US Marines Vs. our US Second Amendment

[Old Man of the Mountain]

US Marines Vs. our US Second Amendment

Ok, this is disturbing.

A local Marine was home on leave this week, and when I spoke to him he told me he was stationed at 29 Palms.

I mentioned that it had been reported that Marines from 29 Palms were searching cars and confiscating guns in California.

He said “You just don’t understand, no one is allowed to carry guns on base”.

So I clarified that they are not confiscating guns on the Military Base, they are off the base, out in the State of California, and that I believe it is illegal for them to do that.

His response came very easy “Well the State of California does not want anyone to have any guns”.

He had no hesitation and no remorse at any clear violations of any Citizen’s Rights.

I just went ahead with what he said, and carried that forward, saying that there was a lot of gun crime in California, and that nearly all of it is committed with a 9 mm pistol, but that is not what the State Government of California goes after. They don’t go after the 9 mm pistols, they go after rifles and shotguns.

Again no pause for thought and he replied straight back as if he had been briefed on this subject “Well no one in California needs a rifle or a shotgun because they do not allow hunting out there”.

I answered him back with “Of course they do, if they have a criminal with a 9 mm breaking down their door and coming into their home they need to be able to stop them now!

Then he looked puzzled and bewildered, as if that had never been covered in any Military Briefing.

I brought up the fact that a new law was passed that might disarm him when he leaves the Military (passed about one year ago).

He said “No, it has been that way for a long time now”.

None of this seemed to bother him in the least.

He seems to believe that only the Government and the Military have any Legal Rights, and that the purpose of the Military is to defend the Government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMYzfUhB5jQ

 

[Rob1796]

Interesting... though the title should read "One Marine". I know a handful of Marines personally, and most of them think the civilan populace isn't armed heavily enough.

 

[JKTex]

Please tell me you got that in an email or saw it posted somewhere and just fell for it?

Did you look into that at all? While somewhat disturbing, yes, what allegedly was going on was not this.

 

[onac255]

Were they confiscating all guns or just illegal ones?

 

[JKTex]

Were they confiscating all guns or just illegal ones?

USMC Police were assisting in a DUI and no drivers-license check point.

There's still a problem with that, but............. spin is as spin does.

 

[Texas1911]

I'm assuming this point was on base, otherwise I would think the MPs have no jurisdiction.

 

[JKTex]

I'm assuming this point was on base, otherwise I would think the MPs have no jurisdiction.

That's where the problem comes in, it wasn't on a base that I can tell. It was apparently a very rural area.

However, I can't find much out about it that doesn't come from conspiracy based sources, other than a release from the County announcing the 3 agency check points including the USMC MP.

 

[Shorts]

This isn't the first Marine I hear about with this attitude.

There's a friend of mine with the same idea. His take is that civilians have no business with firearms because they don't know how to use them and they don't know how to shoot. That frankly, they shouldn't have guns.

I've butted heads with him a few times about gun topics so I don't even bother anymore.




On the other hand, I've got another Marine friend who is a fervent 2A supporter. He sends emails and forwards and generally passes on info about legislation and such. Very outspoken 2A supporter.



At theend of the day, we shouldn't forget that Marines come from all walks of life. The cross section will still have those that are anti or at least, very ill-informed.

 

[Leper]

This isn't the first Marine I hear about with this attitude.

There's a friend of mine with the same idea. His take is that civilians have no business with firearms because they don't know how to use them and they don't know how to shoot. That frankly, they shouldn't have guns.

I've butted heads with him a few times about gun topics so I don't even bother anymore.




On the other hand, I've got another Marine friend who is a fervent 2A supporter. He sends emails and forwards and generally passes on info about legislation and such. Very outspoken 2A supporter.



At theend of the day, we shouldn't forget that Marines come from all walks of life. The cross section will still have those that are anti or at least, very ill-informed.

There are different opinions in any group of people. If you look at history, many in the armed forces believed what they were doing was right. If it was or wasn't is still a topic of debate years later. It brings up the old statement "I though it was the thing to do at the time". Some people believe what they are told, and some dig a little deeper.

 

[Shorts]

There are different opinions in any group of people. If you look at history, many in the armed forces believed what they were doing was right. If it was or wasn't is still a topic of debate years later. It brings up the old statement "I though it was the thing to do at the time". Some people believe what they are told, and some dig a little deeper.

I agree. Which is why civilians should remain vigilant and do their part

An inner conflict/law can become a pretty gray area when a person is completely engulfed in work, social situations, combat, training and subordinate to actions that are inappropriate to say the least. Doesn't make it right, just that keeping one's head straight is a lot tougher. Saying 'no' is harder than it normally would be in 'the real world' where one can walk away and not be exposed to the backlash.

 

[Leper]

I agree. Which is why civilians should remain vigilant and do their part

An inner conflict/law can become a pretty gray area when a person is completely engulfed in work, social situations, combat, training and subordinate to actions that are inappropriate to say the least. Doesn't make it right, just that keeping one's head straight is a lot tougher. Saying 'no' is harder than it normally would be in 'the real world' where one can walk away and not be exposed to the backlash.

Correct. And someone who is under extreme stress will do exactly what they have been taught to do through repetition. Even in practice drills I sometimes ask where my mag went, only to be told I did a tactical reload and put it in my pocket. Repetition will remove all doubt. lol

 

[Shorts]

Yes.

I don't understand what point it is you are trying to get me to understand.

 

[tomharkness]

Get this: Title 10 v.s. Title 32 Soldiers. If you don't know what that means, time to get a grip. Your country is being sold out from under your feet and you are standing around with your thumb up your butt. It is illegal to use Title 10 soldiers against U.S. Citizens unless Congress approves it in order to contain a riot or acts of Treason. It is also ok to use Title 10 soldiers to rescue and provide life saving support to U.S. Citizens... but... the individual commander must pay for it out of his own pocket if he/she does not have approval from Congress within 72 hours.

Title 32 soldiers are State Guards and State National Guards that are activated by the Governor. If the State National Guard is activated by the President (Federal Activation) then they are Title 10 soldiers. However, Title 32 soldiers fall under the Governor as a subdivision of the State Police.

Last, when talking to a soldier/marine/sailor/airman... please, don't talk to a peon. The last thing we need is to hear the opinion of a snot-nosed kid that has only just learned that he is an adult. I get so frustrated when the drive-by media interview an E3 with a high school diploma from a third-rate high school trying to explain why someone with a 16 years of higher education from WestPoint, U.S. Naval Academy, or the U.S. Air Force Academy is an idiot.

 

[Shorts]

Get this: Title 10 v.s. Title 32 Soldiers. If you don't know what that means, time to get a grip. Your country is being sold out from under your feet and you are standing around with your thumb up your butt. It is illegal to use Title 10 soldiers against U.S. Citizens unless Congress approves it in order to contain a riot or acts of Treason. It is also ok to use Title 10 soldiers to rescue and provide life saving support to U.S. Citizens... but... the individual commander must pay for it out of his own pocket if he/she does not have approval from Congress within 72 hours.

Title 32 soldiers are State Guards and State National Guards that are activated by the Governor. If the State National Guard is activated by the President (Federal Activation) then they are Title 10 soldiers. However, Title 32 soldiers fall under the Governor as a subdivision of the State Police.

Last, when talking to a soldier/marine/sailor/airman... please, don't talk to a peon. The last thing we need is to hear the opinion of a snot-nosed kid that has only just learned that he is an adult. I get so frustrated when the drive-by media interview an E3 with a high school diploma from a third-rate high school trying to explain why someone with a 16 year degree from WestPoint, U.S. Naval Academy, or the U.S. Air Force Academy is an idiot.

lol Well....in depends on why they're calling an O an idiot ...says the Os wife

In my example I typed up there, it was the O who had the anticivilian sentiment and a senior E who had the pro2A stance.

With that said, I don't think this is an E vs O topic and I hate to see it degenerate into such. Both have their respective perspectives, both have sharp knives and dull knives in their drawers. But I see your point, the young airman/seaman probably has limited insight to the details of the subject at hand.


I'm glad your brought up the Title 10 & Title 32 issues. One of the videos this thread made me think of was the one set in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina where IIRC National Guard troops were going house to house evacuating residents at gun point. The video ended with one soldier and a comment..."to shoot an American?"..."yeah"...let me find it....

Here it is:

 

[Old Man of the Mountain]

Survey conducted at 29 Palms

On May 10, 1994, the survey was undertaken by Navy Lt Cmdr. Ernest G Cunningham, purportedly as research for his thesis, Peacekeeping and UN Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion, at the Marine base, located on the southeast corner of the Mojave Desert, about 70 miles due east of San Bernadino, California, just east of Los Angeles.

Question 46...

"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.

Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."

The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the Statement.

According to the results given in Cunningham's thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question.

Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens."

...it becomes clear that a poll would be useful in determining which soldiers, and in this case Marines, would be willing to undertake such a mission, to fire upon U.S. citizens."

In fact, several months before the survey was taken at Twenty-Nine Palms, The SPOTLIGHT, Modern Gun magazine and other publications revealed the question posed by Cunningham in his survey had been asked of members of a U.S. Seal (Sea-Air-Land) team.

In addition, despite Navy and Marine Corps denials, there have been dozens of reports, unconfirmed, that the survey has been given to other servicemen, as well as various federal law enforcement agents.

http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/shootus.htm

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Preparedness: Post what you're hearing on the street - Page 171 - Stormfront White Nationalist Community

Check out the web site type, thread topic, and check out post 1708.

Yep, radical conspiracy folks. So much for credibility.

 

[tomharkness]

Ah! The Hurricane Katrina/Rita incident. I remember it well, my lady. I was called to arms with the Texas State Guard and was very surprised to see what transpired there. Afterwards, I was privileged (as a senior NCO) to attend a meeting in the FEMA hole north of Dallas (Where the President goes in a national emergency) and LTC. Young from Mr. Rumsfeld’s office gave us an AAR on the issue.

He mentioned several times that U.S. Soldiers in the New Orleans area were doing things that were prohibited under Constitution and Title 10 law. We even talked about the video of the General yelling at soldiers with weapons to “Put those damn thing way… NOW!”

We got an ear full of what Title 10 and 32 was all about and what it means to be a soldier/sailor sworn to protect U.S. Citizens and Constitution against all enemies (and how some of the soldiers were bordering on violating their oath).

My team was a Military Police team (yes, I was in charge of it) and even though I was a Title 32 soldier, as a full time civilian firefighter and a retired U.S. Army Nurse, my mind is always in a Humanitarian Mode.

All U.S. Military personnel should be familiar with Sir Robert Peel, Mr. August Volmer, and the U.S. Constitution when ever dealing with the Civilian Community. A familiarization with these three will show that

• The U.S. Military is always subordinate to the Civilian Authorities.
• The Castle Doctrine clearly indicates that we are all equal shareholders in the country and therefore each has equal rights under the law.
• The difference between Law Enforcement and Civilian is not “Power and Authority”, but “Jurisdiction”. Each of us as freemen of a free country.
• Police officers must be trained, tested and held to a higher standard than those they are sworn to protect.
• The effectiveness of policing is measured by the absence of crime and not by how one reacts to crime.

 

[Old Man of the Mountain]

That was in the news again recently.

After some National Guard Troops obeyed an illegal order to go house to house and seize legal firearms from law abiding Citizens (and this was during a time of Civil Unrest with wide spread looting, murders, child rapes; every thing we could imagine, and some things that we civilized folk could not imagine) this was brought into the courts at least a couple of times, and at least a couple of court orders have been issued for the return of those same firearms, and even those court orders have been ignored.

The illegal order to seize those lawful firearms should never have been issued.

The illegal order should never have been followed.

The firearms should have been returned.

We have a total breakdown in this Nation as to the Rule of Law.

The Washington Government no longer represents American Citizens, and no longer up holds Americans Laws.

For the sake of our Children, we must return to the Rule of Law, or else, what are we leaving to our Children?

 

[JKTex]

We need to be prudent and not let the Katrina incident get turned onto a Federal Government problem. It was a local problem. The Governor had declared a state of emergency but Mayor Nagin gave the order to disarm citizens.

How he hasn't been assassinated I don't know. Ho he's still in office, is unbeilebvable. How the heads of LEA's took and executed his order, I can't imagine.

If I understand correctly, the Guard, and other non-LE agencies, being subordinate to local LE, as the LEO's were just carrying out their orders.

At the minimum, heads should have rolled. I believe, citezen's may have been justified in defending themselves. But we know how that would have turned out.....

 

[Old Man of the Mountain]

If the Rule of Law still existed, heads would have rolled.

A Nation is a People, their Society, and their Laws.

Without the Protection of our Laws, we are not a Nation.