Violate Your Oath And Turn On American Citizens At Your Legal Peril

YeeHaa

Member
Charter Life Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
6,762
Location
T'ville ~ Trinity
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
There has been a lot of talk about whether our law enforcement (and our military) would follow the orders of those like that furry fascist Beto to unleash a reign of terror upon innocent American citizens who the liberal elite’s unconstitutional gun decrees would turn into felons. Most of our heroic cops and warriors would hold true to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But some pathetic worms would willingly, even eagerly betray their oaths and make war upon their own people. They need to know there will be consequences.


As you know, if you are law enforcement or military, you have a non-delegable duty to assess every order you receive and to refuse unlawful ones. And the Constitution is unequivocal that busting into a house to disarm peaceful Americans is a no-go.

What your oath requires you to do – or to refuse to do – in that scenario is clear. What you will do if faced with the choice is the only question. And you who will face this question better ask yourselves right now where you stand. It’s a hard question and an unfair one – you should never be put in that position, but life is hard and unfair.

What will you do?


https://townhall.com/columnists/kur...ens-at-your-legal-peril-gun-grabbers-n2553286


constitution of the united states.jpg
 
Read the whole thing. He’s talking about an eventual return to rule of law after the gun or other power grab the Democrats enact setting things in motion. You can tell the author is a lawyer, like he admits. He talks about those guilty of kicking in doors to take people scary black rifles losing their pensions or going to jail after a trial. No, I guarantee you that whatever form the new “courts” take after the dust settles that the punishment will be swift execution.

As Q said in the first episode of Star Trek TNG in regards to the 21st century courts. The motto was “Kill All The Lawyers, which was swiftly done I might add”.
 
We already know that the police will follow orders, they are already doing it.
That line from the movie Ghost Busters was so very true, and not just for cops. “If there’s a steady paycheck involved, I’ll believe anything you tell me.”
 
They will, and men have done much worse.
“Ordinary Men and Hitler’s Willing Executioners overlapped in their focus on Reserve Police Battalion 101 as a test case because its commander had openly given his men—randomly conscripted, middle-aged reservists with a low rate of party membership and little police training and ideological indoctrination—the option not to participate in mass executions of Jews in Poland. Nonetheless the great majority did not avail themselves of this option.”
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/06/20/how-ordinary-germans-did-it/
https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068
 
Last edited:
Positions and Events are building to a climax.

I work with a lot of young people who think the end justifies the means, and don't think twice about using government to force social change. They think they are morally correct, and they think that Doing Good over rules the constitution.

If the Left did not have the possibility of Government as their proxy, they would have no chance of achieving what they seek. Everything they do is for the goal of harnessing the power of government, and turning it to do their will.
 
Since I've been in a couple arguments about LEO enforcing unconstitutional laws and how they will continue to do so I have thought about this a bit. Let's say mandatory buy backs happen and 100 of the sheriffs and police chiefs in NC refuse to comply. The Federal government will just threaten to cut all money coming into the state and local government, the local governments will threaten the jobs of all who refuse to enforce the unconstitutional laws. When faced with no job and no way to provide for family people will trample their fellow man and justify it however they need to.
 
Since I've been in a couple arguments about LEO enforcing unconstitutional laws and how they will continue to do so I have thought about this a bit. Let's say mandatory buy backs happen and 100 of the sheriffs and police chiefs in NC refuse to comply. The Federal government will just threaten to cut all money coming into the state and local government, the local governments will threaten the jobs of all who refuse to enforce the unconstitutional laws. When faced with no job and no way to provide for family people will trample their fellow man and justify it however they need to.

We have a winner Ladies and Gentleman. Unless it’s a life or death situation they will follow orders. We have to remember that over the years technology has has advance, not People. As for Human Beings, we are still the same as those that came a 1000 years before ya.
 
Last edited:
Since I've been in a couple arguments about LEO enforcing unconstitutional laws and how they will continue to do so I have thought about this a bit. Let's say mandatory buy backs happen and 100 of the sheriffs and police chiefs in NC refuse to comply. The Federal government will just threaten to cut all money coming into the state and local government, the local governments will threaten the jobs of all who refuse to enforce the unconstitutional laws. When faced with no job and no way to provide for family people will trample their fellow man and justify it however they need to.

The Federal Government threatens to stop giving out money all the time, but it is always just an empty threat. Look at all the Sanctuary cities and states that supposedly were going to get all federal funding shut off, they still get money every day. I have yet to see them come through on that threat.
 
, they would have no chance of achieving what they seek. .

What ever they seek can be obtained by the Laws we already have. unless it's being lawless. In that case they can go buy an island somewhere and create their own government with out laws.

what I'm getting at is... dont give 1" and run them the hell out.
 
They will, and men have done much worse.
“Ordinary Men and Hitler’s Willing Executioners overlapped in their focus on Reserve Police Battalion 101 as a test case because its commander had openly given his men—randomly conscripted, middle-aged reservists with a low rate of party membership and little police training and ideological indoctrination—the option not to participate in mass executions of Jews in Poland. Nonetheless the great majority did not avail themselves of this option.”
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/06/20/how-ordinary-germans-did-it/
https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068
This is true. Those guys in the SS and the Gestapo didn't think they were doing anything wrong. They believed they were doing their duty. Today cops whether federal, state or local, represent the population as a whole. Up until now most entering that field had never touched a firearm in their lives. Now you're getting more and more people coming in from the military who are accustomed to taking orders. If the word goes out to law enforcement agencies to pick up the guns they are going to do it.
 
I try to stay objective and stay out of these types of posts. However I need to point out one thing.

All it takes is one post on this forum or FB for a department to justify the means to their officers as a red flag. You guys are pointing out historical examples but not looking at the other side at the same time.

I mean look at this thread, any Officer would see this as a threat to himself and his families well being. Very few would see it as a warning to their actions. They would put together a plan where you have no choice but to comply. They would pick you up while eating or shopping with your family. Everyone on this forum will have the same decision to face as the officers. How do we protect our own family in the face of this issue?

It is a liberty or "well being" decision in the face of officers and civilians involved.

This is just a specific point that I think most overlook, how will we act as civilians when our own family could be put in danger by our actions and decisions.

This post is very conditional, but something I don't think should be overlooked.
 
Last edited:
I mean look at this thread, any Officer would see this as a threat to himself and his families well being. Very few would see it as a warning to their actions. They would put together a plan where you have no choice but to comply. They would pick you up while eating or shopping with your family. Everyone on this forum will have the same decision to face as the officers. How do we protect our own family in the face of this issue?
This is the sort of thing Stalin did in the Soviet Union. If this sort of thing should happen here, I would hope that the resistance would be active and brutally unforgiving.

We've been over this sort of thing several times already. Guns and the (public) possession of them is largely symbolic of power and who has it. A sizeable portion of the population apparently wants to change this country and part of enacting that change involves disarmament of said population. Doing so would be a supreme violation of the highest principles of the idea, and it really is nothing more than an abstract idea where people agree to pretend, called "rule of law". To make such a transformation is not possible through the ordinary political process and even if it were to go through the extraordinary process of a constitutional amendment it wouldn't matter or make a difference because that right, symbolized by the tool, would still remain. Whether or not you agree with that last statement and idea probably determines a lot in regards to your views of liberty versus state dominance.

For whatever reason, some mouth pieces of a predominant political party have been taking to the airwaves about their intention and desire to disarm the populace. Even worse, in areas where their ilk and kind dominate they have effectively denied people's rights and are now violating other rudimentary principles and rights of people in an attempt to disarm them.

In all honesty, I am dismayed at the apparent lack of response. Granted it is happening in the People's Republics, but if it's not stopped it will spread.

As I said above, these "RF laws" are a violation of the contract that underpins the whole concept and contract that enables "rule of law". ROL is predicated on and requires that "law" be based upon right and wrong. What is happening now is plain wrong. Just as "rule of law" is a pretend construct, so is the authority granted to the courts to arbitrate said rule. They too are falling on the wrong side.

What they better realize, and right quick, is that there are a growing number of people who are getting downright tired of it and if they're pushed much farther might start to react. Do they feel threatened by that? I sure hope so.
 
Last edited:
With all this talk about threatening to with hold money has anybody thought about where the money comes from in the first place. They gotta take it before they can give it back.
 
Who knows how people will act until any given situation arises? It is true that many of the current laws, especially the RF laws, are picking up speed as the snowball on the slippery slope. But with for-real door-to-door confiscations, bans, etc., who know....
 
So, how many of you veterans on here would have followed this order while you were in the service? How many current active duty soldiers do you think would follow this order? There aren't enough LEO's to do it alone, they will need help from the military.
 
So, how many of you veterans on here would have followed this order while you were in the service? How many current active duty soldiers do you think would follow this order? There aren't enough LEO's to do it alone, they will need help from the military.

Nah, bruh. I have the Page 13/Article 15 to back it up, too....

They would definitely need the .mil community to help, just given the sheer size and numbers. To use los federales for supporting law enforcement is a major constitutional violation, so by the time it got that far, things would be very, very bad. If they wanted to use the national guard, how many would go? I mean, their neighbors are you. Hell, half the NG guys who get orders for natural disasters find a way out of them.
 
We like to think they will do the right thing but most wont.

Ok. This was on NRA tv. A cop in NJ had one of the hosts, Dominic something I think on a drive along. Supposed to be former special forces.

The cop straight up mentioned that he will likely be soon be there out enforcing laws he doesn’t believe in. Didn’t mention caring about that pesky constitution.

I only wish I could find it to post.
 
I have no disillusions about what the military will do If the officers that are over the young enlisted troops give the order most will obey it your only hope of stopping these illegal orders lie with the officers and the senior (NCO) enlisted. If you don't believe that US Military will attack US Citizens see what they did to the Bonus marchers (Military vets just trying to get what the government promised them) http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/bonusm.htm by the way I did 20+ years in the military
 
Last edited:
I try to stay objective and stay out of these types of posts. However I need to point out one thing.

All it takes is one post on this forum or FB for a department to justify the means to their officers as a red flag. You guys are pointing out historical examples but not looking at the other side at the same time.

A valid and constructive point.

So, lets consider where this "Red Flag Law" & "Gun Ban ~ Gun Confiscation" talk started,, This Time.

I believe it started after individualizes doing Evil things ~ acts with guns and recognizing that their lives ~ situations were not Normal.

So, then it was discussed ( nationally ) to find a solution to IDing these people.
OK, so that conversation lasted what, 7 days (?) 10 Days (?) all the while the sub-topic was banning guns ( etc ) which eventually went to "Full Tilt" Big Bro is Taking your Guns and You're ( US the citizens of America ) going to "Like It."

No one here is advocating any ill will.

If my employer instructs me to get the truck ready because we're going on a road trip and on the way I'm to stop at the Bank and I have knowledge that my employers reason for the Bank stop is to ROB it, am I in the wrong for driving the "Get Away Car?"

SO when he is caught what punishment should I receive?

It is a liberty or "well being" decision in the face of officers and civilians involved.

Another valid point, so lets look at two examples somewhat recently and recent; Cuba & Venezuela and how about Switzerland ( which recently is complying with EU restrictions on guns?)

At one time both Cuba & Venezuela had "Liberty" that included owning firearms.

SO it seems the official followers in Cuba & Venezuela chose "well being" and I dare to say that when all the ,, hum,, Unrest started there was NOT enough room in the boat for all the ,,, Hum, followers either.

We have a "Bill Of Rights" and the Power Brokers" are trying their damnedest to null & void it.

In the framework of Asking Questions, making exploratory statements, excising Political Speech , questioning Authority (??) apparently some at the top or near top of the Agenda Chain ( Dark Side ) are thinking about taking action / preempting "Common Peasants" liberties ~ freedom. Because they can and they have the power and resources to do so.


So, when do the "Political Arrest" start and do we have enough Jail ~ Prison space to house all the "Political Prisoners?"

Of course when these arrest start the Politicians, Law Enforcement officials, and others in a position to follow and carry out "Loading Buses" full of ,, hum,, ( can't call them "Political Prisoners" ) "Citizens That are Dangerous to The Public at Large" , or what ever sounds better on the news.





F W I W
 
Nah, bruh. I have the Page 13/Article 15 to back it up, too....

They would definitely need the .mil community to help, just given the sheer size and numbers. To use los federales for supporting law enforcement is a major constitutional violation, so by the time it got that far, things would be very, very bad. If they wanted to use the national guard, how many would go? I mean, their neighbors are you. Hell, half the NG guys who get orders for natural disasters find a way out of them.
Your point is well taken. However... Couldn't each governor mobilize the National Guard in his state and only in his state? I am neither an attorney or someone versed in constitutional law so I very well may be wrong about this.
 
I try to stay objective and stay out of these types of posts. However I need to point out one thing.

All it takes is one post on this forum or FB for a department to justify the means to their officers as a red flag. You guys are pointing out historical examples but not looking at the other side at the same time.

I mean look at this thread, any Officer would see this as a threat to himself and his families well being. Very few would see it as a warning to their actions. They would put together a plan where you have no choice but to comply. They would pick you up while eating or shopping with your family. Everyone on this forum will have the same decision to face as the officers. How do we protect our own family in the face of this issue?

It is a liberty or "well being" decision in the face of officers and civilians involved.

This is just a specific point that I think most overlook, how will we act as civilians when our own family could be put in danger by our actions and decisions.

This post is very conditional, but something I don't think should be overlooked.

The following statements just came to mind.

I also believe that this woman should address a Joint Session of our US Congress, they might learn or Re-Learn something.

Hell I'm stupid and I can understand what she says.


We have succumbed to the fear factor: Trading Liberty to keep us safe is the primary role of government. No, it is not. The primary role of government is NOT national security, it is, as the Constitution clearly mandates, Liberty Security, as in to “Preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The 4th Amendment WAS NOT designed as a tool to be used by the GOVERNMENT to keep its people safe. It was a WARNING to the PEOPLE that if the government engages in ANY SEARCH AND SEIZURE outside these bounds, you have an EVIL AND OPPRESSIVE government.

https://www.krisannehall.com/index....xceptions-to-the-4th-amendment-where-are-they
 
I try to stay objective and stay out of these types of posts. However I need to point out one thing.

All it takes is one post on this forum or FB for a department to justify the means to their officers as a red flag. You guys are pointing out historical examples but not looking at the other side at the same time.

I mean look at this thread, any Officer would see this as a threat to himself and his families well being. Very few would see it as a warning to their actions. They would put together a plan where you have no choice but to comply. They would pick you up while eating or shopping with your family. Everyone on this forum will have the same decision to face as the officers. How do we protect our own family in the face of this issue?

It is a liberty or "well being" decision in the face of officers and civilians involved.

This is just a specific point that I think most overlook, how will we act as civilians when our own family could be put in danger by our actions and decisions.

This post is very conditional, but something I don't think should be overlooked.

Not singling you out, however you had some valid observations and the following vid offers valid input / review of the process of "Making Sausage" ( or Law ?) in which the Judicial System ( to include LEOs ) would be left with trying to enforce / figure out , Legal or Not.

Interview starts @ 2:07
 
Positions and Events are building to a climax.

I work with a lot of young people who think the end justifies the means, and don't think twice about using government to force social change. They think they are morally correct, and they think that Doing Good over rules the constitution.
Mac, I think you are dead on the money! I am also certain you don't need to hear from me that I agree to make your life fulfilled but I really think this is On The Money!!!!
 
Your point is well taken. However... Couldn't each governor mobilize the National Guard in his state and only in his state? I am neither an attorney or someone versed in constitutional law so I very well may be wrong about this.
BudE I'm not trying to poke you with a sharp stick.....do you Really trust your Governor? Ours is a snake and he's all we had to vote for. I certainly don't expect him to help me over the Feds.
 
I do trust my governor and I believe that Roach Cooper would do anything possible to demonize gunowners and put us all on the bus in order to ensure "public safety"
 
BudE I'm not trying to poke you with a sharp stick.....do you Really trust your Governor? Ours is a snake and he's all we had to vote for. I certainly don't expect him to help me over the Feds.
I trust him in the same amount I trust Trump or Warren, hmmm... maybe less. What I was saying, obviously not too clearly, is that governors will activate the NG on a state basis, not federal, thereby skirting the constitution.
 
BudE I'm not trying to poke you with a sharp stick.....do you Really trust your Governor? Ours is a snake and he's all we had to vote for. I certainly don't expect him to help me over the Feds.
OUCH! OUCH! I trust our governor about as much as I trust Trump or Warren, hmmm... maybe less. What I was trying to say, obviously not too clearly, was that our beloved governors would activate the NG on a state basis, rather than federal, to skirt the constitution.
 
If they’re out there killing people for their guns, I doubt they’re shaking in their jackboots over “legal peril”. Because then they HAVE to win...they’ll have a vested interest in succeeding so they dont fall on the “wrong” side, ie the losing side.

I wasn’t out there putting heads on pikes but once an operation was underway, I never ONCE stopped to think “hmmm legal peril?” NOPE, freedom train is inbound! Do not resist!
 
Unless it’s a life or death situation they will follow orders.
If the word goes out to law enforcement agencies to pick up the guns they are going to do it.

If a "Nation Wide Action" were ordered to take guns, I believe there's a fundamental flaw that would that would be overlooked by "The Overseers."

Unlike a small area like Katrina or a few counties here and there, a nation wide round up of the toys will make many involved in the attempted collection process to question their involvement because , more than likely , their name is on the list as well.


There is no honor among thieves
 
Last edited:
...a nation wide round up of the toys will make many involved in the attempted collection process to question their involvement because , more than likely , their name is on the list as well.

Do you think .gov will actually forget to exempt their enforcers? Like NY did with their SAFE Act? And just how many of those enforcers got jacked up and spent years in a steel and concrete cage before they fixed their oversight? If your guess was any number greater than zero, that would be delusional.

The state will protect their Orcs, even if in their haste they initially forget to write exemptions into the statute. That you can take to the bank.

Another thing you can take to the bank is that 95%+ of those enforcers will do anything they are ordered to do to protect that 20 and out with a lifetime kiss.

Anything.
 
Think of the redcoats in 1775. Think of the militias that rose up and countered them. Today we have the redcoats. The militias are lacking. Like the redcoats our boys in blue will also think they’re the good guys. Won’t change what needs to or will happen, however.
 
Read the whole thing. He’s talking about an eventual return to rule of law after the gun or other power grab the Democrats enact setting things in motion. You can tell the author is a lawyer, like he admits. He talks about those guilty of kicking in doors to take people scary black rifles losing their pensions or going to jail after a trial. No, I guarantee you that whatever form the new “courts” take after the dust settles that the punishment will be swift execution.

As Q said in the first episode of Star Trek TNG in regards to the 21st century courts. The motto was “Kill All The Lawyers, which was swiftly done I might add”.
I think Shakespere said it first. Henry VI Act 2. "First, kill all the lawyers"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
I try to stay objective and stay out of these types of posts. However I need to point out one thing.

All it takes is one post on this forum or FB for a department to justify the means to their officers as a red flag. You guys are pointing out historical examples but not looking at the other side at the same time.

The other side? The side opposite of Liberty? As long as Oaths were taken seriously and honored with fidelity, what other side needs consideration?

I mean look at this thread, any Officer would see this as a threat to himself......

Ignoring that most officers see their own shadows as a threat for a second, this thread is composed of nothing but words. If words make officers fear for their lives enough to aggressively pursue violence, then it's time to have a serious discussion about getting rid of police.

....and his families well being.

I doubt this, given that some studies show nearly half of officers beat their spouses.

Very few would see it as a warning to their actions. They would put together a plan where you have no choice but to comply.

There is always a choice. Not always a convenient or good one, but there is always a choice.

They would pick you up while eating or shopping with your family. Everyone on this forum will have the same decision to face as the officers.

So because someone is exercising their First Amendment-protected Rights to unequivocally assert they will not willingly give up their Second Amendment-protected Rights, scared men with authority will conspire to seperate you from both, if not your Life?

Land of the Free, huh?

And it's not the same decision. They are exact opposite decisions.

One is choosing to insert yourself into an immoral situation to visit violence and death on a fellow human being to coerce obedience to the scribblings of politicians.

The other is a choice to prevent such violence and death from making you a slave to those in power.

One is to go on offense and take the inalienable Rights of people by force.

The other is to defend one's Life, the lives of those he loves, one's Liberty and the Liberty of his children and millions yet unborn, and the pursuit of his own happiness and that of posterity.

You want to know how no one faces danger?

Law Dog doesn't hide his conscience behind a tin shield and keeps his ass at home instead of violently enforcing unjust and immoral laws. Then no one has to be scared. No one has to murder to make sure he goes home at the end of shift. No one has to hear bagpipes anytime soon.

How do we protect our own family in the face of this issue?

With only the force necessary to
diffuse an incident or to protect themselves or others from harm.

It is a liberty or "well being" decision in the face of officers and civilians involved.

Say it with me....... police officers are mere civilians too.

This is just a specific point that I think most overlook, how will we act as civilians when our own family could be put in danger by our actions and decisions.

Once again, for those in the back: the police are mere civilians too.

This post is very conditional, but something I don't think should be overlooked.

Which is exactly why only a moron or overly sensitive boob of an officer could read any of it as a threat.

If anything, it's a "I don't want any trouble. If you likewise don't want any, and don't look to stir up any, then there won't be any" thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom