1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

United States Marine on civilian gun confiscation

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by wireguy, Jan 29, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    This guy doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.
     
  2. rexxon631g

    rexxon631g Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    84
    I am fine with his answer, he says "Marines obey orders" but have the right to "disobey unlawful orders" He is thoughtful in his response, when he says "I hope it won't happen in my lifetime"
    Because he would not want to have to make a choice, and he is certainly not going to give anyone a heads up ahead of time. I was Navy 1978-1984 and again 1991-1996 and I have full faith in the United States Marine Corps.
     
  3. rexxon631g

    rexxon631g Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    84
    Firing on U.S. Citizens? 1994 Survey at 29 Palms

    While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:



    The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) 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 citizen 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 survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

    Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."
     
  4. rexxon631g

    rexxon631g Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    84
    Again, I had faith in the Marine Corps while I was in the Navy and that faith remains unshaken.
     
  5. CalvinMD

    CalvinMD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,854
    Location:
    Northeastern MD @ the top o the Bay
    I believe in ALL branches of our Armed Forces ...they all take pride in their places in past history and know that preserving/granting freedom and putting down tyranny is behind every occasion they were called on to have taken up arms..I believe their unshakeable sense of right and wrong would make them refuse to participate in unconstitutional orders asking them to enchain or engage in a use of deadly force on their own families of fellow citizens
     
  6. gdbabin

    gdbabin TS Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,461
    Link provides insight on the laws regarding the use of U.S. Armed Forces in law enforcement.


    In the military we are taught as a general rule to follow orders now and question them later.



    Guy Babin
     
  7. hera200

    hera200 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    395
    Location:
    HOUSTON, TX and ONTARIO, CANADA
    Remember penn state?? Fired upon unarmed college students How many dead? Your question has already been answered decades ago, and sadly so!.....BUD
     
  8. gdbabin

    gdbabin TS Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,461
    Kent State....

    twas National Guard... different set of rules.
     
  9. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,247
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Penn state was where Jerry Sandusky fired on college students Kent state is where the National Guard fired on the protesters
     
  10. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,734
    Again the word "Confiscation". It is a non-issue. He answered the question perfectly. If the order is against the Constitution, he is not required to fulfill that obligation. Nor, are any Sheriff's, law enforcement, etc.

    Frankly, it was a stupid question. Let alone ask it to a service member. Totally irresponsible. Like you all say, fing media!
     
  11. drgondog

    drgondog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    That survey did not die in 1994. My oldest took part in 96 and my youngest in 98.
     
  12. wayno

    wayno TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    310
    yes, kent state; "four dead in ohio"
     
  13. blizzard

    blizzard Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,583
    LOL @ Catpower
     
  14. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    NOT REQUIRED TO and WON"T are two very different things. You can have your faith in them, I don't.
     
  15. rexxon631g

    rexxon631g Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    84
    I understand your frustration and not wanting to believe in the U.S Government

    with the way they are behaving in Washington,it gives good reason to doubt almost everything.

    But I have to believe in the U.S. military, I think it is all that is left of what was good in this nation

    But after the last election I am coming to realize that I am in the minority and I have lived long enough to see the rapid decline of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

    I just wonder if while in its death throes the nation goes silently to its end
     
  16. hera200

    hera200 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    395
    Location:
    HOUSTON, TX and ONTARIO, CANADA
    Sorry, I meant to say Kent State which was correct. Just out of curiosity, what would be the difference in the rules if it were state or federal troops? THANKS.....BUD (yes, I did get the joke re Sandusky and Penn State)
     
  17. gdbabin

    gdbabin TS Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,461
    State troops serve the Governor and are subject to the respective state's law.


    Federal troops of course are subject to federal law which prohibits their direct engagement in law enforcement. The recent Alabama hostage situation is a great example.



    Guy
     
  18. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,734
    Guy,

    Great explanation.

    It made both Kent State, and New Orleans with hurricane Katrina, the responsibility of State government, not Federal. The National Guard is in affect, a state agency, unless deployed under Federal jurisdiction.

    In Louisiana, it was the power struggle that hindered the affect of the Federal Government. Declaration of "State of Emergency" and "Martial Law" is the difference. Both the Governor, and Mayor of New Orleans, did not want to relinquish their power to the Federal Government, because then the Federal Government would have taken full control of the situation, by possibly declaring martial law. This in affect is what caused the delay of the Federal help. With laws that have past since then, the Federal Government now has the power to declare martial law, or intervene, without the states consent.

    In any case, when a "State of Emergency" or "Martial Law" is declared our rights as citizen's are relinquished, to the point of where we become under the power of rule. Meaning we must follow orders of either the State, or Federal Government.

    "Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers didn't have to observe civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters."

    "Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial)."

    So, in this case with this Marine, he explained it right. The scary part of it is that when these "State of Emergencies" and "Martial Law" are declared, there is no Constitutional rights in affect for the citizens. So in a way, the citizens become military resistors, subject to military rule, and discipline. Under the "State of Emergency" declaration it becomes the Local, and State Police, along with the National Guard.

    "Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a state of emergency."
     
  19. jimsw

    jimsw Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    198
    What have we come to under obama? Discussing whether or not it OK to shoot some poor civilian who doesn't want his guns confiscated?

    The situation under this clown is rapidly getting out of control. The worst part is that the corrupt media keeps away from this stuff. Every day it gets worse.

    The young Marine NCO is correct. He doesn't have to obey an unlawful order, shooting American citizens while confiscating their guns in my mind is unlawful and I would never order anyone to do it.

    Jim White (Former Captain USMC)
     
  20. Bob Hawkes

    Bob Hawkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,915
    He responded properly to the questions and did express his own opinion. Hopefully for all concerned he is right. I do trust him, I do not trust our present government.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.