Gun discussion. So piper6069 can let the other thread be.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

1. A large majority of the military are patriot's and would not follow a illegal order to engage the US population.

I agree. That's another reason why I think the 2nd amendment is an outdated concept when it regards a tyrannical government.

I believe in our men and women in uniform and I believe they will defy illegal orders to attack us. Because they are us. Our friends, Our relatives. Cheers to them and cheers to us!

I also believe in government of, by and for the people. The government is us, and there are enough good people and enough checks and balances to stop a wannabe tyrant.

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I believe in our men and women in uniform and I believe they will defy illegal orders to attack us. Because they are us. Our friends, Our relatives. Cheers to them and cheers to us!

They did fire on relatives and friends before they'll do it again. (in this very country no less)

[maytag]

Originally Posted by Qingdao

They did fire on relatives and friends before they'll do it again. (in this very country no less)

? ? ?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by maytag

? ? ?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

1860-1865


I know for a fact that my ancestors were on the CSA. I think there were some from the Union, but I don't know for sure about those*. Regardless after words they clearly became family.


*my maternal grandfather was from Baltimore.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by Qingdao

They did fire on relatives and friends before they'll do it again. (in this very country no less)

When a group is hell bent on breaking up the USA, going to war with them doesn't really constitute an illegal order to attack. It doesn't matter whether it's blue states or red states. If they break away from the USA, by default they forfeit their citizenship.

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by piper6909

When a group is hell bent on breaking up the USA, going to war with them doesn't really constitute an illegal order to attack. It doesn't matter whether it's blue states or red states. If they break away from the USA, by default they forfeit their citizenship.

You didn't specify citizenship you wrote friends and family.



So a group of people aren't allowed to leave the country?

Are we allowed to leave individually?

What if we feel that other states are dictating what we do in our states (say for instance with what we do with guns or cars)?

What if we feel like each state should more independent, be separated from other states politically because of their inherent differences geographically which lead to needing different rules?

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by Qingdao

You didn't specify citizenship you wrote friends and family.



So a group of people aren't allowed to leave the country?

Are we allowed to leave individually?

What if we feel that other states are dictating what we do in our states (say for instance with what we do with guns or cars)?

What if we feel like each state should more independent, be separated from other states politically because of their inherent differences geographically which lead to needing different rules?

But I did say "Illegal orders to attack". If a group wants to secede and is hell bent on breaking up the USA, that constitutes an act of war. Then orders to attack would not be illegal, just as they weren't illegal in the Civil War. Unfortunate as it was.

Any individual or group can leave. Pick up and leave. Go elsewhere. They're free to do so. If they fundamentally don't like America they are free to leave. Or they can legally organize and effect changes by electing leaders more favorable to their interests. Breaking up the USA is a whole different animal.

States already have independence. Case in point, some states legalized cannibus use, while others haven't. It's when said states want to break away from, and thus breaking up the USA that there will be problems.

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by piper6909

But I did say "Illegal orders to attack". If a group wants to secede and is hell bent on breaking up the USA, that constitutes an act of war. Then orders to attack would not be illegal, just as they weren't illegal in the Civil War. Unfortunate as it was.

Any individual or group can leave. Pick up and leave. Go elsewhere. They're free to do so. If they fundamentally don't like America they are free to leave. Or they can legally organize and effect changes by electing leaders more favorable to their interests. Breaking up the USA is a whole different animal.

States already have independence. Case in point, some states legalized cannibus use, while others haven't. It's when said states want to break away from, and thus breaking up the USA that there will be problems.

I believe legislation was tried and exhausted as a last means for decades before shots were fired on us that started the War Between the States.



Bringing it back full circle; yes the military is smart enough not to place their troops so randomly that they might encounter their relatives/family members. They have done it before.

So mindless automatons set for kill… no, but strategically placed people who don't care or are "just following orders" Yes. I was just citing northern aggression as a close to home example. But trust me around the world are much more grievous examples of humans behaving in such a manner.

[maytag]

WOW. So much here.....

I'll start with the bit that made me decide to actually respond again:

Qingdao, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the "war between the states" was caused by the "Northern agressors", and that this is an example of the government overreach that can result in a government taking-up arms against its citizens, and brothers fighting brothers. Am I understanding that correctly?

Because if I AM understanding you..... well, that's gonna steam me.... haha :troll:

The Southern states were, in fact, KILLING PEOPLE. Just because they were not WHITE, doesn't mean they weren't PEOPLE who were being mistreated, abused and KILLED. You think that wasn't enough to justify the "Northern Agressors" to do something about it? Oh sure.... I've heard it all before: "it's about states' rights." We're hearing it all again now, about Gay Marriage.... "states' rights" was code-talk for "We want the right to OWN PEOPLE and RAPE THEM and KILL THEM, and we don't want the rest of you saying we can't".

You want to know what sort of people were in that southern-states army? You shouldn;t have to look any further than what they were fighting to protect; but if you need more, then look no further than General Lee himself, who ordered the summary execution of EVERY MAN NOT WEARING THE Confederate Uniform as they retreated across the United States, beaten. That's right: he knew the war was over. He knew they were beaten. And as they tore back west to avoid the Union troops, they executed THOUSANDS of men, on the excuse that they were "either spies or deserters." LEE was a coward, and an A$$-Bag. and he SLAUGHTERED many of my wife's family tree.
YEAH.... THAT'S what kind of people were fighting against the government.

And as Piper already said: that wasn't an "illegal order to take up arms", that was an order to PUT DOWN a treasonous Insurrection.
And NO: you don't just get to decide you don;t want to be a part of the club anymore and take your state and go home. Sure: YOU can leave.... but do plan to leave your state where it belongs.

I can't believe we're reaching this far, and grasping at this many straws to try to defend gun rights. and this from ME: a 2nd Amendment SUPPORTER!


And SMK SHOE!!??
SO. RIGHT. ON.
and Thank You!
I'm not sure I could disagree with any of what you just said.... even if I felt so inclined.