National guard to treat preppers as terrorists?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread:
National guard to treat preppers as terrorists?

  1. #1
    Floatin dirty Lavey29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,831

    Default National guard to treat preppers as terrorists?

    » National Guard Whistleblower: “Doomsday Preppers Will Be Treated As Terrorists” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


    I had not heard this before and do not know if it is valid or not. I could see the need to maybe focus on some of these radical extreme domestic militias that are forming up around the country with intents such as Timothy Mcveigh (sp) had about committing domestic terrorism acts. But to target preppers defending their personal property in a time of crisis sure seems extreme. Not that I would put anything past O and the clown posse to do of course. Have zero trust and confidence in our leadership right now as most of you do also.

    I know I was working 12 hours shifts for a over a month during the LA riots and was down there every night. We didn't target armed business owners who were just trying to protect their property from looters and arson. I wasn't worried one bit about a guy on his business rooftop with a rifle doing what he could to save his property shooting at me. I was worried about and focused on the thousands of dirtbags (all probably O voters) rampaging, looting and shooting everwhere in the city.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Just Me snoc653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    I didn't read the article and don't need to. The National Guard is preparing to do no such thing. Half of the guardsmen/women that I know are preparing just in case. How could they possibly target themselves?

    The second part that makes this story bull, is the national guard doesn't work zero. Every state has thier own guard. The national guard works for the Govenor of the state. Only once in the history of the US has the National Guard ever been called out, without the Govenor's permission. That was in Alabama, and it took a super majority to federalize them. Zero doesn't have a super majority, so don't look for that to happen.

    If an ad hoc militia gets out of hand, the govenor, being the head law enforcement officer of the state, can call up his guard and give them police powers to settle the unrest. But, a state can't afford to keep the guard on duty full time, nor can the president make a state call up the guard.
    So many projects, so little time

  4. #3
    Icy
    Icy is offline
    Boatless Member :( Icy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    AV, CA
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snoc653 View Post
    I didn't read the article and don't need to. The National Guard is preparing to do no such thing. Half of the guardsmen/women that I know are preparing just in case. How could they possibly target themselves?

    The second part that makes this story bull, is the national guard doesn't work zero. Every state has thier own guard. The national guard works for the Govenor of the state. Only once in the history of the US has the National Guard ever been called out, without the Govenor's permission. That was in Alabama, and it took a super majority to federalize them. Zero doesn't have a super majority, so don't look for that to happen.

    If an ad hoc militia gets out of hand, the govenor, being the head law enforcement officer of the state, can call up his guard and give them police powers to settle the unrest. But, a state can't afford to keep the guard on duty full time, nor can the president make a state call up the guard.
    Not that I read the article yet...

    What you wrote is based on the assumption that laws are followed. I'm really curious to see what will happen in the next 4 years in regards to the rule of law for government.

  5. #4
    Just Me snoc653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icy View Post
    Not that I read the article yet...

    What you wrote is based on the assumption that laws are followed. I'm really curious to see what will happen in the next 4 years in regards to the rule of law for government.
    I went back and read the article. It is based on somoene calling in and remaining annonymous. They stated the guard was told to be ready should Romney win and there be rioting, and then went on to spew a lot of additional BS. As in the country as a whole, there are X number of morality deprived individuals in any organization. They might ask, or try to do some of the things mentioned, but the Guard as a whole will not violate the Constitution. They are citizen soldiers, guess which part comes first?

    If the federal government tries to disarm the citizens, I personally feel it will start with them disarming the National Guard. And that will be the call to arms for many of the preparers.
    So many projects, so little time

  6. #5
    Floatin dirty Lavey29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    Although I have no proof of validity, there were comments about NG troops disarming citizens trying to protect their property after storm Sandy which makes me wonder what the true marching orders are when it comes to dealing with armed citizens in a time of crisis who are just trying to protect their families and their property? I do not see them as a threat but more of an asset if they are prepared and do not require 1st responder type assistance.

  7. #6
    Senior Member wolfie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the garage working on the boat in Utah, United States
    Posts
    7,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snoc653 View Post
    I didn't read the article and don't need to. The National Guard is preparing to do no such thing. Half of the guardsmen/women that I know are preparing just in case. How could they possibly target themselves?

    The second part that makes this story bull, is the national guard doesn't work zero. Every state has thier own guard. The national guard works for the Govenor of the state. Only once in the history of the US has the National Guard ever been called out, without the Govenor's permission. That was in Alabama, and it took a super majority to federalize them. Zero doesn't have a super majority, so don't look for that to happen.

    If an ad hoc militia gets out of hand, the govenor, being the head law enforcement officer of the state, can call up his guard and give them police powers to settle the unrest. But, a state can't afford to keep the guard on duty full time, nor can the president make a state call up the guard.
    x2

    Although I was talking to a friend in the Marines and she said that they were given a questionnaire. Peppered throughout were some interesting questions that she said when put together were geared at seeing if military personnel wold fire upon US citizens in the case of civil unrest. Since she had a degree in marketing (she put together a lot of surveys) she started asking around. Seems the way everyone answered, the only way that they would return fire is if their or the lives or their team mates were in danger and only to wound.
    I asked a friend in the Army and he remembered talking a similar survey. He didn't put it together then but he says now it makes sense to him.

    I wonder if this is why there's a cleaning of house aat the top in our military?

  8. #7
    Senior Member N2GLOCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    533

    Default

    I'd believe the article if it WASN'T written by a guy who believes that 9/11 was an inside job and that Hurricane Sandy was man made by the government in order to help get BHO re-elected. Here are 2 facts that I know about gun confiscations after a natural disaster:

    1) Confiscations did occur in New Orleans after Katrina and the ones doing the confiscating was the CHP (California Highway Patrol) The number of people that had their weapons confiscated has been grossly exaggerated.

    2) At the time a then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was against the confiscations during the Katrina aftermath and a then Senator Barrack Hussein Obama was for confiscations during the Katrina aftermath.

  9. #8
    Marine Organism Forkin' Crazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mound, Louisiana
    Posts
    12,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by N2GLOCK View Post
    I'd believe the article if it WASN'T written by a guy who believes that 9/11 was an inside job and that Hurricane Sandy was man made by the government in order to help get BHO re-elected. Here are 2 facts that I know about gun confiscations after a natural disaster:

    1) Confiscations did occur in New Orleans after Katrina and the ones doing the confiscating was the CHP (California Highway Patrol) The number of people that had their weapons confiscated has been grossly exaggerated.

    2) At the time a then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was against the confiscations during the Katrina aftermath and a then Senator Barrack Hussein Obama was for confiscations during the Katrina aftermath.
    There were Louisiana State Troopers doing it too. I don't think how they roughed up that old woman to get her pistol was grossly exaggerated. There were many guns taken. Most were never returned. They were kept in barrels in the back of a box van. They lay there rusting in the heat and humidity and ruined.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

    - - Robert A. Heinlein

  10. #9
    Senior Member N2GLOCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forkin' Crazy View Post
    There were Louisiana State Troopers doing it too. I don't think how they roughed up that old woman to get her pistol was grossly exaggerated. There were many guns taken. Most were never returned. They were kept in barrels in the back of a box van. They lay there rusting in the heat and humidity and ruined.
    The numbers of confiscations was exaggerated and the old lady getting ruffed by CHP is reality. I've seen the video. I'm all for the NRA but sometimes question the fear tactics they use in order to get people to contribute money. I was once a member and that's why I question the #'s given by them. I wish there was a way to find out from another source what the exact # was. With that said... Whether it was 5,50,500 or 5,000 it's not right to strip law abiding citizens of their weapons during a natural disaster like that when looting is an issue during the aftermath. I've been hearing about this whole preppers being targeted for a while now. If I remember correctly, a while back Depatment of HHS had classified vets as domestic terrorists or something to that effect. I guess this all stems from that since alot of vets seem to be preppers themselves.

  11. #10
    Marine Organism Forkin' Crazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mound, Louisiana
    Posts
    12,743

    Default

    Well, I am an NRA member and remember seeing pictures of rusted guns in 55 gallon barrels. They sure didn't give a damn about taking care of them, probably knowing they would never be an effort to return them. There were several barrels all full of guns. I don't see that as being deceptive.

    I see the CHiPs and LA ST that did this as cowards- disarming the good while ignoring the looters. I guess they knew who was the easier target. Shame, shame!
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

    - - Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #11
    Senior Member N2GLOCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    533

    Default

    Anyone remember the stupidass mayor who said that New Orleans would once again be a "chocolate city"? He was all for the confiscations!
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  13. #12
    Just Me snoc653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastern Iowa
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    Two things about Katrina. 1) The authority to take thier weapons was given under Martial Law. Martial Law had to be declared to get the active duty military involved in protecting the city from the looters. The national guard does not need to declare martial law to maintain peace or to conduct law enforcement activities if called up by the govenor.

    2) The weapons that were taken were the ones that were in plain sight when the LEOs were there. If there is an LEO present, you don't need to be holding your rifle, pistol, or whatever else you think you need to defend yourself. They didn't go house to house and confinscate weapons.

    As for the survey circulated around the military, part of that was because there were US Citizens showing up on battlefields supporting Alkeida.
    So many projects, so little time

  14. #13
    Marine Organism Forkin' Crazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mound, Louisiana
    Posts
    12,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snoc653 View Post
    Two things about Katrina. 1) The authority to take thier weapons was given under Martial Law. Martial Law had to be declared to get the active duty military involved in protecting the city from the looters. The national guard does not need to declare martial law to maintain peace or to conduct law enforcement activities if called up by the govenor.

    2) The weapons that were taken were the ones that were in plain sight when the LEOs were there. If there is an LEO present, you don't need to be holding your rifle, pistol, or whatever else you think you need to defend yourself. They didn't go house to house and confinscate weapons.

    As for the survey circulated around the military, part of that was because there were US Citizens showing up on battlefields supporting Alkeida.
    I'm not so sure about that, although I agree with the rest of what you said....

    Ah, the "chocolate city". That wasn't racist, was it... Oh no... couldn't be!


    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

    - - Robert A. Heinlein

  15. #14
    "On the road again..." Old Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    9,356

    Default

    Why a sitting US Congressman coulda got shot trying to retrieve his freezer full of bribe money for heaven's sake.....They had to disarm folks.

    But in all seriousness, disarming citizens in NO during the cleanup to me is over exaggerted. Pot shots were being taken at emergency workers and it had to be stopped. No more should be read into it in my opinion.


    And this is the first I ever heard of CHP in NO?
    Last edited by Old Texan; 11-17-2012 at 08:36 AM.
    "Bottle by bottle, I'm clearing off that shelf...."

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Tags for this Thread

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95