PDA

View Full Version : The Military Oath - Just a reminder


thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 9:19 AM
In light of current events and the relentless attack on our 2A, I wanted to post the oath that all of us in the military took. As a reminder and for those who have never taken the oath so they know it and understand it.

I, (NAME), 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.


First and foremost it states:

"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"


I would like to also address another part of this oath:

"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"

The one issue that negates this part of the oath is Armed forces are not required, nor should they follow any unlawful order.

So any orders coming from the President or from any military officers that are unlawful, such as violating the consitution are null and void.


As a Marine I took and still take my oath seriously.

The constitution was created by people who fully understood what it is like to be subjects and not citizens. Our constition is what makes us differant from any other country in the world. we MUST not let it be destroyed. We must fight if neccesary to keep it alive, valid and relevant. It has been what has made this country great and now we have people who have almost unlimited power trying to gain more power by turning us from citizens to subjects again.

It is treason. flat out.

A semi automatic rifle (which is all an AR-15 is) is not worse than walking into a place with two glocks loaded with 30 round magazines. and I would personally say that carrying two hand guns would be lighter and allow better movement than one rifle.

If they can get there foot in the door and ban semi automatic rifles, then I feel semi automatic shotguns will be next on the list. then semi automatic pistols, then we will be left with bolt action rifles and when that is the only tool left to the mentally ill and they are used for killing innocent people, those will be banned also.

And another thing, people want a quick fix and solution, they want to be able to protect our children now.

WTF? does noone understand that we could immediatley start placing armed security at schools. that is the fastest solition to this problem to ensure the safety of our children.

Any teachers who WANT to carry, get them trained, licensed allow them to carry.

Trying to ban firearms, if succesful will take years, probably in this country 10 to 20 years before you "MIGHT" see any kind of effect. how many lives will be lost in that time because they could not defend themselves or be defended by a good person with a firearm?

I saw a video the other day where a guy made an AK-47 out of a shovel. really?

And with computer technolodgy the 3D printing becoming more advanced, people have alread created guns using 3D printing technology that can fire up to I think 10 rounds so far. And that technology will only adavnce.

Lots of people have mills and CNC's and are already building their own lowers and uppers.

Guns will NEVER be removed from this country. not unless they turn us into subjects and take away every tool we have that can make guns. And oh by the way, better place an Iron Currten around our borders Because if nothing else, when people cross the borders to get their drugs, they will just pick up a few guns while they are there. Mexico is a complete loss. no one in the government cares there, either that or the cartels are so big nothing will ever be done to curb the violence and drugs and gun running that happens down there.

I see all this and it pisses me off that all these sheep either dont get it or choose to ignore it.

I will never trade my freedoms for security, I can provide my own security thank you very much.

And if this country were to change into a dictatorship and our rights removed, I would rather stand against it and fight and be killed than live in a country as a subject.

sjm9877
12-24-2012, 9:28 AM
Well said I wish there were more people like you in this country. Unfortunately this thread will probably be locked or moved or lit up with people giving you the tin foil hat.

rp55
12-24-2012, 9:36 AM
That is the oath of enlistment. The Oath of Office for commissioned officers is different:

"I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

You may notice that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders. That is not an oversight. FWIW, officers in the service of the United States are bound by their oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

Mullins
12-24-2012, 9:42 AM
(I posted this in another thread to)
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights.

Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. If they come refuse to give up your second amendment!

We way have to fight for our rights again.

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 9:44 AM
That is the oath of enlistment. The Oath of Office for commissioned officers is different:

"I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

You may notice that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders. That is not an oversight. FWIW, officers in the service of the United States are bound by their oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

Thanks RP55!!

R/

CoastRyder
12-24-2012, 9:44 AM
There hasn't been a day since around Nov 2008 I haven't thought about that oath, and what it really means. I agree with your points. The real question is, how many in the military, officers and enlisted, realize what they swore to, and are willing to stand by that oath?

navycorpsman
12-24-2012, 9:48 AM
I stick to my oath and will never participate in a confiscation

SanPedroShooter
12-24-2012, 9:50 AM
There hasn't been a day since around Nov 2008 I haven't thought about that oath, and what it really means. I agree with your points. The real question is, how many in the military, officers and enlisted, realize what they swore to, and are willing to stand by that oath?

Took the same oath in the same service.

Semper Paratus

OleCuss
12-24-2012, 9:51 AM
The oath is (IMHO) forever binding.

But one has to remember that there are tactics and strategies employed in defending the Constitution from its enemies.

You choose how and when you fight depending on the terrain, the order of battle, the status of reinforcements, blocking forces, logistics, etc.

You don't just fight, you fight smart if you want to win and to uphold the Constitution.

If they try to jack further with my RKBA I'm inclined not to comply at all. But it really depends on what is going on at the time and what the best method of protecting the Constitution might be under those particular circumstances.

But one thing is simple. We are duty bound to fight against those who would violate our Constitution. How we do that is a very difficult question.

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 9:56 AM
The oath is (IMHO) forever binding.

But one has to remember that there are tactics and strategies employed in defending the Constitution from its enemies.

You choose how and when you fight depending on the terrain, the order of battle, the status of reinforcements, blocking forces, logistics, etc.

You don't just fight, you fight smart if you want to win and to uphold the Constitution.

If they try to jack further with my RKBA I'm inclined not to comply at all. But it really depends on what is going on at the time and what the best method of protecting the Constitution might be under those particular circumstances.

But one thing is simple. We are duty bound to fight against those who would violate our Constitution. How we do that is a very difficult question.


Good response.

CoastRyder
12-24-2012, 9:56 AM
Took the same oath in the same service.

Semper Paratus

As the only branch of the armed forces with law enforcement authority, I'm particularly concerned about how things may go.

wazdat
12-24-2012, 10:11 AM
My signature says it all.

SanPedroShooter
12-24-2012, 10:13 AM
As the only branch of the armed forces with law enforcement authority, I'm particularly concerned about how things may go.

I hadnt really considered that, but since their enforcement power is somewhat limited in scope if not in power, at least the parts I had to memorize 14USC89 etc.. I wouldnt expect the Coast Guard to be involved in domestic firearms seizures, on land anyway.

I suppose its not even worth going into 'what if's'.

I find the idea of military members being issued order contrary to the Constitution, a body of law that outranks and Federal code (at leasts thats what we were taught) to be an insult to the Armed Forces.

We'll see.

I dont want to bog this thread down, but check this link. Scroll down about halfway to a post by RickD427
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6611966761/m/2670023181001

fizux
12-24-2012, 11:12 AM
I have taken both the enlisted and officer oaths, and the differences do imply a higher duty for officers to disobey unlawful orders.

I do not think there are many that have forgotten their oaths, or their duty to the Constitution -- certainly there are not many on CGN.

swilson
12-24-2012, 11:50 AM
You never hear about refusing to enforce Executive Order 9066.

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 12:14 PM
You never hear about refusing to enforce Executive Order 9066.

No, however there were many people against it,

FBI director - J. Edgar Hoover

First Lady - Eleanor Roosevelt

And it was determined it was the wrong thing to do


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

krazz
12-24-2012, 12:17 PM
I think I was drunk when I took my oath.

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 12:23 PM
I think I was drunk when I took my oath.

Sailor or Marine then? :)

Doheny
12-24-2012, 1:47 PM
I have taken both the enlisted and officer oaths, and the differences do imply a higher duty for officers to disobey unlawful orders.

I do not think there are many that have forgotten their oaths, or their duty to the Constitution -- certainly there are not many on CGN.

Just curious...

Who/how/when is it decided that an order is bad or unlawful, especially when you're particularly low on the food chain and aren't privy to intel, court decisions, decisions made for the good of the country that may have been made without your knowledge by Congress or the President or SCOTUS?

When do you say "that's a bad order" vs. making a Light Brigade (http://poetry.eserver.org/light-brigade.html) charge? I'm not just talking 2A applications.

Thanks...I'm looking forward to learning something.


:patriot:

CoastRyder
12-24-2012, 1:51 PM
Just curious...

Who/how/when is it decided that an order is bad or unlawful, especially when you're particularly low on the food chain and aren't privy to intel, court decisions, decisions made for the good of the country that may have been made without your knowledge by Congress or the President or SCOTUS?

When do you say "that's a bad order" vs. making a Light Brigade (http://poetry.eserver.org/light-brigade.html) charge? I'm not just talking 2A applications.

Thanks...I'm looking forward to learning something.


:patriot:

Illegal or immoral

mt4design
12-24-2012, 2:09 PM
I never served.

I only have the weight of a legacy to guide me along the path I will take.

My father fought as a teenager, working against an occupying force running intel from the Japanese headquarters in Manila to the resistance.

After successfully escaping, he joined the U.S. Navy during WWII.

Upon the completion of that tour, he joined the USAF.

My grandfather was held in a prison camp in the P.I. during WWII.

I believe that too great a percentage of our citizens have no recollection of what life is like under the rule of an occupying force. Too much history is forgotten.

But, through the words of my own father, I know exactly how easily life can be taken when you draw each breath by the whim and the good grace of an armed enemy.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Words which had great meaning in a time where our own people felt equally as vulnerable living under the thumb of an occupying force.

I thank all oath keepers who put their lives on the line to protect us. I hope and pray you always find yourself on the right side of an illegal order.

Mike

MRX9989
12-24-2012, 2:15 PM
I'm another who has taken both oaths over the course of my military career. Not a day goes by that I don't review and reaffirm my responsibilities. I consider my words binding for life.

Though I'm not at all relating this to our current 2A discussion, keep in mind it is possible for for limitations on our rights to be lawfully established (Yelling "fire!" in a theater, US vs O'Brien, etc).

FMFdevildoc
12-24-2012, 2:16 PM
I fully intend on keeping my oath, plain and simple.

I also do not wear a tin foil hat. So I reckon I'll cross the bridge when I get there, on this topic.

I could not EVER see myself taking part in disarming fellow Americans*

*Law abiding, non-criminal, non-insurgent, Americans who own legal firearms in accordance of federal law. In other words, if I were told to disarm a bunch of gangbangers, than clearly, it would be done. Yet morally, I cannot fathom the idea of taking a Rem. 700 from a guy who hunts deer, legally, every fall...

Cobrafreak
12-24-2012, 2:17 PM
"I would hand them over to you but they fell off the boat yesterday in the deepest part of the river, damn shame".

warbird
12-24-2012, 2:23 PM
In 1968-69 the federal government under Nixon tried to invoke federal law during the riots and only succeeded with Washington since it is federal territory. The military leaders in the Pentagon refused leaving Nixon to try to create a federal dictatorshop with federal clerks and analysts and civilian police. But today under Holder Obama has a second army. Homeland Security and various federal agencies are being armed so the federal government can dominate until they can get control of the military. Obama is building his own Gestapo agency. Distrust the armed civilian federal government before the military. I am a veteran and always will be and my military oath is a lifetime oath.

wjc
12-24-2012, 2:35 PM
Never served (long story) but this should tied me over...

"On my honor, I will do my best,
to do my duty to God and my Country
and to obey the Scout Law.
To help other people at all times,
to keep myself physically fit, mentally awake,
and morally straight."

TMcGuff
12-24-2012, 2:41 PM
all the reasons you stated is why i am not re-enlisting.

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 2:44 PM
Illegal or immoral

Exactly.

Probably the best response that could have been given. Accurate and to the point.

socalbud
12-24-2012, 3:35 PM
I pray that politics and 2A interpretations are the furthest thing from a real soldier's mind. The last thing we need in the military, are soldiers with a civilian mindset.

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 3:41 PM
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln

Fundamentals
12-24-2012, 3:54 PM
The oath, in my opinion, is something that everyone born on this soil is tied to the moment they are born. By benefiting from living on this land, they are entrusted to defend the original laws that made this nation the place everyone wanted to go.

Do not people who come to live here legally have to swear an oath?

Meplat
12-24-2012, 3:54 PM
That is not an oversight. FWIW, officers in the service of the United States are bound by their oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

Enlisted only swear to obey lawful orders. They are also under obligation to disobey unlawful and/or unconstitutional orders. The specific procedure for doing so is codified in the UCMJ. This was made quite clear to us in boot camp, we were told to not obey unlawful orders and that we were personally accountable. This was a long time ago; I don't know if they still teach and stress it.

Mikeb
12-24-2012, 3:58 PM
To be honest... I don't know. I've never taken a human life, only ben there for the end of a few. I wouldn't want to kill a man doing his job, though I'm not sure I would just want to comply. I guess if I thought I could just chase them away I would. I don't think that is realistic. So???
I don't know
Mike

Meplat
12-24-2012, 4:03 PM
You don't just fight, you fight smart if you want to win and to uphold the Constitution.



And that does not include telling in advance exactly what you are prepared to do and when.

Meplat
12-24-2012, 4:09 PM
Sailor or Marine then? :)
:rofl2:

We'll hold him to it anyway.

rexbo47
12-24-2012, 4:20 PM
"The oath is (IMHO) forever binding."

^ This ^

"And that does not include telling in advance exactly what you are prepared to do and when."

^ And this ^

AyatollahGondola
12-24-2012, 4:44 PM
And that does not include telling in advance exactly what you are prepared to do and when.

I was going to ask why there isn't a "fight to the victory" option in this poll. Or isn't that final enough for poll taking purposes

rivraton
12-24-2012, 4:50 PM
What guns?

model63
12-24-2012, 5:48 PM
I don't like the choices...I prefer passive resistance and may simply misplace them. If they jail me or torture me.. I'm a martyr... at which point it's on. I have a lot of doubts about this happening in our life time, but if it comes to that for others and we hear about it before they come for us they won't have to worry about knocking on my door because we will all be at their doors with lead knockers...

chris
12-24-2012, 5:57 PM
I stick to my oath and will never participate in a confiscation

i won't either. but there are many on this board who truly think we will. some use katrina as an example for it.

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 6:16 PM
I was going to ask why there isn't a "fight to the victory" option in this poll. Or isn't that final enough for poll taking purposes

Honestly I figure if people come to my door to take my guns and I put up a fight I doubt I will be getting out of it alive. I am not foolish enough to think I am some kind of superman.

One person against probably an initial force of at least 10 trained warriors with body armor against me. I figure if I am lucky I might take a few out before I am taken out.

My hope would be that people who know me would spread the word that I made a stand for my principals, for our constitution and it would encourage others to do the same.

Someone will have to make the first sacrafices to embolden others. So while I would never give up, I am a realist, I am not superman and I honestly would not count on surving and encounter.

I am not into conspiracy's, but as I said, I am a realist. Our government seems to be heading down the same path other governments have in order to control the people.

We already know the current administration is fully for wealth distribution.

We know they want to provide more free aid to people, medical, food, etc.

Dont get me wrong, some people really need it. But I feel to the extent that this administration is going they are doing it to try and make people reliant on government hand outs. a form of control.

So while I hope gun confiscation never happens in this country I have always lived by the rule plan for the worse, hope for the best.

That was my reason for this thread. just curious on how many others will fight, or how many others will just roll over. I dont mean that as an insult, each individual must choose for themselves what is best.

I guess at some level, if I got a sense that few people would fight to the death, it would make me question if I made a sacrafice if it would make a differance. But knowing that at this point in the poll 85% have voted to fight to the death, then people actually doing that, making a stance, fighting WILL encourage others. And with that knowledge I would have no regrets knowing if I gave my life it would give others strength.

Emotions on the school shooting is high, as it should be. one of the most horrific attacks I can remember. starting to tear up thinking about it. 5,6, 7 year old children.

An unarmed principal charging the shooter with no weapon trying to protect the children.

Another teacher trying to lay on top of the students, giving her life to try and save as many as she could.

murdering innocent people is wrong. But... killing 5 year old children. my God that is something I cannot even articulate into words as to how I feel about that. I usually can get into a bad guys head and figure them out, figure out what pushed them over the edge to commit a certain act. this one. cannot make any sense of it. It is about as cold and heartless as it gets.

And for the anti gun people to jump on this so quickly to take advantage of the tragic event to push their agenda, before bodies are all laid to rest. it sickens me.

And it also forces us to respond too soon. We cant just sit here and get blasted. Both sides I feel should have waited. Let the dead be laid to rest. Let the families mourn.

This JUST happened and the news is already saying the town is split on gun control. These people should be mourning right now. they should be holding each other, not being forced into a confrontation about gun control.

If people really want to protect our children, the immedieate solution IS to place armed good people in schools. that IS the quickest way to do something. But no, the anti gun people really dont care about protecting our children, they want to start a battle that will not show any fruits at all for years to come if ever. It is obvious if they truly cared about protecting the children they would immediatley place armed good guys on schools. There is NOT other faster solution to protect our children.

So for getting off subject in my own thread, it just brings me to tears almost to think about all those children, and it infuriates me that the anti gun people care more about their agenda than truly protecting people, especially our children.

Rant off....

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 6:18 PM
And that does not include telling in advance exactly what you are prepared to do and when.

Noted

Ten Rounder
12-24-2012, 6:39 PM
I sat near the iron curtain waitng for the rumble of the thousand tanks or that big ball of light. It never came. I have lived many free years since that time. There are way to many of us who will resist and correct this wrong.

But like last years exective order that was snuck in behind our back. The coward will do it again.

He sacked our generals so a coup will have to come from the streets.

Who will be calling muster?

fizux
12-24-2012, 7:19 PM
Just curious...

Who/how/when is it decided that an order is bad or unlawful, especially when you're particularly low on the food chain and aren't privy to intel, court decisions, decisions made for the good of the country that may have been made without your knowledge by Congress or the President or SCOTUS?

When do you say "that's a bad order" vs. making a Light Brigade (http://poetry.eserver.org/light-brigade.html) charge? I'm not just talking 2A applications.

Thanks...I'm looking forward to learning something.


:patriot:

I use the Washington Post Test.

Ultimately, the decision is mine and mine alone.

Meplat
12-24-2012, 8:22 PM
I sat near the iron curtain waitng for the rumble of the thousand tanks or that big ball of light. It never came.


That was because, no matter how belligerent, the Russians were sane. BHO, his globalist handlers, and the radical Islamists? I’m not so sure.

EM2
12-24-2012, 8:58 PM
The oath is (IMHO) forever binding.

But one has to remember that there are tactics and strategies employed in defending the Constitution from its enemies.

You choose how and when you fight depending on the terrain, the order of battle, the status of reinforcements, blocking forces, logistics, etc.

You don't just fight, you fight smart if you want to win and to uphold the Constitution.

If they try to jack further with my RKBA I'm inclined not to comply at all. But it really depends on what is going on at the time and what the best method of protecting the Constitution might be under those particular circumstances.

But one thing is simple. We are duty bound to fight against those who would violate our Constitution. How we do that is a very difficult question.



Great points to consider.

And a questions who's answer should be keep quiet.
We each will find our way in resisting tyranny but will need to be careful how we go about that resistance & with whom we share that knowledge.

It has already begun.

EM2
12-24-2012, 9:15 PM
I think I was drunk when I took my oath.

Sailor or Marine then? :)



If this is all the evidence to go by I'm guessing sailor.
ask me how I know. :43:

Mg911guy
12-24-2012, 9:38 PM
Enlisted only swear to obey lawful orders. They are also under obligation to disobey unlawful and/or unconstitutional orders. The specific procedure for doing so is codified in the UCMJ. This was made quite clear to us in boot camp, we were told to not obey unlawful orders and that we were personally accountable. This was a long time ago; I don't know if they still teach and stress it.

This is what I learned in basic also, we were not required to obey unlawful orders.

Is this still taught now in the military?

madjack956
12-24-2012, 9:43 PM
I haven't read but the first few posts in this thread so if this has been discussed, my apologies.

Now Im aware of the oath and am very curious as to what side the majority of enlisted men would take if ordered to turn on its citizens. I guess we would never know until the time comes. I would hate to have to be forced into that position.

Anyway, my thought was what if people in this country just flat out refused to enlist in the military and fight for our/their country until our/their rights are restored. I realize this could be difficult for those already in some branch of the military as they could get busted down or worse, losing all they had worked for.

But new or future troops could just not enlist, which I think would severely hamstring this country and send a message to our socalled leaders. And thats the conflict in my head. I don't want to hurt the country, just wake up the government.

How do you all think that would play out or if we could even get everyone on the same page.

mroels
12-24-2012, 10:58 PM
My hope would be that people who know me would spread the word that I made a stand for my principals, for our constitution and it would encourage others to do the same.

Someone will have to make the first sacrafices to embolden others. So while I would never give up, I am a realist, I am not superman and I honestly would not count on surving and encounter.

My fear is that for every one of your acquaintances who will spread the word, there will be a thousand backed by the media who will paint you as a right wing extremist lunatic. Even on this board there will be those, especially if you're one of the first, who will not speak of your actions in a positive manner claiming CGF/NRA etc could've assisted you in getting guns back. One of the problems with our politically correct society is that too many must suffer before direct action will be perceived as justified, let alone heroic.

Right now the government is like a bully who is bullying the little nerdy kid in school, keeps pushing him into the corner daily. When the nerdy kid gets fed up, learns karate and kicks the bully's butt, then the bully will run to the principle (media/public opinion) to try and get the nerdy kid in trouble. At this point the nerdy kid better be able to show some injuries/proof if he doesn't want to get in trouble. In reality the nerdy kid is better off learning how to take a beating safely....or at least that appears to be what society expects these days.

At that doesn't just apply to the current 2A struggle.

Me, personally, I'd opt to fight...and lose, rather than live in fear of persecution or judgement.

thrasherfox
12-24-2012, 11:15 PM
My fear is that for every one of your acquaintances who will spread the word, there will be a thousand backed by the media who will paint you as a right wing extremist lunatic. Even on this board there will be those, especially if you're one of the first, who will not speak of your actions in a positive manner claiming CGF/NRA etc could've assisted you in getting guns back. One of the problems with our politically correct society is that too many must suffer before direct action will be perceived as justified, let alone heroic.

Right now the government is like a bully who is bullying the little nerdy kid in school, keeps pushing him into the corner daily. When the nerdy kid gets fed up, learns karate and kicks the bully's butt, then the bully will run to the principle (media/public opinion) to try and get the nerdy kid in trouble. At this point the nerdy kid better be able to show some injuries/proof if he doesn't want to get suspended. In reality the nerdy kid is better off learning how to take a beating safely....or at least that appears to be what society expects these days.

At that doesn't just apply to the current 2A struggle.

Me, personally, I'd opt to fight...and lose, rather than live in fear of persecution or judgement.

thing with me is I work for the GOV. If they came to take my firearms trust me when I say things have gotten real serious and our country will have changed as we know it.

As I mentioned earlier, recent events have made me think about certain things. I wont go into details about my life but one thing I have learned is always have a plan, and a back up plan, and a few alternate plans.

if you think about scenarios, regardless of how outragous they are and make contingousy planning for a scenario then if that scenario did occur you will not have to waste time think of your options since you have already determined he course of action and you will just need to execute your actions.

Do I honestly think I am going to have people coming to my door any time soon to take my weapons? highly unlikely. With all the panick buying of firearms and ammo I think any major firearm confiscation at this time could possibly start a civil war.

however Sandy Hook school attack was horrific. I just think there are too many variables to really know for any certainty what will happen, I just know I started this thread to get an idea of how other people felt. kind of a sanity check you might say. To be honest the amount of people who responded to the poll that they would fight to the death before handing over their weapons was higher than I had anticipated. makes me feel maybe I am not too far out there :)

CharlesV
12-25-2012, 3:53 AM
I understand the oaths but not what MIL will do when the chips are down. Like with door-to-door confiscation and people really not knowing right now if they would give up guns or have a shoot out, will the MIL give in and obey unlawful orders? Maybe MIL cant or wont say, i wouldnt blame them, but the average american is counting on the MIL to do the right thing. We can leave it at that.

But that said, the average american also wants to know the effect of oaths when UN troops supplant the MIL and then take orders directly from the White House. What then?

billmaykafer
12-25-2012, 4:20 AM
i first took the oath august 31,1961 when i joined the us navy. i took it 4 times after that initial entry and at each reinlistment. so i believe in it and will until i die. my forefathers at least back,and during, the war of northern aggression took an oath and fought on both sides. my father was a BAR rifleman in custers division WWII.

donny douchebag
12-25-2012, 4:26 AM
Yawn. No wonder the public thinks we're all loony.

mt4design
12-25-2012, 5:10 AM
Never served (long story) but this should tied me over...

"On my honor, I will do my best,
to do my duty to God and my Country
and to obey the Scout Law.
To help other people at all times,
to keep myself physically fit, mentally awake,
and morally straight."

Last night, in an impromptu moment, this began to be recited by a family member.
Soon, everyone in the room who knew it, joined in. It was a very nice moment which
gave way to a fleeting moment of silence afterward soon replaced with the joyful noise
of the kids playing.

Yawn?

Whats the expression?

You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?

Every single framer of the Constitution put his life, his liberty and his fortune on the line.

For each of them, there were probably ten others who felt comfortable taking no stand,
fearful the choice they made might do them personal harm.

At least a small percentage stood against tyranny, fighting to build their own country.

It's always a small percentage who will sacrifice, while others yawn and go back to sleep,
thinking that that small percentage who will walk the walk are loony.

May the others rest in their peaceful slumber and die warm in their beds, years from now.

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 5:49 AM
I understand the oaths but not what MIL will do when the chips are down. Like with door-to-door confiscation and people really not knowing right now if they would give up guns or have a shoot out, will the MIL give in and obey unlawful orders? Maybe MIL cant or wont say, i wouldnt blame them, but the average american is counting on the MIL to do the right thing. We can leave it at that.

But that said, the average american also wants to know the effect of oaths when UN troops supplant the MIL and then take orders directly from the White House. What then?

I dont think our military leaders would look kindly on foreign troops on US soil overlording over each American.

That is exactly one of the purposes of our military, to not let something like that happen.

Katrina is an example to an extent. Some in the national gaurd complied.

I think most police officers did the confiscating.

And some of them (very very small portion) abused the situation by stealing, raping women etc.

So I think Katrina is a smaller version of what would happen, as I would expect. most of the military would not do it. I think if it was just a gun confiscation, most police would not do it. The job would be left to OHB's personal civilian army.

Just my opinion.

bodger
12-25-2012, 8:56 AM
I took the oath in 1972. Honorably discharged in 1976 after two deployments to Southeast Asia.
My pledge still stands, and they are not taking my guns.

madjack956
12-25-2012, 9:07 AM
Our military is one thing. But the U.N. occupied states would be a big mistake. I think it would make everyones decision easier to what action they would take, and screw all this, Im going to enjoy Christmas.

Merry Christmas all...

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 9:22 AM
Our military is one thing. But the U.N. occupied states would be a big mistake. I think it would make everyones decision easier to what action they would take, and screw all this, Im going to enjoy Christmas.

Merry Christmas all...

Merry Christmas..

johnny1290
12-25-2012, 3:49 PM
You saw the katrina video where they broke the old ladys arm when they asked her if she had a gun and she showed it to them?

They will take our guns without a second thought. Maybe a few won't. People will also give them up with nary a word, thanking the police for keeping us safe and the mcdonalds gift card they received.

All the cold dead hands guys will be the first to hand them over.

AlpineWeiss
12-25-2012, 5:16 PM
Dying over trying to protect my personal guns from confiscation is not a battle worth fighting.

Remember that old adage about picking your battles.

3RDGEARGRNDRR
12-25-2012, 5:33 PM
Dying over trying to protect my personal guns from confiscation is not a battle worth fighting.

Remember that old adage about picking your battles.

the basic constitutional freedoms we have in this country we take for granted. We, as a nation, cannot and do not understand these basic rights until they are taken away from us. I lived in a communist country, where what you say, what you believe, whom you agree with, if it questions the validity of the government is punishable by death.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.- Ben Franklin




"THE ONLY ASSAULT WEAPON IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW IS THE MEDIA ATTACKING OUR RIGHTS"

DannyInSoCal
12-25-2012, 5:34 PM
If the powers at be decide our Constitution needs a "different interpretation" -

Then my oath will reflect changes also...

DannyInSoCal
12-25-2012, 5:36 PM
Last night, in an impromptu moment, this began to be recited by a family member.
Soon, everyone in the room who knew it, joined in. It was a very nice moment which
gave way to a fleeting moment of silence afterward soon replaced with the joyful noise
of the kids playing.

Yawn?

Whats the expression?

You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?

Every single framer of the Constitution put his life, his liberty and his fortune on the line.

For each of them, there were probably ten others who felt comfortable taking no stand,
fearful the choice they made might do them personal harm.

At least a small percentage stood against tyranny, fighting to build their own country.

It's always a small percentage who will sacrifice, while others yawn and go back to sleep,
thinking that that small percentage who will walk the walk are loony.

May the others rest in their peaceful slumber and die warm in their beds, years from now.

Amen. SMIB...

wchutt
12-25-2012, 5:42 PM
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/

Jason_2111
12-25-2012, 5:45 PM
Just because you leave active duty, doesn't mean your oath expires. ;)

bambam8d1
12-25-2012, 6:08 PM
I remember my oath... and I will stand by it.

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 7:17 PM
Dying over trying to protect my personal guns from confiscation is not a battle worth fighting.

Remember that old adage about picking your battles.

It has nothing to do with dying for any property. I would never give my life and take someones life for property. a life means more to me than that.

I would be fighting to ensure our constitution is not trampled upon. simple as that.

Alot of people in this country dont care about our constitution, they dont apprecieate the privalage, and yes the responsability for being an American citizen.

I do. I will fight to defend the principals this country was founded on. we as humans were born with the right to do whatever we wish. 10 commandments were created by God. that was sufficient and pretty much covered everything God felt was important.

All the other laws are man made. Some are good laws, and some are meant to control people.

Taking away our right to bare arms will turn us into subjects, plain and simple. I have a right to have firearms for personal protection, per the founding fathers NO ONE has a right to take that from me.

It is ideals and principals that I am willing to fight for. and not so much for me, but for my children.

X231
12-25-2012, 7:37 PM
I took the oath in 1971. It did not have an expiration date.

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 7:39 PM
I looked at the oath keepers link above (thank you) I ran across this video.

It might have been posted on the board somewhere already but feel it is pertinant in this thread.

If you dont believe in what bad can come of gun confiscation, all we have to do is look at Australia.

p8RDWltHxRc

AlpineWeiss
12-25-2012, 7:40 PM
Remember that old adage about picking your battles.

Flipdude
12-25-2012, 7:54 PM
I took that oath 3-4 times (re-enlistments and naturalization). I am not affiliated anymore (15 year vet) but I remember my oath wholeheartedly.

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 8:20 PM
I took that oath 3-4 times (re-enlistments and naturalization). I am not affiliated anymore (15 year vet) but I remember my oath wholeheartedly.

Kind of amazing how everyone remembers their oath. The military does engrain things in you :)

Gryff
12-25-2012, 9:05 PM
My son is home for Christmas from the Naval Academy. We just had a long talk in which I reminded him that his oath is to the Constitution of the United States. That cannot be supplanted by any man or woman, elected or promoted, who gives an order that is in violation to the Constitution.

Yimmyen
12-25-2012, 9:18 PM
Wouldn't it be easier for Mr. Executive Order (Obama) to create a civilian army not bound by oath to do the dirty work?

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 9:26 PM
Wouldn't it be easier for Mr. Executive Order (Obama) to create a civilian army not bound by oath to do the dirty work?

You do know that is exactly what he has done right? they just had their first graduating class.

Read this article.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/19/aw-cute-obama%E2%80%99s-civilian-army-femacorps-just-graduated-it%E2%80%99s-first-class/

madjack956
12-25-2012, 9:29 PM
Yimmiyen, 80 million gun owners is a big number to go up against. Now I realize all wont be eligible for various reasons, but how many people do you think Obama could muster for his dirty deeds army?

Flipdude
12-25-2012, 9:33 PM
You do know that is exactly what he has done right? they just had their first graduating class.

Read this article.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/19/aw-cute-obama%E2%80%99s-civilian-army-femacorps-just-graduated-it%E2%80%99s-first-class/

Here is Obama's Youth Army.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JFCnE

Does Hitler's Youth come to mind? :facepalm:

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 9:40 PM
Does Hitler's Youth come to mind? :facepalm:

Yep. And it really concerns me. train em young, get them brain washed.

I have a real concern about it.

Yimmyen
12-25-2012, 9:57 PM
Yimmiyen, 80 million gun owners is a big number to go up against. Now I realize all wont be eligible for various reasons, but how many people do you think Obama could muster for his dirty deeds army?

Ya your right Madjack, the math does not add up. The avenue of creating an army of that size or larger would be utterly impossible.

DannyInSoCal
12-25-2012, 10:01 PM
There is a very specific reason why our oaths include the phrase:

"ALL enemies - Foreign and DOMESTIC..."

shooter556
12-25-2012, 10:31 PM
Ya your right Madjack, the math does not add up. The avenue of creating an army of that size or larger would be utterly impossible.

Idk, drones and gunships can take on a lot of people at once. Then you have tanks and such. Or simply bomb city after city until we surrender. I doubt the government will have any engagement rules. They'll drop bomb after bomb.

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 10:53 PM
Idk, drones and gunships can take on a lot of people at once. Then you have tanks and such. Or simply bomb city after city until we surrender. I doubt the government will have any engagement rules. They'll drop bomb after bomb.

For one, our military cannot perform those actions legally on US soil. which goes back to the Oath that enlisted and officers are not to perform any actions which are unlawful, regardless of who tells them to do what.

And bombing US citizens is something our military wont do. they are there to defend us. I have been with the military over 25 years and over those 25 years everyone I have met pretty much has enlisted to PROTECT US citizens. not kill them.

This is why Obama is starting his own civil force. It is his only way of doing something like that.

shooter556
12-25-2012, 10:56 PM
For one, our military cannot perform those actions legally on US soil. which goes back to the Oath that enlisted and officers are not to perform any actions which are unlawful, regardless of who tells them to do what.

And bombing US citizens is something our military wont do. they are there to defend us. I have been with the military over 25 years and over those 25 years everyone I have met pretty much has enlisted to PROTECT US citizens. not kill them.

This is why Obama is starting his own civil force. It is his only way of doing something like that.

Exactly. Or hire someone else to do so. Blackwater mercs come to mind. I simply can expect anything from them. If they want to win a war, they will do it using all the technology they can. I believe they'd send the military far away, and bring in people who are willing to bomb us.

Sealawyer
12-25-2012, 11:03 PM
OK the problem as I see it as a former Naval officer is that although we have a reservation to disobey unlawful orders, who is the ultimate arbiter of unlawful orders? The victor, of course. For example, the junior officers of WWII Germany were executing facially lawful orders, to say, load trains going from station X to station Y, but in retrospect, we know those orders were unlawful. But many hanged as a result of simply following orders from what appeared to be legitimate authority.

In the modern military, the fear of destroying one's career is a major concern. I see many, if not all, not remotely questioning orders to the point of disobedience or rebellion. The down-side of being wrong is too great. Your average E-3 or E-4 isn't even going to think about it. And the O-3's and O-4's certainly are not.

thrasherfox
12-25-2012, 11:35 PM
We shall all have our chance soon enough to hand over our AR's, to confiscate guns by force from people who legally bought AR's, and to decide to fight now or wait until we are further disarmed.

I really think Biden's committee will "discover" the only way to protect our citizens is to remove all all hi cap "clips" and fully auto assault weapons . Which he really means our AR's.

Maybe we should ask for a ban on so etching he likes to do which also has some risk, like hair transplants or plagiarism.

It's a forgone conclusion.

Coming to a theater near you, civil war, with real 3d imagery, and surround sound, dead people you know, and a hell of a lot of collateral damage on all sides.

I think it's just crazy we may get pushed into something like this.

Concur.

AlpineWeiss
12-25-2012, 11:43 PM
It has nothing to do with dying for any property. I would never give my life and take someones life for property. a life means more to me than that.

I would be fighting to ensure our constitution is not trampled upon. simple as that.

Alot of people in this country dont care about our constitution, they dont apprecieate the privalage, and yes the responsability for being an American citizen.

I do. I will fight to defend the principals this country was founded on. we as humans were born with the right to do whatever we wish. 10 commandments were created by God. that was sufficient and pretty much covered everything God felt was important.

All the other laws are man made. Some are good laws, and some are meant to control people.

Taking away our right to bare arms will turn us into subjects, plain and simple. I have a right to have firearms for personal protection, per the founding fathers NO ONE has a right to take that from me.

It is ideals and principals that I am willing to fight for. and not so much for me, but for my children.

Wars aren't won or lost in one battle. Don't go throwing it all away on your doorstep, in isolation.

armygunsmith
12-25-2012, 11:44 PM
There is a very specific reason why our oaths include the phrase:

"ALL enemies - Foreign and DOMESTIC..."

Agreed. I swore my oath when I joined the Army. I don't wear the uniform anymore, but my oath still stands.

socalbud
12-26-2012, 12:16 AM
Wouldn't it be easier for Mr. Executive Order (Obama) to create a civilian army not bound by oath to do the dirty work?

Why when you already have the CIA.

madjack956
12-26-2012, 12:24 AM
Idk, drones and gunships can take on a lot of people at once. Then you have tanks and such. Or simply bomb city after city until we surrender. I doubt the government will have any engagement rules. They'll drop bomb after bomb.

I cant think of one modern day general that would comply with that order from Obama. Plus our top leaders wouldn't even bomb a mosque when they knew the enemy was using them for safe haven. You think they will bomb L.A., Boston, Chicago, Miami, Houston, or San Francisco with all the liberals living among us.

One of those bombing runs would get a lot of people on our side quick. This country is full of a bunch of people that dont want their day ruined. They have no stomach for adversity. They will be screaming for it all to stop quickly and realizing that letting a bunch of peckerwoods have their rifles is a lot better than the alternative.

I hope Obama realizes all this aint worth persueing. None of us need this crap.

AlpineWeiss
12-26-2012, 1:02 AM
I cant think of one modern day general that would comply with that order from Obama. Plus our top leaders wouldn't even bomb a mosque when they knew the enemy was using them for safe haven. You think they will bomb L.A., Boston, Chicago, Miami, Houston, or San Francisco with all the liberals living among us.

One of those bombing runs would get a lot of people on our side quick. This country is full of a bunch of people that dont want their day ruined. They have no stomach for adversity. They will be screaming for it all to stop quickly and realizing that letting a bunch of peckerwoods have their rifles is a lot better than the alternative.

I hope Obama realizes all this aint worth persueing. None of us need this crap.

As soon as those armed people become rebel insurgents or terrorists you better believe it will be on. You and I know this is NEVER going be framed as 'brave Americans standing up for the constitution'. It is going to be cells of domestic terrorists or similar, thus welcoming the full brunt of what the DHS has to offer.

It's not like LA would be carpet bombed. The average American would want those "crazy gun nuts" put to bed as quickly and decisively possible so they could return to mewling their way back to their cubicle. Of course any collateral damage would be blamed on the rebelling minority. Why couldn't they just be civilized and vote?!

thrasherfox
12-26-2012, 6:39 AM
Anyone seen this yet?

Discouraging..

For any of you that are flying the tin foil hat flag, please read the article. I think things are becoming pretty clear.


"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.

“We are also looking at a buy-back program,” Feinstein said today in a press conference. “Now, again, this is a work in progress so these are ideas in the development.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback.

“Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” "



http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648#.UNsO12_Adsn

fizux
12-26-2012, 7:29 AM
Exactly. Or hire someone else to do so. Blackwater mercs come to mind. I simply can expect anything from them. If they want to win a war, they will do it using all the technology they can. I believe they'd send the military far away, and bring in people who are willing to bomb us.

Most of Blackwater (aka Xe / Academi) is comprised of people who took the same oath.

thrasherfox
12-26-2012, 8:02 AM
Most of Blackwater (aka Xe / Academi) is comprised of people who took the same oath.

Agreed. I could not see anyone working for one of those company's getting involved.

Even though money talks, I would be surprised if the company's owners would allow themselves to be contracted to do it. Could be wrong. But then again Academi's numbers of special ops guys are nothing compared to the armed citizens in this country.

If even 75% of this country refused by force we would be good to go.

Us in California are a little crippled IRT to our weapons. however plenty of people in other states have plenty of firepower.

Heck, where is that place that have a fully automatic day where people are lined up just empting magazines and magazines of ammo.

I saw a video of it at night and it looked like some were even using tracer rounds.

Here we go.

http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot


Here is a video (for anyone who has not seen it. I am sure most here have seen it by now)

wuotTFRyw-Q

You think these people are just going to hand over their weapons without a fight? Those people have not been neutered like Californians have.

And the citizens of those states would have freedoms taken from them that they couldnt even comprehend.

Californian's are used to this stuff. and we are used to having our 2A rights trampled on. So I could see Californian's being more accepting.

The rest of the country? doubt it.

I mean you got some good ol boys in the south heavily armed, out in the woods.

Texas already wants to seperate from the rest of the US. I could see an all out gun ban and confiscation causing Texas and at least Arizona to give the Federal government the finger and tell them they are no longer part of the US.

I think most people on this board are from California, we tend to have a California mind set and we have become a little desensitised to gun control.

a lot of other states? not so much.

The problem is politicians are so out of touch with the every day person I think they are over estimating their power and authority and underestimating the average American.

In other words they are Arogant.

Flipdude
12-26-2012, 8:29 AM
Anyone seen this yet?

Discouraging..

For any of you that are flying the tin foil hat flag, please read the article. I think things are becoming pretty clear.


"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.

“We are also looking at a buy-back program,” Feinstein said today in a press conference. “Now, again, this is a work in progress so these are ideas in the development.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback.

“Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” "



http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648#.UNsO12_Adsn

This is so unconstitutional! They might as well step down from office since they are breaking their oath to "support and defend the constitution" and should be charged with treason. :mad: Can't we charge these legislators with treason? This has gone far enough, don't you guys think so?!

thrasherfox
12-26-2012, 8:47 AM
This is so unconstitutional! They might as well step down from office since they are breaking their oath to "support and defend the constitution" and should be charged with treason. :mad: Can't we charge these legislators with treason? This has gone far enough, don't you guys think so?!

I totally agree.

Two things wrong that I feel are major relevent points.

What they want to do is confiscate our guns either with little compensation or none. What I have is my legacy to my children. If anyone comes to take my guns it is theft.

From my understanding not only should military members not obey unlawful orders, but to my understanding if a civilian is being treated unlawfully by law enforcement we have the right to fight back.

So if anyone comes to my home to confiscate my fire arms, they are an enemy of this country, they are violating my 2A rights AND they are trying to steal from me.

Like I said, this country is not like any other, we are not like Australia. Everytime this issue comes up everyone starts to panic buy firearms and ammo. Do you really think someone who just dropped $30,000 on firearms and ammo is just going to hand that stuff over and say "oh well" no, those people dropped that amount of cash because they plan on fighting.

Someone said people are dropping big money so they can turn around and sell the stuff to make more.

That idea is too late, with firearm prices almost tripleing it is the wrong time to invest in a firearm to resell it.

No, I firmly believe anyone making large purchases are planning on making a stand. I dont think we will roll over like Australia did, and we have Australia as an example as to why we should fight, and not just in the courts if it comes to it.

thrasherfox
12-26-2012, 8:48 AM
This is so unconstitutional! They might as well step down from office since they are breaking their oath to "support and defend the constitution" and should be charged with treason. :mad: Can't we charge these legislators with treason? This has gone far enough, don't you guys think so?!

I agree with flip dude. We need to do something. who is smart out there where we can put a working group together and figure out a way to charge these people with treason against the United States. Or if that doesnt fly we need someone smart in legal matters to figure out how we can get these people out of office.

LCU1670
12-26-2012, 8:59 AM
Thats why it's important to take your voting responsibilities seriously. When people vote for themselves versus whats best for the country, we have a problem. When politicians do what's going to get them reelected versus what's best for the country, again a problem.

I served over 26years, wife 19, I don't want it to be for nothing. People have to stop wanting the government to take care of them, they need to take personal responsibility.

Flipdude
12-26-2012, 9:06 AM
I totally agree.

Two things wrong that I feel are major relevent points.

What they want to do is confiscate our guns either with little compensation or none. What I have is my legacy to my children. If anyone comes to take my guns it is theft.

From my understanding not only should military members not obey unlawful orders, but to my understanding if a civilian is being treated unlawfully by law enforcement we have the right to fight back.

So if anyone comes to my home to confiscate my fire arms, they are an enemy of this country, they are violating my 2A rights AND they are trying to steal from me.

Like I said, this country is not like any other, we are not like Australia. Everytime this issue comes up everyone starts to panic buy firearms and ammo. Do you really think someone who just dropped $30,000 on firearms and ammo is just going to hand that stuff over and say "oh well" no, those people dropped that amount of cash because they plan on fighting.

Someone said people are dropping big money so they can turn around and sell the stuff to make more.

That idea is too late, with firearm prices almost tripleing it is the wrong time to invest in a firearm to resell it.

No, I firmly believe anyone making large purchases are planning on making a stand. I dont think we will roll over like Australia did, and we have Australia as an example as to why we should fight, and not just in the courts if it comes to it.

I am doing this for my children and the children of America because if we don't stand for this now, what kind of future will they have? I believe that there will be a civil rights revolution in a fight for our constitutional rights...first our guns, then our birthrights if we let this carry on any longer!

I agree with flip dude. We need to do something. who is smart out there where we can put a working group together and figure out a way to charge these people with treason against the United States. Or if that doesnt fly we need someone smart in legal matters to figure out how we can get these people out of office.

How many of you think that we need to write a letter to the NRA voicing our protest to this unconstitutional law that they are trying to pass on the American public without our votes or approval? Furthermore, these legislators have abused their power and has committed treason against the American people and we will not stand for it.

thrasherfox
12-26-2012, 10:07 AM
I am doing this for my children and the children of America because if we don't stand for this now, what kind of future will they have? I believe that there will be a civil rights revolution in a fight for our constitutional rights...first our guns, then our birthrights if we let this carry on any longer!



How many of you think that we need to write a letter to the NRA voicing our protest to this unconstitutional law that they are trying to pass on the American public without our votes or approval? Furthermore, these legislators have abused their power and has committed treason against the American people and we will not stand for it.


Totally agree. Not even sure where to start.

i.e. does just one person send a letter?

Do we get a petition going around and send that with a letter?

The NRA needs to know the shid is starting to get serious in the eyes of the public and the longer we dont do anything collectively the hard it will be to do anything.

shooter556
12-26-2012, 10:10 AM
Most of Blackwater (aka Xe / Academi) is comprised of people who took the same oath.

They may have took the oath, but now they kill for money. Money is their oath now and if they are told to kill any American refusing to give up his gun, I honestly think they would do it as long as they are being paid.

And like someone said, anybody who refuses will be labeled as a domestic terrorist and everybody would be against them. Maybe they won't bomb cities, but they can bomb "safe houses" full of "insurgents". People wouldn't be against bombing insurgents. Even if it's a home of a family who just want to keep their weapons, they'll be labeled insurgents.

They can destroy militias in matter of minutes with a drone or with several tanks and label them all as anti government/racist militias and the sheep wouldn't care.

thrasherfox
12-26-2012, 10:18 AM
They may have took the oath, but now they kill for money. Money is their oath now and if they are told to kill any American refusing to give up his gun, I honestly think they would do it as long as they are being paid.

And like someone said, anybody who refuses will be labeled as a domestic terrorist and everybody would be against them. Maybe they won't bomb cities, but they can bomb "safe houses" full of "insurgents". People wouldn't be against bombing insurgents. Even if it's a home of a family who just want to keep their weapons, they'll be labeled insurgents.

They can destroy militias in matter of minutes with a drone or with several tanks and label them all as anti government/racist militias and the sheep wouldn't care.



Even if that is true, it wont stop me from doing what I know is right.

Flipdude
12-26-2012, 10:27 AM
Totally agree. Not even sure where to start.

i.e. does just one person send a letter?

Do we get a petition going around and send that with a letter?

The NRA needs to know the shid is starting to get serious in the eyes of the public and the longer we dont do anything collectively the hard it will be to do anything.

Not sure either...maybe an email, but it will be buried under so many they are receiving now.

Meplat
12-26-2012, 12:02 PM
Why when you already have the CIA.

The CIA does not have enough grunts.

AlpineWeiss
12-26-2012, 12:46 PM
They may have took the oath, but now they kill for money. Money is their oath now and if they are told to kill any American refusing to give up his gun, I honestly think they would do it as long as they are being paid.

And like someone said, anybody who refuses will be labeled as a domestic terrorist and everybody would be against them. Maybe they won't bomb cities, but they can bomb "safe houses" full of "insurgents". People wouldn't be against bombing insurgents. Even if it's a home of a family who just want to keep their weapons, they'll be labeled insurgents.

They can destroy militias in matter of minutes with a drone or with several tanks and label them all as anti government/racist militias and the sheep wouldn't care.

This is why if it comes to this we need to not die on our porches in fit of glory but retreat, organize and play the best game we can. Cooler heads will prevail.

johnny1290
12-26-2012, 9:05 PM
I'm from Texas.

Everybody will turn in their guns. AR15 style first, then pistols, and they'll do it because it's the popular thing to do.

We can't afford escapist fantasies about 'the other guy' that will stand up for his rights. Ain't gonna happen.

Military will follow orders, people will turn in their guns. Why? Because everybody else is, and we'll lose all our money if we don't. If it comes to losing a gun collection vs your house and your life, what do you think most people will do?

The elite have all angles on this figured out. *if* there's a fight, well, you don't think they have that covered too? All that ammo and bulletproof shelters they've purchased? All those military vehicles on the trains?

What did the Indians do? They turned in their guns. Nothing good happened next.

I'm not looking forward to that part.

Calgunner739
12-26-2012, 10:45 PM
No, however there were many people against it,

FBI director - J. Edgar Hoover

First Lady - Eleanor Roosevelt

And it was determined it was the wrong thing to do


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

Sure they realized after it was bad but that didn't change the fact that almost all of those people that were taken away lost EVERYTHING; sold off on auctions. And the feds have fessed up to the genocide they committed on the Native Americans, but that doesn't change it. The German populace expressed terrible grief over what the Nazi party did to the gypsies, gays, jews, etc. Doesn't bring back all of those murdered people.

Calgunner739
12-26-2012, 10:57 PM
Dying over trying to protect my personal guns from confiscation is not a battle worth fighting.

Remember that old adage about picking your battles.

This response is to you and everyone who continues to make comments similar to yours.

If you are disarmed by a tyrannical Government, along with other private citizens, you did not lose a battle. You lost the war, because you can no longer fight in the war. Now in that hypothetical future, if the government wants you to do something they don't have to persuade you they can just use force since you have no practical means of resistance.

AlpineWeiss
12-27-2012, 1:58 AM
This response is to you and everyone who continues to make comments similar to yours.

If you are disarmed by a tyrannical Government, along with other private citizens, you did not lose a battle. You lost the war, because you can no longer fight in the war. Now in that hypothetical future, if the government wants you to do something they don't have to persuade you they can just use force since you have no practical means of resistance.

:facepalm:

If you are a 140lbs computer nerd and the guy who wants to fight you is a 225lbs semi-pro boxer, whatever you do, DO NOT GET IN A BOXING MATCH WITH HIM. It doesn't matter what he said or what he did.

pbchief2
12-27-2012, 3:42 AM
If it came down to it, expect less than one percent of the population to be willing to stand up. Maybe two percent of gun owners that would consider the idea and. Twentyfive percent of those would be able.


In all likelyhood most the population would roll over, and those that did not would be demonized to the point that the call to stop them would be deafening. After all the confiscations shown during Katrina, do you really think LEO's would risk thier livelyhood for a domestic terrorist?

infringed711
12-27-2012, 6:59 AM
The fact that we are having this conversation should say volumes, and if Iraq and Afganistan have taught us nothing else they definitely showed that even in today's age guerilla warfare is possible

chico.cm
12-27-2012, 9:33 AM
I remember my oath, and I hold it sacred.

..."So help me God."

themandylion
12-27-2012, 2:54 PM
I fully intend on keeping my oath, plain and simple.

I also do not wear a tin foil hat. So I reckon I'll cross the bridge when I get there, on this topic.

I could not EVER see myself taking part in disarming fellow Americans*

*Law abiding, non-criminal, non-insurgent, Americans who own legal firearms in accordance of federal law. In other words, if I were told to disarm a bunch of gangbangers, than clearly, it would be done. Yet morally, I cannot fathom the idea of taking a Rem. 700 from a guy who hunts deer, legally, every fall...

With all due respect, this is what I'm worried about.

"Law-abiding"? Who's laws, God's or man's? Natural, common law, or that conjured up by narcissists in suits and robes?

"Non-criminal"? What constitutes a "crime"? A malum in se crime, with an actual victim? Or a malum prohibitum "crime," where the government is the alleged "victim"?

"Non-insurgent"? America was founded by what would now be called "terrorists." The right of armed revolution is overtly described by the Declaration of Independence, and secured by the Ninth Amendment. The Federal regime considers any resistance to be "insurgency" or "sedition." The Second Amendment was NOT written to protect deer hunters. It was written to enable the American people to use deadly force to resist an out-of-control government.

The ultimate written law is the Second Amendment, and even that is superseded by common law based on natural law (aka God's laws). It doesn't matter how many black-robed dictators or "call me Senator" petty tyrants claim "shall not be infringed" means "will be infringed when we feel like it."

I'm afraid that if "the order" from the commissars comes, most military and law enforcement will simply "obey orders." Especially if the victims are ostracized and dehumanized as "terrorists" or "seditionists resisting 'lawful authority' [sic]." It will be Hannah Arendt's Banality of Evil all over again.

God help us all.

themandylion
12-27-2012, 3:02 PM
Dying over trying to protect my personal guns from confiscation is not a battle worth fighting.

Remember that old adage about picking your battles.

My grandmother and her family survived the Ukrainian Famine and Stalin's other monstrous evils. A few were never seen again.

No guns = no means to resist whatever they want to do to you. I'd rather die than submit to figurative rape. Maybe even literal.

First the government takes your guns, then the government takes your lives.

NEVER AGAIN is a slogan for all, not just for Jewish people.

themandylion
12-27-2012, 3:08 PM
Idk, drones and gunships can take on a lot of people at once. Then you have tanks and such. Or simply bomb city after city until we surrender. I doubt the government will have any engagement rules. They'll drop bomb after bomb.

"Limited action," sure, that could be made to fly, like with Waco.

"City after city"? No way.

There are still a lot of good men (and women) in the US Armed Forces who retain a conscience and won't give a damn about their future career if the Federal regime made war on the American people. I'm not so sure that the NMCC and ANMCC (at Site R) would survive very long if they were issuing directives of scorched Earth in the homeland.

the86d
12-27-2012, 3:23 PM
Holdout weapons...
Scary thought, but I am sure many are buried by now.

It would seem that if they need to disarm the populace, then something can be likened to the term "Dictator", which many have been warning about since before his election, and it seems only Democrats push this hard...

thrasherfox
12-27-2012, 3:26 PM
If it came down to it, expect less than one percent of the population to be willing to stand up. Maybe two percent of gun owners that would consider the idea and. Twentyfive percent of those would be able.


In all likelyhood most the population would roll over, and those that did not would be demonized to the point that the call to stop them would be deafening. After all the confiscations shown during Katrina, do you really think LEO's would risk thier livelyhood for a domestic terrorist?

Well just like the military, those who cant hack the military dont join and criticize the people that do.

A small percentage of the country has the balls to risk their lives to defend the rights of people who dont have the balls.

I suspect it will come down to the same. Those who have the balls will fight to the death like our founding fathers did.

Those that dont have the balls, or prefer to be taken care of by the government wont fight.

for me, I state again. while I have a pretty good chunk of financial investment in my firearms, that has nothing to do as to if I will fight or not.

If someone comes to my house to confiscate my firearms, they are doing two things.

1) Violating my rights under the constitution. So they are in violation of the constitution and therefore are an enemy of the United States.

2) They would be stealing from me. I have a right to protect what I own. And again, while some might have a difficult time understanding the concept, it is not about a physical item, it is about a principal. I have a right to NOT let someone steal from me.

So I dont care who it is that comes to my door. if they come for my guns those are the two concepts I am fighting for. not material possesions.

shooter556
12-27-2012, 3:41 PM
"Limited action," sure, that could be made to fly, like with Waco.

"City after city"? No way.

There are still a lot of good men (and women) in the US Armed Forces who retain a conscience and won't give a damn about their future career if the Federal regime made war on the American people. I'm not so sure that the NMCC and ANMCC (at Site R) would survive very long if they were issuing directives of scorched Earth in the homeland.

Maybe not indiscriminate but rally support to bomb key areas where "insurgents are known to operate". And well if innocents get killed, oh well it's war right? They'd probably blame the innocent deaths on the insurgents. And remember they have the media on their side. Don't underestimate what this government is capable. I believe they are capable of this and much more. Hopefully this is all just crazy talk but remember during the 1st American Revolution the Brits didn't have Apache helicopters, drones, tanks, and all that.

thrasherfox
12-27-2012, 3:42 PM
With all due respect, this is what I'm worried about.

"Law-abiding"? Who's laws, God's or man's? Natural, common law, or that conjured up by narcissists in suits and robes?

"Non-criminal"? What constitutes a "crime"? A malum in se crime, with an actual victim? Or a malum prohibitum "crime," where the government is the alleged "victim"?

"Non-insurgent"? America was founded by what would now be called "terrorists." The right of armed revolution is overtly described by the Declaration of Independence, and secured by the Ninth Amendment. The Federal regime considers any resistance to be "insurgency" or "sedition." The Second Amendment was NOT written to protect deer hunters. It was written to enable the American people to use deadly force to resist an out-of-control government.

The ultimate written law is the Second Amendment, and even that is superseded by common law based on natural law (aka God's laws). It doesn't matter how many black-robed dictators or "call me Senator" petty tyrants claim "shall not be infringed" means "will be infringed when we feel like it."

I'm afraid that if "the order" from the commissars comes, most military and law enforcement will simply "obey orders." Especially if the victims are ostracized and dehumanized as "terrorists" or "seditionists resisting 'lawful authority' [sic]." It will be Hannah Arendt's Banality of Evil all over again.

God help us all.

Wow, alot of videos I have been posting on facebook and elsewhere have been being removed. Wouldnt be surprised if I was being monitored.

Anyway, if you think our law enforcement will just follow orders without question you need to what these videos.

TpCY3qXkPfQ

yoYtnoFn09Y

h_Q8rcUD5Ds

m3zSDdm-SHI


And by the way, some of our strongest military leaders who would stand against unlawful orders are being removed systematically.

Look at all the strong decorated military leaders who have been involved in scandals lately and have either been releived or stepped down.

Now I just heard retired General Norman Schwarzkopf has just died.

Too many weird things happening, too many good and important military leaders being removed from their positions.

But the good side is there are alot of Sheriff's who are willing to stand against the Feds. And the Sheriff's are the ultimate authority in their county's and do not have to follow any federal orders.

shooter556
12-27-2012, 3:59 PM
Wow, alot of videos I have been posting on facebook and elsewhere have been neing removed. Wouldnt be surprised if I was being monitored.

Anyway, if you think our law enforcement will just follow orders without question you need to what these videos.



And by the way, some of our strongest military leaders who would stand against unlawful orders are being removed systematically.

Look at all the strong decorated military leaders who have been involved in scandals lately and have either been releived or stepped down.

Now I just heard retired General Norman Schwarzkopf has just died.

Too many weird things happening, too many good and important military leaders being removed from their positions.

But the good side is there are alot of Sheriff's who are willing to stand against the Feds. And the Sheriff's are the ultimate authority in their county's and do not have to follow any federal orders.

And all there is left to do is disarm us and build a border so nobody gets out.

Calgunner739
12-27-2012, 4:12 PM
I have not served in the armed forces. I have not taken the enlisted nore the officers oath. My forefathers served in the U.S. Army and Navy in WWII. I am only a 4th generation American.

But I am a keen student of history. And as a result I take the Constitution as seriously as any oath. I recognize the path this country could go down and it frightens me. I do not own any semi-auto rifles. But, I will stand by my fellow American if any mass disarmament was tried. I would never forgive myself if I let the natural rights of defense of another citizen be taken away. I will not disgrace my ancestors. I will not disenfranchise my future descendants.

People talk of turning in your guns if it came to mass disarmament, living to fight another day. But then what? Will you flee the country or continue to live without a means to defend your life and the lives of your family? Where will you flee to? What other country offers this level of freedom to pursue happiness? After a disarmament of the populace, it only gets worse. Much worse.

Make a stand, because at this point in time, there is no where to run to.

thrasherfox
12-27-2012, 4:21 PM
I have not served in the armed forces. I have not taken the enlisted nore the officers oath. My forefathers served in the U.S. Army and Navy in WWII. I am only a 4th generation American.

But I am a keen student of history. And as a result I take the Constitution as seriously as any oath. I recognize the path this country could go down and it frightens me. I do not own an semi-auto rifles. But, I will stand by my fellow American if any mass disarmament was tried. I would never forgive myself if I let the natural rights of defense of another citizen be taken away. I will not disgrace my ancestors. I will not disenfranchise my future descendants.

People talk of turning in your guns if it came to mass disarmament, living to fight another day. But then what? Will you flee the country or continue to live without a means to defend your life and the lives of your family? Where will you flee to? What other country offers this level of freedom to pursue happiness? After a disarmament of the populace, it only gets worse. Much worse.

Make a stand, because at this point in time, there is no where to run to.

(like) web sites need like buttons :)

themandylion
12-27-2012, 6:58 PM
But the good side is there are alot of Sheriff's who are willing to stand against the Feds. And the Sheriff's are the ultimate authority in their county's and do not have to follow any federal orders.

These sheriffs talk a big talk, but when the Federal regime says "jump!," it's always, "how high?"

Not one California Sheriff has ever used this theoretical "highest officer of the law in the county" authority. We see an example of the acquiescence right now, in the Mendocino County Sheriff's response to the Federal persecutor's fishing expedition. Not "this is lawful under California law, and under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, so you may shut up." But rather, "oh, yes, we'll give you all you want, the consequences to those who trusted me be damned."

http://americansforsafeaccess.org/article.php?id=7417

I know there are good cops out there, but way too many have adopted a "der law ist der law" mindset.

G-Man WC
12-27-2012, 7:17 PM
It's not going to end well for the nation and think all bets are off come the so-called attempted confiscation time. I would not want to be in the guard
going door to door during this time.
-g

SanPedroShooter
12-28-2012, 6:38 AM
Dont forget your Articles of Conduct either.

I didnt have to memorize them like General Orders, but I can recall the really important ones.

Article I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense

Article II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never
surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to
resist

Article VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America

thrasherfox
12-28-2012, 9:59 AM
Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
So, if the government passes any "laws" against the 2nd amendment, 1st amendment etc., those "laws" are void and non-existant.

LibertyDeath
12-28-2012, 10:03 AM
I will just give them my guns. Well, assuming I didn't lose them all. I am bad at losing stuff.

Wherryj
12-28-2012, 10:09 AM
My signature says it all.

Nice to see that our military members take their oath seriously. In my opinion, being a citizen of the country requires pretty much the same oath. If you are not willing to defend your country against all enemies, you aren't deserving of citizenship.

uyoga
12-28-2012, 3:34 PM
You make a lot of sense, thrasherfox. Well thought out and well reasoned.

kcbrown
12-28-2012, 3:37 PM
Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.


Yes, one must prevail. And in practice, the law that prevails is the one that is Unconstitutional but has not yet been ruled as such.

That's because police officers refuse to take personal responsibility for upholding the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Which is to say, they routinely and willfully violate their oaths to the Constitution. They enforce the law no matter what their beliefs on its Constitutionality are, under the pretense that the law is "presumptively Constitutional". Officers here in this forum have said as much (but, strangely, they remain silent on the implications as regards their oaths...I wonder why...).


As a result, in practice the Constitution is nothing but a worthless piece of paper except at the Supreme Court. It's worthless to most lower courts as well, because those lower courts are unwilling to use the Constitution itself as a guide, and use only prior case law in their circuit (or, as a last resort, the Supreme Court's prior case law) to issue rulings consistent with what how they want to rule. There are rare exceptions to this (e.g., judge Posner in the 7th Circuit in Moore v Madigan), but they are the exceptions. Indeed, courts, including the Supreme Court itself, do everything in their power to avoid making use of the Constitution as a guide, and in fact there is a formal court doctrine for it, called "constitutional avoidance".


Thus endeth the republic.

HighWildFree
12-28-2012, 5:09 PM
not ever in the military, although it's not for their lack of trying...finally no more calls after 5 years of a call per day. Mega respect for those who have served though

But if a door to door ban ever did take place, which I would bet my life on no it wont, I would do what I normally do when cops ring the door.

Turn off the lights, lock the door and pretend not to be home...worked for all the parties I have been to where the cops show up.

Calpat
12-28-2012, 6:04 PM
I took that Oath at 17 at the L.A. AFFEES station. I have never forgotten it. I have never and shall never dis avow the Constitutional Oath I have taken. I here by re-affim that Oath. I am an Oath Keeper! III

Calpat
12-28-2012, 6:12 PM
Yes, one must prevail And in practice, the law that prevails is the one that is Unconstitutional but has not yet been ruled as such.

That's because police officers refuse to take personal responsibility for upholding the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Which is to say, they routinely and willfully violate their oaths to the Constitution. They enforce the law no matter what their beliefs on its Constitutionality are, under the pretense that the law is "presumptively Constitutional". Officers here in this forum have said as much (but, strangely, they remain silent on the implications as regards their oaths...I wonder why...).


As a result, in practice the Constitution is nothing but a worthless piece of paper except at the Supreme Court. It's worthless to most lower courts as well, because those lower courts are unwilling to use the Constitution itself as a guide, and use only prior case law in their circuit (or, as a last resort, the Supreme Court's prior case law) to issue rulings consistent with what how they want to rule. There are rare exceptions to this (e.g., judge Posner in the 7th Circuit in Moore v Madigan), but they are the exceptions. Indeed, courts, including the Supreme Court itself, do everything in their power to avoid making use of the Constitution as a guide, and in fact there is a formal court doctrine for it, called "constitutional avoidance".


Thus endeth the republic.


The fat lady has not hit her notes yet! We will need to hang together or we may hang seperately.

Good Luck to all.

Calpat
12-28-2012, 6:17 PM
Well thought out Thrasherfox. I would concur.

CavTrooper
12-28-2012, 7:50 PM
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln

Words of a hypocrite.

CavTrooper
12-28-2012, 7:53 PM
Once the 2A is repealed and no longer part of our Consitution then people who do not turn in their guns will be enemies of the Constitution, right?

thrasherfox
12-28-2012, 9:13 PM
Once the 2A is repealed and no longer part of our Consitution then people who do not turn in their guns will be enemies of the Constitution, right?

I dont have an answer. First, the 2A is such an important part of our constitution I cant see it being repealed.

If it did get repealed, I think it will start a civil war.

Again, most members on this board are from California. Alot of us have just had to suck it up and deal with it over the years. lots of other states would have a lot to lose in so many ways. I doubt Californias would do crap. most are anti gun. and alot who are progun dont have what it takes to partiticpate in a civial war.

Other states however, I think they would activate their own militias and tell the feds to pack sand.

LibertyDeath
12-30-2012, 8:13 AM
I doubt Californias would do crap. most are anti gun. and alot who are progun dont have what it takes to partiticpate in a civial war.

Other states however, I think they would activate their own militias and tell the feds to pack sand.

Agreed, most progun states would probably preemptively strike CA anyway.
The only people left with guns would be the criminals and crazies. I would leave CA.


I took that Oath at 17 at the L.A. AFFEES station. I have never forgotten it. I have never and shall never dis avow the Constitutional Oath I have taken. I here by re-affim that Oath. I am an Oath Keeper! III

I have taken the Oath twice, I am not taking any guns from an otherwise law abiding gun owner.