and it would get really ugly.I actually consider myself a moderate on the gun ownership issue, even though I own several. If there was a clear, reasonable, and realistic differentiation made between sporting, and non sporting firearms, I could deal with it. However, what are the odds of that actually happening, especially in a government run by Barack Hussein Obama?
The government cannot give you anything without first taking it from someone else.
|12-31-2008 05:11 AM 9 years ago||Post 9|
I hate to even think of what would happen to our country if such orders were given to the military. I can't say what I would do, but I KNOW what many would do, and it would get really ugly.
|12-31-2008 05:26 AM 9 years ago||Post 10|
you're right dennis, thats why they are going to be employing foreign troops on our soil, they could give a rats ass.
Smile! people will wonder what you're up to!!
|12-31-2008 05:27 AM 9 years ago||Post 11|
Here you go, right on the money: (and yes, they would)`SHOOT AMERICANS' SURVEY RESULTS
One in Four Marines Would Fire
Results are in from the U.S. military "shoot Americans"
survey-and they are disquieting.
By Mike BlairAbout one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps base in southern California.In addition, more that four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force."The SPOTLIGHT has been provided the results to the survey contained in a master's degree thesis, reportedly undertaken by a student at the Naval -More-Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, to determine "unit cohesion" when soldiers are assigned to "non-traditional missions."Few stories published in The SPOTLIGHT have created such a stir as when it was revealed in this newspaper's July 25, 1994 issue that the survey had been taken at the Marine base.On May 10, 1994, the survey was undertaken by Navy Lt Cmdr. Ernest G Cunningham, purportedly as research for his thesis, Peacekeeping and UN Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion, at the Marine base, located on the southeast corner of the Mojave Desert, about 70 miles due east of San Bernadino, California, just east of Los Angeles.RECEIVED DEGREECunningham turned in the thesis for printing on March 20 and was graduated from the Postgraduate School on March 23, receiving his Master of Science in Manpower, Personnel and Training Analysis degree.According to U.S. navy and Marine Corps officials, Cunningham administered the survey to 300 Marine veterans of the Persian Gulf War and the earlier invasion of Panama in the base auditorium.He had the cooperation and permission of the base's public affairs officer, But Cunningham did not have consent of the base commander, Brig. Gen. Russell H. Sutton. In fact, Sutton didn't know about the survey until afterwards.The results of the survey contained 46 questions dealing with the Marines" willingness to perform "non-traditional" missions.Question 46, dealing with a gun confiscation scenario, jolted both the Marines and the Navy, as well as the Department of Defense, numerous members of the House and Senate and virtually every American concerned about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the people's right to keep and bear arms."VERY DISTURBINGThis is how the question was posed to the Marines:"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the Statement.According to the results given in Cunningham's thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question.Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens."Of that total, 18.67 percent, or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent, or 23 Marines, indicated that they "strongly agree."A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing at citizens.Of the total, 42.33 percent, or 127, indicated they "strongly disagree" and 19.33 percent, or 58, indicated they "disagree."In his thesis, Cunningham noted: "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on their response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission,"However, it becomes clear that a poll would be useful in determining which soldiers, and in this case Marines, would be willing to undertake such a mission, to fire upon U.S. citizens."In other words, if a commander asked the men of his unit to raise their hands in a simple poll, he could determine the position of such servicemen and those who responded in the affirmative could be talked for such a mission.This is just one of the reasons the question, not to mention the fact that it was allowed to be asked, is obviously potentially dangerous.In fact, several months before the survey was taken at Twenty-Nine Palms, The SPOTLIGHT, Modern Gun magazine and other publications revealed the question posed by Cunningham in his survey had been asked of members of a U.S. Seal (Sea-Air-Land) team.In addition, despite Navy and Marine Corps denials, there have been dozens of reports, unconfirmed, that the survey has been given to other servicemen, as well as various federal law enforcement agents.FURTHER SURVEYS?In fact, Cunningham notes: "If the results of this survey elicit concerns in the areas queried, then further studies are warranted. Perhaps, a random sample survey should be conducted to determine whether the results of this survey are valid for the entire Marine Corps and/or Army. Also, a survey could provide an indication of the volunteer pool that would seek service in units dedicated to, and specialized in, peacekeeping operations..."Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis, that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative-that they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force...""Furthermore," Cunningham notes, "43 percent of the soldiers strongly agreed..."Federal troops have been restricted from participation with local police authorities to quell domestic violence since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That being the case, it was surprising that these soldiers seemed to not know the legal restrictions placed on them by the act."He also noted, however, that "In May 1992, 4,000 U.S. Army and Marine soldiers were ordered by President George Bush to augment city and county law enforcement and state National Guard during the riot in Los Angeles, California, following the Rodney King trial."Since 1981," Cunningham states, "the majority of today's All Volunteer Force has been exposed to and participated in an environment of expanding non-traditional missions when Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981. This act enabled the military to participate in the drug war. This cooperative alliance of military and civilian police efforts in the name of national security may have eroded the demarcation between civilian law enforcement and our military institution first established by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878."The results of another question, No. 45, posed by the survey, indicates American soldiers are not eager to swear allegiance to the United Nations, although nearly on in four would do so.Question 45 states:"I would swear to the following code: `I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense'."A total of 69.33 percent, or 208 Marines of those surveyed, indicated that they disagreed, with 117, or 39 percent, indicating they strongly disagreed.On the other hand, 71 Marines, or 23.66 percent, indicated they would be willing to swear such allegiance to the UN, with 19, or 6.33 percent indicating they were strongly in favor of doing so."For thousands of years," Cunningham notes in his thesis, "military organizations have required their soldiers to swear to some form of code or allegiance. A code provides a standard for the soldiers to live up to and, in many cases, to die for. A code can be a powerful tool for establishing and sustaining unit cohesion. But what if the mission a soldier is assigned to perform counters or confuses the code he has sworn to uphold? Question 45 was presented to determine if the soldiers would swear to such a code."No one knows if the American personnel traveling in the helicopter shot down over Iraq by friendly fire" in April 1994 would have sworn allegiance to such a code. Yet, Vice President Albert Gore stated that these Americans "died in the service of the United Nations.""It is patently clear," a retired high-ranking Army officer told The SPOTLIGHT, "That this survey raises some very serious issues, not the least of which is that U.S. servicemen are not being properly educated as to the limits of their service in the civilian sector. This is most dangerous, and, I should think, the Congress has an obligation to the people to take a careful look at this, not to mention the people at the Pentagon."
|12-31-2008 05:38 AM 9 years ago||Post 12|
unfortunately the military will know what the citizens of the united states are capable of, since we have not been disarmed yet.
|12-31-2008 05:44 AM 9 years ago||Post 13|
A US Marine might fire on a US citizen in the USA "ONLY IF HE IS FIRED ON".Read the surveys again. No where does it say in the survey questions "WHEN FIRED ON".Your so called blog surveys are totally BS.I don't believe any of it.
`SHOOT AMERICANS' SURVEY RESULTS
One in Four Marines Would Fire
Results are in from the U.S. military "shoot Americans"
survey-and they are disquieting.
|12-31-2008 06:24 AM 9 years ago||Post 14|
Well lets see.....We have almost two million people in MS...800,000 are deer, and other sport hunters. Do the math, not to mention most of these guys are veterans ..
Now think of the other states.. It would take a big standing army to take on this job...But, as stupid as these NWO folks are, they may try it.
|12-31-2008 06:30 AM 9 years ago||Post 15|
Billme,Can you elaborate on 'NWO folks'?
Well...not my blog survey but thanks for clearing it up. The survey is now declared officially bogus. carry on.
Your so called blog surveys are totally BS.I don't believe any of it.
|12-31-2008 06:35 AM 9 years ago||Post 16|
Why is that I know you know more about them than I do, heheBill
|12-31-2008 06:39 AM 9 years ago||Post 17|
i read a nugget about it here and there. not sure if it is true or not. there do seem to be a lot more people questioning things or "getting on board" as i have heard folks call it.it would be a lot easier to just watch cnn and get the establishment view in 10 second sound and video bites with a short attention span while sitting naked on a bean bag chair eating a bag of cheetos right after a nascar race and thinking about ordering a pizza with an orange right hand and weiner.
|12-31-2008 06:47 AM 9 years ago||Post 18|
This survey did take place..I even talked to Trent Lott about it...It was in 1994 I believe..When you see the food shortages, then you will see food for guns programs...They are already doing it in Detroit, and other poor big towns..
|12-31-2008 06:50 AM 9 years ago||Post 19|
put yer seatbelt on, we are about to experience some turbulance in sheep land.bill, we discussed this years ago at ircha and here it is. i didn't think we would come this far this fast.
This survey did take place..I even talked to Trent Lott about it...It was in 1994 I believe..
|12-31-2008 08:20 AM 9 years ago||Post 20|
Funny that you are willing to give up your rights to keep "sporting" weapons when in fact the 2nd does not protect "sporting" weapons at all."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."It mentions "A well regulated Militia", not duck hunting.Miller Vs United States 1939:
If there was a clear, reasonable, and realistic differentiation made between sporting, and non sporting firearms, I could deal with it.
Which is in fact incorrect. Short barreled shotguns WERE in service in WW1 and WW2 and as recently as my ETS in 2002 I was issued one.But notice no comment on Deer hunting, or skeet shooting.Miller still:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
STILL no mention of "sporting".More Miller:
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
Still no mention of duck hunting. In fact, it seems to support the right to own a full auto M-16 rather than an over/under shotgun.STILL more from Miller v US:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Still not ONE mention of Duck season, no Rabbit season.....Duck, rabbit, rabbit, duck...FIRE!So, according to the 2nd AND the SC in Miller v US, the 2nd DOES NOT protect "sporting" weapons, it protects weapons that could be used in defense. "Sporting" weapons could be lumped into that description, but the framers clearly state for defense and self defense.DC v Heller supported the "defense" bit as well:
"The American Colonies In The 17th Century," Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England --"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence." "The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former." "A year later  it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony [Massachusetts]."
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
STILL no mention of "For sporting reasons"....In fact the opposite:
The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved
The closest you get is "those in common use for lawful purposes"...Of course self defense is a lawful purpose, and clearly a militia is a lawful purpose according to the 2nd, Miller and Heller.Scalia wrote the opinion in favor:
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-
bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpre-
tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-
rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54
However, Scalia says that ALL firearms are included.More:
“Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the
holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the
right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter-
pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.”
No mention of duck hunting again.
In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, J
wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’”
STILL no mention of "sporting"
The most prominent examples are those most relevant to
the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provi-
sions written in the 18th century or the first two decades
of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear
arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms
in defense of himself and the state.”It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit.
STILL no mention of duck hunting.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s,
the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most
rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by
Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep
arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a
natural right which the people have reserved to them-
selves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for
their own defence.”
Notice it does NOT say, "better able to duck hunt"?
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexan-
der Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny
Hey he mentioned hunting!!!!!! After he mentioned that the real reason was to prevent a tyrannical Govt....But he did mention it!!!!
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution
We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all
four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional
provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes
It should be noted that they are "unusual" mainly due to the ban in 1986.In the dissent J Stevens:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Long story short....And I am sure you are not still reading this and will hold onto your views no matter what....The 2nd was to be able to form a militia and self defense, not to hunt. Your "sporting" bit is not supported by other Constitutions, nor any SC ruling.In the Federalist Papers, Jefferson does recommend that a young man take walks with his weapon as a method of exercise for both the body and mind....But, it seems really clear that the 2nd protects the right of individuals for:1. Self defense.
Whether it also protects the right to
possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by
2. Ability to defend the Country from invasions and uprisings.
3. Ability to defend against a tyrannical govt.Now as Justice Scalia commented on...The NEED for the 2nd is a debatable topic (short debate IMO...I can't see why anyone would want to disarm a law abiding Citizen)...But the Constitution clearly acknowledges the right as it is written right now.In my view, an full auto M16 should be more protected than your skeet gun...But since your skeet gun *could* be used for defense, it would also be protected.
|2 pages [ << < ( 1 ) 2 NEXT >> ] 1836 views|
|Scorpion Power||Scorpion Power|
|Print TOPIC||Make Suggestion|