Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Firing on U.S. Citizens.
Vanity | Fithee

Posted on 03/01/2004 5:18:27 AM PST by Fithee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

1 posted on 03/01/2004 5:18:27 AM PST by Fithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fithee
I recall reading something along those lines but don't know how valid it was.
2 posted on 03/01/2004 5:20:24 AM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I remember is was blamed on a 2nd Lieutenant's graduate school efforts :

http://www.freeamerican.net/ifa9.htm



The following survey was given to U.S. Marines at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base in California:
DD Form 3206 (Rev 2/96)

JOINT SERVICES TRAINING COMBAT ARMS SURVEY

Part A (Confidential when filled in)

This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regard to non-traditional missions. All responses are confidential and official. Write your answers directly on the form. In Part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.

Date:_____________

Part 1. Demographics.

1. Branch of Service: Army ( ) USAF ( ) Navy ( ) Marines ( ) ANG ( ) NG ( ) USCG ( ) Other: ( )

2. Pay Grade: (E-6, O-4, etc) ( )

3. MOS, AFSC or Specialty Code and Description: ( )

4. Highest level of education: Less than 12 ( ) 13 ( ) 14 ( ) 15 ( ) (16) ( ) More than 16 ( )

5. How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?( )

6. How many months did you serve in Somalia? ( )

7. Where did you spend most of your childhood?

City: ( ); County: ( ) State: ( )

Part II. Attitude:

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the U.S. and bordering countries for any of the following missions?

(Strongly Disagree) (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly Agree) (No Opinion)

8. Drug enforcement

9. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

10. Security at national events (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)

11. Environmental disaster clean-up including toxic and nuclear

12. Substitute teachers and school workers in public schools

13. Community assistance programs (e.g. landscaping, environmental clean-up,road repair, animal control)

14. Federal and State prison guards and auxiliary police

15. National emergency police force/international security force

16. Advisors to SWAT units, the FBI, or the BATF

17. Border Patrol (e.g. prevention of entry of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)

18. Drug enforcement and interdiction

19. Disaster relief in bordering countries (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.)

20. Environmental disaster clean-up in bordering countries including toxic and nuclear.

21. Peace keeping and local law enforcement and internal security forces

22. National building (reconstruct civil governments, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

23. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing and clothing and domestic care).

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under command of non-U.S. officers appointed by the U.N. for any of the following missions?

24. Drug enforcement.

25. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

26. Environmental disaster clean-up including toxic and nuclear.

27. Peace keeping including local law enforcement and internal security forces

28. National building (reconstruct civil government, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.

29. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing and clothing and domestic care)

30. Police action (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm but serving under non-U.S. officers)

31. The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S. command and control.

32. The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises

33. The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U. S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control.

34. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N.missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control.

35. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under U.N. command and control.

36. U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non- commissioned officers at battalion, wing and company levels while performing U.N. missions.

37. It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team.

38. It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company or squadron commander.

39. I feel the President of the U.S. has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.

40. I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier.

41. I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing huminatarian and peace keeping missions for the U.N.

42. I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the U.N.

43. I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. commander.

44. I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace.

45. 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 swear and affirm to support and defend the Charter of the United Nations and I am prepared to give my life in its defense."

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority.

Consider the following statement:

"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."

End of Survey
3 posted on 03/01/2004 5:21:46 AM PST by RockChucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
I believe it was related to the confiscation of firearms.

It was more detailed than that. IIRC, it asked if under UN control they would be willing to fire on us. At the time I think something like 74% said no, be interesting to see what the numbers are now.

4 posted on 03/01/2004 5:25:08 AM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fithee

5 posted on 03/01/2004 5:25:55 AM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
More:

http://www.humanunderground.com/cas.html
6 posted on 03/01/2004 5:26:40 AM PST by RockChucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RockChucker
Let us hope and pray that our men and women in the armed forces know the difference between right and wrong.
7 posted on 03/01/2004 5:26:46 AM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
Believe it was explained as something someone made up as a college assignment.
8 posted on 03/01/2004 5:27:56 AM PST by MP5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
You are mistaken! We got exactly zero for the price of two and we are still paying for it.
9 posted on 03/01/2004 5:29:44 AM PST by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
I found this at http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr5.htm. I don't know how much truth there is to it, but nothing surprises me when it comes to Bill Clinton.
Open Letter to Our Readers

Combat Arms Survey

On 08 April 1995, The RESISTER conducted a telephone interview with LCDR Earnest Guy Cunningham, USN, regarding his Combat Arms Survey given to 300 U.S. Marine Corps combat trained marines at Twenty-Nine Palms California on 10 May 1994.

The survey was given in support of his Naval Postgraduate School master's thesis; Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion. (Before joining the Navy, LCDR Cunningham was a Special Forces medic. After the usual exchange of bona fides, and waltzing the Name Dropping Dance, sufficient trust was established for a frank discussion.)

For the record, we are convinced of LCDR Cunningham's sincerity in his claim that the sole purpose of his thesis was to explore what effect Operations Other Than War would have on small unit cohesion. We discussed several constitutional issues with him, as well as the results of his survey. Although there are those who still vilify LCDR Cunningham, we found him to be strongly opposed to many of the non-traditional missions contained in his survey, and a staunch defender of the Constitution.

One of the first questions we asked LCDR Cunningham pertained to the timing of his questionnaire. There had been rumors of a questionnaire of similar content being administered to U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six in the fall of 1993, and the February 1994 issue of MODERN GUN magazine publicized the existence of such a questionnaire.

LCDR Cunningham denied that was his questionnaire and maintained that the first, and only, time his questionnaire was given at Twenty-Nine Palms of 10 May 1994. When asked if he had made test versions, and conducted test runs of his questionnaire to refine his product, he replied that he had not.

When asked if he was aware of any other person, or organization, conducting similar research, he replied that he was aware of no such questionnaire or research. (This raises the question; "Who, or what agency, was surveying special operations personnel to determine if they would participate in firearms confiscation?")

Our conversation then ranged over the construction and content of the Combat Arms Survey. LCDR Cunningham stated that the Combat Arms Survey was specifically designed to elicit responses indicative to the effect the described non-traditional missions, under either U.S or U.N. control, would have on cohesion of small units engaged in such operations.

With specific regard to the infamous question #46, we agreed that unit cohesion would evaporate. Officers who gave the order would make their widows rich, and the most serious threat to the public would be the ensuing firefight between those refused to confiscate firearms, and the bullet-bait who would.

An important distinction discussed regarding the results of the Combat Arms Survey was the age of the respondents and their acceptance of foreign control of U.S. forces. The younger the respondent (in other words; the lesser the pay grade of the respondent), the more amenable he was to Operations Other Than War and non-traditional missions, including U.N. operational control over U.S. forces. this was true of both officers and enlisted men.

During the interview we commented that an individual marking an opinion space in a questionnaire merely indicated the opinion of that individual, but was not indicative of whether that individual would, or would not, follow illegal or immoral orders, or perform a mission he had strong personal misgivings about, and that, for the most part, despite personal misgivings, soldiers would follow orders regardless of the legality , morality, or constitutionality of those orders.

LCDR Cunningham conceded that such distinctions were outside the scope of the Combat Arms Survey, but that the margin responses to certain questions indicated that the long term result of compliance with questionable orders would eventually result in intra-unit factionalism and destroy unit cohesion.

LCDR Cunningham further related that the most frightening statistic of the Combat Arms Survey was the number of "No Opinion" responses to a number of questions, most significantly to question #46.

Twelve percent of respondents answered "No Opinion" when asked if they would fire on American citizens who refused to surrender their firearms. Including the total who responded that they WOULD fire on Americans (26.34 percent), and given the fact that those with no opinion on moral issues will mindlessly do what they are told, over 38 percent of those ordered to fire Americans refusing to surrender their firearms would do so.

We objected that even those who had a moral aversion to following illegal orders would do so, either out of a sense of duty, or for no more substantial reason than the preservation of their military careers, and that the percentage of those who would fire on Americans, even if they disagreed with the order to do so, was probably significantly higher than 50 percent.

We further objected that the personal opinions of officers who would give the orders relied less on their willingness to issue, or ensure the successful execution of, immoral orders, than their desire to achieve a one or two block on their OER. LCDR Cunningham agreed in principle that "careerism' had the logical consequence of diluting moral responsibility, but could offer no substantive evidence to the extent of impact of careerism on unit cohesion based solely on his thesis or research.

Although we do not agree with some of LCDR Cunningham's premises regarding the constitutionality, or desirability, of even benign Operations Other Than War, particularly the bifurcation of the U.S. military into national defense and peacekeeping forces--as a result of our interview, and review of his thesis--we find no justification for anybody questioning his patriotism.

LCDR Cunningham's thesis was purely a research effort to determine the long term effects of Operations Other Than War and non- traditional missions on both horizontal cohesion (how the unit coalesces, supports itself, and performs as an integrated whole), and vertical cohesion (trust and confidence in the unit's leadership).

Anybody who doubts this need only talk to the man.

JFA Davidson


10 posted on 03/01/2004 5:29:52 AM PST by sheltonmac ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockChucker
Saving bump.
11 posted on 03/01/2004 5:30:02 AM PST by JimRed (Disinformation is the leftist's and enemy's friend; consider the source before believing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xrp
We have a professional army that will fight enemies, both foreign and domestic.

There are millions of Arabs and Muslims who are US Citizens. How many would fire on people declared 'terrorists' by their superiors?

Waco is an example. The riots of the 1960's and 1970's are an example.
12 posted on 03/01/2004 5:30:50 AM PST by RockChucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy
We got exactly zero for the price of two and we are still paying for it.

Correct, yet many right here on this sight want to repeat that same mistake in the upcoming election.

13 posted on 03/01/2004 5:37:26 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steve50
I'd like to see a new one also. I remember this, and I always wondered if it were the Military either trying to weed out potential misfits and nuts, or grazing the ranks for dependable troops if they found it necessary for a coup against Bill Clinton.
14 posted on 03/01/2004 5:37:37 AM PST by theDentist (Boston: So much Liberty, you can buy a Politician already owned by someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RockChucker
Wow! I can't get over your immediate and complete response to this request.

The Clintons probably had it floated it our there as a trial balloon to see whether it would fly. That is how they operated. It never would have gone out without someone sanctioning it from the Clinton Administration. A young officer in the Marines would never take a liberty like that on his own. The Clinton Administration found some military 'suck ups' and 'kiss a$$es' to do its dirty work.

Every one should remember this veiled Stalinesque attempt by the Democrats to test the waters on the confiscation of firearms.
15 posted on 03/01/2004 5:40:34 AM PST by Fithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
I use Google and Alltheweb.com

I don't believe this was a plot and I think they are good questions.

Would the soldiers fight against the US for the UN, if ordered to do so? Very good question, if you ask me.

Perhaps someone could find the results.
16 posted on 03/01/2004 5:42:16 AM PST by RockChucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy
"You are mistaken! We got exactly zero for the price of two and we are still paying for it."

Zero we could have dealt with.

I'm afraid what we got was the loss of our nation under the rule of law.

For that we will be paying for years to come.

17 posted on 03/01/2004 5:42:54 AM PST by G.Mason (God does not take sides with men, we must side with God ... George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steve50
...be interesting to see what the numbers are now.

Be more interesting to see if we got rid of the twenty six percent who said yes.

18 posted on 03/01/2004 5:44:31 AM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
The flimsy excuse that they used to justify using the military to kill civilians was that there MIGHT be a drug lab inside.

Anyone STILL think that the WOD is worth it?
19 posted on 03/01/2004 5:44:46 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
or grazing the ranks for dependable troops if they found it necessary for a coup against Bill Clinton.

Liberal supporters aren't much on being armed. More likely they want an idea if the troops can be counted on to support a cancellation of the US Constitution and the disarming of the citizens it would take to maintain such an action. I'd say only a small percentage would be required, form them into units and augment them with ATF, DEA and other federal outfits already screened for the proper response.

20 posted on 03/01/2004 5:48:46 AM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
Be more interesting to see if we got rid of the twenty six percent who said yes.

At this point I'd say it's more likely they were promoted.

21 posted on 03/01/2004 5:50:24 AM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
You want my gun? Come and get it.
22 posted on 03/01/2004 5:51:32 AM PST by upchuck (Ta-ray-za now gets to execute her "maiming of choice." I'm hoping for eye gouging, how 'bout you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort; Austin Willard Wright; Sloth; Grut; steve50; KantianBurke; Henrietta; Joe Hadenuf; ...
"Correct, yet many right here on this sight want to repeat that same mistake in the upcoming election."

Correct

I had initial thoughts of posting some of their names here, and decided, in the intrest of FR, not to do so.

Instead I will leave you with this thought ...



"The history of American politics is littered with bodies of people who took so pure a position that they had no clout at all
… Ben C. Bradlee

23 posted on 03/01/2004 5:52:48 AM PST by G.Mason (God does not take sides with men, we must side with God ... George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fithee; *bang_list
Posted to *bang_list
24 posted on 03/01/2004 5:55:10 AM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Silly me .... You called them to it I see.
25 posted on 03/01/2004 5:55:21 AM PST by G.Mason (God does not take sides with men, we must side with God ... George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
oh please. When did legitimate criticism of the Bush administration on such topics as illegal immigrants and free pills fall under your definition of treason??
26 posted on 03/01/2004 5:55:44 AM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Consort
You must excuse me.

It was I who placed their names in the To: listing.

I'm having trouble getting my brain to function this morning.

27 posted on 03/01/2004 5:58:27 AM PST by G.Mason (God does not take sides with men, we must side with God ... George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
treason??

Excuse please, did I say treason?

28 posted on 03/01/2004 5:59:28 AM PST by G.Mason (God does not take sides with men, we must side with God ... George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
Hack looked into this back when he was still in favor at FR and found it to be an urban myth.

It never happened, but the rumor keeps popping up on the net from time to time.
29 posted on 03/01/2004 6:00:29 AM PST by Ronin (When the fox gnaws -- Smile!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Playing innocent huh. Figures. Sorry but if anyone's been causing bodies to pile up in this country its Bush's refusal to enforce immigration law. Contrary to those who wear rose colored glasses, illegals are inciting quite a bit of crime including murder and rape. Those of us who call Bush on his neglect aren't the bad guys.
30 posted on 03/01/2004 6:04:27 AM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
further ....... I don't believe the discussion was about GWB's policies, rather about those who would vote in protest against him, for an un-electable third party, and therefor for a Democrat.
31 posted on 03/01/2004 6:05:27 AM PST by G.Mason (God does not take sides with men, we must side with God ... George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
....... I don't believe the discussion was about GWB's policies, rather about those who would vote in protest against him, for an un-electable third party, and therefor for a Democrat.

The discussion was about US troops and their reactions to an alleged survey. You seem to have changed the direction of the thread to party line politics.

32 posted on 03/01/2004 6:11:06 AM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
While in the Army in the late 1960's we trained for riot control at Fort Belvoir in Maryland. Most of the training consisted of advancing in formations with bayonets unsheathed. We were told if called to cope with a riot, we would have a limited amount of ammunition. We were on alert for riot response on the east coast in the First Army. We also were told the Army had seven levels of force they would apply to get control. The last level was the firing of bullets which required permission from authorities high up and was considered very unlikely. I got the sense we were going to slug it out in hand to hand combat. We had very little body armour. Our helmet liners were it.

Shortly after I left the Army, National Guard troops fired on students at Kent State. I had the feeling that the National Guard of those days was made up of less disciplined soldiers, and they panicked.

33 posted on 03/01/2004 6:17:41 AM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
To all who complain about GWB....Why complain about the Presidential Election when Congress is America's biggest enemy? The voters keep electing the same "hogs at the trough" congressmen over and over. Blame Bush for Iraq yet tip toe around the fact that only Congress can approve a war. BUSH 2004!!
34 posted on 03/01/2004 6:30:12 AM PST by georgia outlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RockChucker
Our professional military does know right from wrong. However the risk to military firing on US Citizens comes from the civilian leadership.

No military operations will ever occur in the US without the approval, ROE, and Mission statement coming directly from the President and the SECDEF along with civilian branch secretaries.

So if for some unforseen reason the "military" ever does fire on US citizens you can be assured that the fault lies in the electorate.

This is an often overlooked facet in the decision making process known as voting. If you don't know what a person stands for and believes you shouldn't vote for them. But there are whole segments of our country that votes for someone because they were told to. I don't pity them in the least when they get what they ask for.
35 posted on 03/01/2004 6:39:43 AM PST by American_Centurion (Daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime - Nicole Gelinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: steve50
"You seem to have changed the direction of the thread to party line politics."

With all due respect, I was replying to a statement made by Consort earlier in the thread.

36 posted on 03/01/2004 6:46:33 AM PST by G.Mason (God does not take sides with men, we must side with God ... George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion
Took the words right out of my mouth.

I have always blamed Clinton on America. He is a reflection of us and our desires.
37 posted on 03/01/2004 6:49:22 AM PST by RockChucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
I was in the Marines when he was elected, and heard of no such questionnaire.

Marine Inspector

38 posted on 03/01/2004 6:52:19 AM PST by Marine Inspector (Never underestimate the powers of a Dark Clown – Darth BoBo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
bttt
39 posted on 03/01/2004 6:54:11 AM PST by Marine Inspector (Never underestimate the powers of a Dark Clown – Darth BoBo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fithee
The survey may or may not have been a myth. But what is not a myth is the fact that at least one policeman that I know flat out stated that he would shoot it out with his own father if an order came down to confiscate all firearms.

Maybe it's time to survey policemen on the question.

40 posted on 03/01/2004 6:58:23 AM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
With all due respect, I was replying to a statement made by Consort earlier in the thread.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood the purpose of your initial post to me.

41 posted on 03/01/2004 6:59:43 AM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
How old was this cop at the time?
42 posted on 03/01/2004 7:29:02 AM PST by B4Ranch (Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RockChucker; American_Centurion
"How many would fire on people declared 'terrorists' by their superiors?"

What percentage of 'new Americans' do we have in Iraq now? I recall reading the figure was something around 25%. What percentage of these 'new Americans' understand the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment?

43 posted on 03/01/2004 7:33:46 AM PST by B4Ranch (Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: steve50
> Consider the following statement:
>
> "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of
> firearms banned by the United States government."

The police are nearer to doing that than the US military. What do you think the answers to that question would be if asked of the police? After all, they do it already in many parts of the US. My guess is 90% or more of the police would fire on civilians who would not give up their guns.

A few might take early retirement. Fewer still might refuse their orders and get fired. But most would do what the police in New York, Washington DC, Chicago, much of California and other places do right now. Fire on gunowners.
44 posted on 03/01/2004 7:34:32 AM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
That pretty much sums it up for anyone with doubts.
45 posted on 03/01/2004 7:40:16 AM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
I agree jim. With the current moves to federalize city/state/county police in local matters they'll have the needed command structure as well.
46 posted on 03/01/2004 7:41:14 AM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: steve50
"Sorry, I must have misunderstood the purpose of your initial post to me.

Not at all.

Quite frankly I erred in posting to you and others who have stated your preference not to vote for GWB.

I have opinions, like all of us here, but I have no right to hold you up to ridicule.

For that I apologize.

47 posted on 03/01/2004 7:45:24 AM PST by G.Mason ("We will never seek a permission slip to defend the United States of America" … G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
"MOLON LABE"
48 posted on 03/01/2004 7:47:32 AM PST by JamesA (Stand up, stand together or die as one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: steve50
You and jim are both correct imo. Instead of Peace Keepers we have Law Enforcers working for a "criminal" justice system.
49 posted on 03/01/2004 7:48:19 AM PST by BabsC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: georgia outlaw
" ....... Why complain about the Presidential Election when Congress is America's biggest enemy? ......."

Boy, you said a mouthful, brother!

50 posted on 03/01/2004 7:49:20 AM PST by G.Mason ("We will never seek a permission slip to defend the United States of America" … G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson