Law Enforcement/Military Would You Fight To Disarm America?

Ok I already pretty much know the answer to this but humor me AND TELL THESE PEOPLE.
If for some crazy reason you are called upon to violate the US Constitution and round up civilians who are armed would you support that order?
How would you violate it?

NO WAY IN HELL.
(Speaking from 25 yrs of service and counting)

Just a simple side note:

The armed American public is many times stronger than the Police.

As long as the people organize.

Too many people don't have what it takes to organize. They just want their sports, beer and reality programing.

The system takes that simple fact into account.

Good question to ask though

They already have, look at what happened after Katrina...

They had no problems with trying to take away the peoples guns..

All you need is the right situation to make it seem 'reasonable'.

Originally posted by benrl
They already have, look at what happened after Katrina...

They had no problems with trying to take away the peoples guns..

All you need is the right situation to make it seem 'reasonable'.

****************
Not jumping on you brother, but when you say "they" you NEED to understand not all of the men and women that serve are "they". "They" does NOT mean "ALL"

Unfortunately "They" could mean "Many"

reply to post by BioSafe


Yes and they being the police force had no problem going door to door to confiscate guns... How many officers did you hear of refusing this order?

Right... that Blue wall again...

The chicken/egg argument eh?

Picking up arms is a violation of the constitution from both viewpoints to sit there and say you will pick up arms agianst the police and military is the same as people thinking that the police and military are violating your rights.

Can't have it both ways your power is by voting which is in keeping with the constitution.

Originally posted by BioSafe
[snip]
The armed American public is many times stronger than the Police.

As long as the people organize.

but do they have the will to fight the police? they would be labelled criminals, thugs, terrorists quicker then we could get the message out unless it was clear as day the police/military had to be stopped to everyone not with them..

first step would have to be an ultimatum to the police/military and government establishment that if they do not back down we will be forced into operation and justified in using any means necessary in their removal.

second step is a declarartion of war and intent, and to create a transitional government and free press to relay messages to the last man.

I would hope the police and military have a little more sense then that and would lead a coup against such illegal actions themselves.

civilians would have a lot of defectors though and tons of military hardware so operations aren't out of the question for an American patriot militia.

hi CIA agent reading my post! wake up! you should defect too while you still have the chance.

what needs to change is the government protocols restricting the change

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by BioSafe

 

Yes and they being the police force had no problem going door to door to confiscate guns... How many officers did you hear of refusing this order?

Right... that Blue wall again...

**********************8
I understand your thought process. I wont be able to change your mind. You do need to understand that many guys in "blue" are ready to turn against the system, if / when that system asks us to violate the constitution.

During role call I review one amendment or bring up a current topic relating to citizen rights just to reenforce their knowledge base and their duties to the public that we serve.

Keep in mind Police Departments are all different.

Ill need to start a thread sometime soon to open up a discussion.

reply to post by yourmaker


Yourmaker;
The First step should have been for the majority of the public to protect their rights by being active in their communities and government. Many however allowed our rights (Mine included) to be eroded due to apathy.

In other word the lazy, apathetic folks said, I'm to busy someone else will do it for me. No one wishes to take responsibility for themselves little alone their neighbor. This problem is much bigger than just the simple and ignorant argument that its all the cops fault. The people of the community allowed this creeping of power to occur.

Individual Police Departments are like our pet dog's. They are representative of their owner / community

It would kill me to fire on my own,but I would do it to protect an idea I believe in again and again.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


but that is OK too, they made their choices....just as we all must do.

Originally posted by neo96
Picking up arms is a violation of the constitution from both viewpoints to sit there and say you will pick up arms agianst the police and military is the same as people thinking that the police and military are violating your rights.

Your statement is incorrect. Americans "picking up arms" IS a protected right of the constitution. 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'm not saying that Americans baring arms in any given situation is the correct way to deal with issues, but the FACT is that the second amendment is there and it says what it says. Our forefathers (and Lee who wrote the 2nd) believed that any behavior resulting in the restricting rights should be resisted, even with violence if need be.

Originally posted by yourmaker
hi CIA agent reading my post! wake up! you should defect too while you still have the chance.

It's DHS and the NSA reading our posts.

reply to post by METACOMET


Show me where in the us constitution does it say kill Americans because you aren't getting your way

Go on Quote it.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by METACOMET

 

Show me where in the us constitution does it say kill Americans because you aren't getting your way

Go on Quote it.

explain why Americans have the right to bear arms in that constitution and you will have your answer


As passed by the Congress:


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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


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.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


The constitution is a total package you can't pick and choose what parts matter and what doesn't that piece of paper is a protection from the government and the people from themselves.

That is what people are not getting here and anyone who says pick up arms against another American has my contempt.

reply to post by neo96


being necessary to the security of a free state


what does this mean to you?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by METACOMET

 

Show me where in the us constitution does it say kill Americans because you aren't getting your way

Go on Quote it.

I'm not going to entertain you by playing the straw-man game.

You said

Picking up arms is a violation of the constitution

and I simply showed that not only is it not a violation, but it is actually a right enshrined in the constitution. What exactly do you not understand?

No person's rights superceeds that of another American you have a right to bear arms but if your sitting there telling me you have a license to kill over it?

No you don't.

Constitutional Republic people the ant thesis of mob rule or mob violence.

Originally posted by neo96
No person's rights superceeds that of another American you have a right to bear arms but if your sitting there telling me you have a license to kill over it?

No you don't.

Constitutional Republic people the ant thesis of mob rule or mob violence.

I didn't say anything about a license to kill. I said American's have the right to bear arms. Do you want to argue definitions now?

reply to post by neo96


The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:


Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression