Obama wants only military leaders who will agree to fire on US citizens?

[BjornF16]

Posse Comitatus Act is what is supposed to protect the American people. It prevents the presedent, without the consent of congress from enforcing laws within the states and using their equipment to do so. The National Gaurd is considered to be under the controll of the Goveror. I'm sure that they would like to change that, but untill they do it would be unconstitutional to send troops into the states for police duty. My faith is slipping fast. Personaly I think the first war we will lose is the financial one. We are being sold out as we watch.

Posse Commitatus only applies to the US Army and US Air Force...not the US Navy and the US Marine Corps.

Governors control the Guard...and they can utilize the equipment provided by the federal government as long as the USG is reimbursed. Only when the President activates the Guard do they come under control of the President (and I believe state governors have a veto).

[LR1955]

LR1955,

Nukes makes a good point.

Also, we could not expect there to be a classified, let alone public, written policy on an aleged political litmus test, particularly when the test touches on the edges of constitutionally permitted behavior in advance of an event.

I've seen similar discussions in other venues and have seen the interview. Folks who feel that Mr. Obama is the greatest president ever will likely hold a different point of view on this question.

I am reasonably sure that it really doesn't matter as long as the officers and the troops are convinced that the targets are armed and actively resisting lawful authority. By the way, "armed" is a very flexible term. For example, police in California are authorized and have shot citizens who are armed only with an automobile. Same for baseball bats, etc.

Nonetheless, the speculation should give us all pause for serious thinking regardless of whether one is convinced the speculation is pure hogwash, the absolute gospel, or something in between.

JA:

Nukes first stated it concerned all Officers, not just GO's. And, you are assuming there is some sort of political litmus test for a 0-6 to be promoted to BG. If there is, the guys who have been promoted don't think so. All of the GO's I have met have no idea why they were promoted. Finally, why would you think that a litmus test would be focused on whether or not a GO will break his oath to the Constitution?

Do you think a Brigade Commander will follow an order to cordon off and search an otherwise peaceful American community and order his men to shoot anyone who resists?

Lets say a Company Commander orders his Company to fire on American citizens inside the USA. What makes you think his PL's and Squad Leaders will follow his orders? Are you assuming that NCO's are dumb asses who blindly obey orders? How about the Joe's?

How many National Guardsmen will shoot citizens from their own community if those citizens refuse to 'turn over' their AR-15's? I would say half the National Guard owns service rifles and high cap pistols. And they are more loyal to their own neighbors than they are to Obama.

How big is LA? What is the nearest Combat Arms unit to LA? How many divisions will it take to cordon off and search LA?

Finally -- how many leftists would tolerate a uniformed service member searching his house? The ones more prone to Molotov Cocktails are the leftists and you better believe they will be the first ones into the streets openly defying martial law.

What is the process necessary to Federalize the Guard and how many Governors would allow their Guard to search and use deadly force against their citizens? How many Governors would allow the Regulars free reign to search and kill their own citizens? If you think any would, please state who they are, what state, and what evidence you have to support such thinking.

How many LEA's would allow the Guard or Regulars to enter and enforce civil law in their jurisdictions? Do you honestly think the State Police of any state would allow the Regulars to shoot citizens if they didn't hand over their AR-15's? Not to mention more local police forces.

These are things you find conspiracy nut jobs don't even consider. Particularly the ones who have never served in the armed forces or LEA.

LR1955

[Nukes]

"Conspiracy nuts"?

This is just another ritual epithet designed to abort the thinking process of attentive listeners. It is a curse that absolves the one who utters it from addressing inconsistencies or evidence.

As I parodied above, why is so much money spent on "intelligence" collection and field operations by so many nations if there are no conspiracies?

After all, you'd think that someone proud of his military service learned "loose lips sink ships" meant that, indeed, some plots are kept secret.

Isn't the official 9/11 narrative a conspiracy theory, that some guys got together and planned their actions in secret? It seems, then, that a conspiracy nut is someone who believes in a different conspiracy from the flummoxed utterer of the insult.

As to orders, some of us fat ignoramuses, actually understand there is a difference among (1) planning the order (conspiracy?), (2) giving the order, (3) obeying the order, and (4) the order succeeding. I respectfully suggest that best anaiysis does not conflate those very different phenomena. Under the heading of "the order succeeding," I paraphrase Stalin, "How many divisions does the Sheriff have?"

[JASmith]

LR,

I've been there too, but in a different role than yours.

Your points are well-taken but the concern (or panic) we hear in many of the posts seems to have become more prevalent. And yes, my conversations with officers of all ranks, including GO and Flag, never touched on 'litmus tests.' We had other business to work.

The surprise for me, at least, is that the question might be being asked -- it could suggest an unusual level of fear on the part of those having the question be asked. Interestingly, that fear may derive from seeing forum threads like this one where the fear of our rights getting trampled and what our 'rightful responses' should be is loudly discussed. Fear on all sides is not a good thing.

The threat to our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights is real and extraordinarily high just now. Couple that with the way Obamacare was enacted by what amounted to a rubber stamp vote without review and serious debate, and many folks should feel concern about where things are headed.

I also know from history that people can do horrible things to other people when the 'authorities' in charge enable them by using reasonable-sounding but false logic.

So, from many points of view, we need to pay attention to what is being said and what has been done.

JA

[Variable]

Germany's problem after the tribe's 1933 worldwide declaration that "Judea declares war on Germany," a declaration swept down the Orwellian memory hole. What does a nation do with a declared internal enemy? with looters? As someone striving for Heaven, I would like a moral and just solution to the perennial cyclic problem of pernicious societal influence.

?..... Seriously? "The Tribe"????

[Nukes]

Good to see that, unlike many 'history' texts, you are aware of their declaration of war on Germany in 1933, long before other significant events. In comparison with the speed with which the Rising Sun tribe was incarcerated after they declared war on the US, I'd say the Aryan tribe was in slow motion incarcerating their declared internal enemy.

Correct me if I am wrong, but declaring war does have consequences, right?

[LR1955]

?..... Seriously? "The Tribe"????

VB:

Sure -- why not? Could just as easily have been something else but conspiracy nut jobs love to use bits of history that incorporate weird word usage. The more they can confuse, the better they think their arguments. Why did he use this? Because it uses 'the tribe', 'Orwellian memory hole', and particularly when he says "As someone striving for Heaven" and uses words like 'cyclic problem o fpernicious societal influence.'

So, he is trying to make himself sound like a sane person but what he is writing is without any sort of reason.

LR1955

[Nukes]

Test question: What "group" excelled at weaponizing psychiatry and neurolinguistics against their political opponents?

[bwaites]

One of the unique things about our forum is that the members respect each other. If we can't do that, then we will terminate the parts of the board that are problematical.

Another unique things about boards is that if you don't like a topic, you don't have to click on it and open it. Simply leave it alone. Others may wish to discuss things that you don't care about or that you think don't need discussion. That's OK, too. Simply ignore them.

These issues are pertinent to gun owners, because they are being used as reasons to limit 2nd Amendment rights. Some of us want to discuss them, while others see no need. There is room on the forum for both, but it requires that we act like adults.

If you can't do that, please stay out of the parts of the forum that don't allow you to do so.

As such, this thread has been locked while I consider options.