Why are Americans deluded into thinking they could win a civil war?

reply to post by dragnik


And, NSA has the systems for producing harmfull waves of enormous intensity, causing mental problems in targeted area, there was something about on web, that is, mostly, on Alaska...

reply to post by dragnik


en.wikipedia.org...

it.wikipedia.org...

it.wikipedia.org...

it.wikipedia.org...(fumetto)

it.wikipedia.org...

My song inspired by that comic book... In Serbian...

Originally posted by 31Bravo
You've obviously no idea what Americans can do when they put their mind and all into something. You cannot comprehend because you're not American. We weren't born on one knee like most other countries.

Nice speech. Now how are you seriously going to manifest that in the street?

I get the part where you are all American and your knees are clean...then what? An armed assault on Congress? Who do you attack and how? To accomplish what?

All serious questions that I am hoping you can answer.

reply to post by 31Bravo


31B is Military Police isn't it?

Wouldn't part of your job involve tracking down all the deserters that might be trying to join the revolutionary traitors of the United States of America?

Further, your OATH is to the United States of America, the Constitution, and the President as Commander in Chief, right?

"I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Tell me if there's something wrong with this picture.

reply to post by Druscilla


Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies,foreign and domestic...
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States...

We have a current president and government who have been wiping
their behinds with the Constitution of the United States.Why should
any oath keeper obey any orders given by such a president and government?
First and foremost,is to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies
foreign and DOMESTIC!

reply to post by Druscilla


And what do you think a 19D could do.
As to another posters request for targeting. We aren't going to initiate this and we don't want it to happen EVER.
The target will present themselves AFTER the first MAJOR incident,We are not murderers or anarchists we are warriors,sworn to defend the Constitution and NOT ABSOLVED of that oath as we believe it is our place to defend it. If the POTUS seeks to encroach and circumvent the Constitution,guess what that makes him?
I and probably others couldn't care less about the naysayers,who would deny that.
They are still sacred of pain and death.
That is behind us now.
We'll see how far they push this madness before something gives.I doubt Obama will finish his second term.

reply to post by mamabeth


Aha. Isn't that convenient.
That means the oh, so, cliche military Coup d'état would be perfectly legal, right?

Every soldier is completely free to interpret the Constitution at whatever convenience they desire, up to and including the forceful, and if interpreted necessary action of violently removing the heads of state?

Aha. So, it wouldn't be desertion, treason or anything of the sort, and when it was all over said and done, regardless the outcome, everyone would go back to their former positions confident in the assured conviction no matter what side they threw their support to that everyone did their best to uphold the Constitution every which way they personally felt its interpretation lay, and everyone would be okay with that.

Uh-huh.

reply to post by Druscilla


Ma'am we all are free to do so.It just happens to be we who are armed holding that bag.
In an alien interview this is what the alien was said to have claimed about their warriors and it is quite true.
"One must be able and willing to use force, tempered with intelligence, to prevent harm to the innocent. However, extraordinary understanding, self-discipline and courage are required to effectively prevent brutality, without being overwhelmed by the malice that motivated the brutality."
A slippery slope but it is true.

reply to post by Druscilla


I assume that you haven't heard about this war we had in 1776!
Was it lawful for the population to rise up and revolt against a
tryannical government back then?
I happen to come from a military family who has served this country
for many years.
1.I am the daughter of an Air Force Air Policeman who served in Korea.
2.I am the neice of a Air Force training Sgt. who served 4 tours of duty
in vietnam.
3. I am the ex-wife of an army vietnam vet.
4.I am currently married to an Air Force vet who served in peace time.
5.I am the mother to a disabled army vet.
6.I have two grandsons' who served our country over in Iraq.1 in the Marine Corp,
the other in the Army.
Many of those who have served and shed their blood in defense of our Constitution
will NEVER obey orders that are contrary to the U.S.Constitution.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by 31Bravo

 

31B is Military Police isn't it?

Wouldn't part of your job involve tracking down all the deserters that might be trying to join the revolutionary traitors of the United States of America?

Further, your OATH is to the United States of America, the Constitution, and the President as Commander in Chief, right?

"I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Tell me if there's something wrong with this picture.

edit on 26-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

You have no duty to obey an unlawful order given by anyone.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Aliens?
What?

I'm asking about the oath of military service.

From the answers I'm getting, the implication would seem to be a statement that any and every individual military service person is legally entitled to abandon their post, ignore chain of command, assassinate any and every duly elected official they personally feel necessary, including the President, without any prior approval so long as they felt, due whatever personal interpretation or rationalization, they were upholding The Constitution, and that would all be a-okay.

That's what it sounds like some are saying.

Would anyone like to clarify on that without any ambiguity?

We're not talking 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 1776. We're talking RIGHT NOW.

Who here feels they have the legal right to assassinate the President, due their own personal interpretation of The Constitution?

Anyone here want to own that one?

For the record, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, and anyone saying so, I'm going to suggest is incorrect, and potentially dangerous.

reply to post by Druscilla


In case you havent read, so therefore dont understand the simplistic nature of its wording, but the constitution is pretty straight forward, with little room for interpretation. The bill of rights is also similarly worded, and the declaration of independence.

The peoples right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed, means simply, the .gov has no authority, power, or right to limit its peoples ability to engage in said activity. As there was no clause about except if, it says it cant be done legally, period, and any attempt to do so is not only outside the authority and powers granted the government, but flat out illegal, therefore it can be ignored and no punishments may be given, for faling to comply with said unjust illegal and unconstitutional law.

The rights of the people to peacefully assemble shall not be infringed, seems almost sublime in its simplicity doesnt it. The people may assemble at any time and place of their choosing, and as long as their activities remain peacful there is nothing the fovernment may say or about it period, end of paragraph, full stop.

I dont see your confusion about any of this. You seem to try and use a lot of big words, maybe it is in an attempt to intimidate those your talking at, maybe your from a place where folks actually talk like that, either way, it makes you come off as ignorant and juvenile that you woukd do so, while at the same time claiming ignorance of the meaning behind the words you quoted, when they are as simple as english syntax allows, without falling fully into baby talk.

reply to post by Druscilla


Who said anything about assassinating the president? You don't have
to assassinate anyone in order to get them out of office.When the people
have had enough they will revolt.

No Ma'am it is not my PLACE to assassinate anyone without their becoming a lethal threat in a very,extremely, obvious fashion.
I sure would die inside if I had to.
That would be a ghost I would never want to carry.

reply to post by Druscilla


Did I miss the clause that allows for vigilante assaults on those one feels is gojng against the constitution?

It says nothing of the sort anywhere. It says "the people" not "the person". Once again, your the only person I have seen in here trying to say these things, no implying some are saying these things.

It seems quite obvious to me your trolling, mentally challenged, or not an english speaker whos translation software schitzing out on them. As your ability to understand the words your reading is in serious need of some help.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Who said anything about assassinating the president? You don't have
to assassinate anyone in order to get them out of office.When the people
have had enough they will revolt.

Now you're talking about The People.
I thought we were talking about the Oath of military service, where The Constitution comes first.

In response to interpretations of The Constitution: You may desire to look up Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

Suffice to say, there's University courses for those interested in the Law profession dedicated to the subject of interpreting The Constitution.

Why am I asking all these questions like I'm stupid?
I'm not asking them for me.
I'm asking them for you.

If you're going to talk about Revolution, you might want to know what you sound like you're saying.
Revolution, with a capital R means total commitment to the cause of overthrowing the seat of power, even to the extent of assassination.
If you're going to play with the idea, you better be prepared to own the whole thing.

If you're not prepared to own the whole thing, right now, not 100 years ago, not 200 years ago, but right now, the very time you're talking about it like it's something that really really needs to happen, then you better own it and own all of it.

Edit: It's like a firearm. If you're not prepared to use a firearm, you shouldn't carry one.
If you un-holster your firearm, or point it at someone, you should be committed and ready to go all the way.
Revolution is like that firearm.
If you're not committed to going all the way in using it, you're likely a bigger danger to yourself and everyone around you than any agency of threat the firearm is intended to take care of.

I'm fairly sure I made my personal position clear on the matter in the first few pages of this thread.

reply to post by Druscilla


oathkeepers.org...

I am a trained gun owner who has a license to carry.I will never remove
my weapon out of it's holster unless I am forced to defend myself or another.

As a christian lady,I am not suppose to speak against our leaders,we are
suppose to pray for them.I keep forgetting about this one.

You have made quite clear how ignorant you are of us, yes thank you for that portion of education.
I understand your fears however and I really don't wish to exacerbate them in any way.
Yes, we are ready to do it,accept it ,see our families die for it and after it is done see a government more Constitutionally compliant.
Yes we could see a back lash from progressives as they aren't neccessarily our enemies,but they aren't a combat group now are they?

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by mamabeth

 

Aha. Isn't that convenient.
That means the oh, so, cliche military Coup d'état would be perfectly legal, right?

Every soldier is completely free to interpret the Constitution at whatever convenience they desire, up to and including the forceful, and if interpreted necessary action of violently removing the heads of state?

Aha. So, it wouldn't be desertion, treason or anything of the sort, and when it was all over said and done, regardless the outcome, everyone would go back to their former positions confident in the assured conviction no matter what side they threw their support to that everyone did their best to uphold the Constitution every which way they personally felt its interpretation lay, and everyone would be okay with that.

Uh-huh.

A military coup against a Communist president who does not respect the Constitution is far preferable to civil war.

Your mistake is in the idea that one "interprets" the constitution, a notion popular with power-drunk judges and sneaky slimy legislators. The constitution was never meant to be interpreted. It is meant to be FOLLOWED.

I'm going to ignore the glaringly hilarious remark about communist Presidents for now ...

Okay, so, here's my next question: Which Constitution?

Confused?

Well, there's The Constitution we had from inception on up to 1865.
There were a few little changes, revisions, etc, but, until 1865 that was the Original Constitution.

After 1865, there was that whole freedom of the slaves thing, um, the 13th Amendment?

Over time other little things like defining citizenship, allowing women to vote, establishing the age to vote and other things got added in.

Thus, WHICH Constitution?

Do you want to roll things back so you can own proper slaves, and women can't influence voting any more?
Granted, that's an extreme and crude example, but, it's a valid question.

Which Constitution?
We have 27 amendments right now. Stop there? Roll it back a little? Allow which ones on proposal, if any to pass?

If I'm so ignorant, and you guys are the mental juggernauts of Constitutional Law you claim to be, then, I expect you'd have all this worked out.

What Constitution is the real Constitution?

It's an important question. As was crudely illustrated, if you go back to the Original, suddenly slaves are legal property, women can't vote, and a host of other troubling things occur.