So there was this Marine

[Oyate]

When Dr. Paul actually showed up, it was a pretty tense security situation as you might imagine. It went a bit bumpy. But it went OK. The marshals did a great job, I alone out of the whole movement made a mistake regarding security but it went OK, thank Gods.

But there were a few 3 people who would not clear the area. 2 were just belligerent but one was a Marine. He told me he was NOT going to clear the area, that he had served something like 3 rotations in the Mideast taking ground fire and he was going to greet Dr. Paul or....probably die trying. I tried to talk him out of it, but he was like...I mean, the guy was willing to....my spirit-scan didn't detect any evil, so....it would have taken almost all the marshals to restrain this guy, you could tell my looking in his eyes. But again, I saw the force and determination, but I registered no harm in this guy. I saw pure love in his eyes. It was like seeing fire. I saw who he had left behind in the desert. I knew he had to do this.

So I told him to position himself on the other side of the stage, where we would be hustling Dr. Paul out. There weren't too many other options. Ever try to argue with a United States Marine? So I told him the truth. That would be his best and only chance to shake Dr. Paul's hand.

Out of the thousands of you who wanted to shake Dr. Paul's hand and tell him how you feel, this one Marine was the only one of you who got to. We got Dr. Paul and his retinue out of there QUICKSTYLE.

I almost didn't see him coming. And my eyes were everywhere right then. This Marine said what he was gonna do and by Gods, he did it.

THIS ONE GOES OUT TO UNITED STATES MARINES.

Now let us take a moment to reflect upon our warriors, those who have given their lives. Let us pray for this Marine, to his buddies that he left in the desert.

Brother, I saw them in your eyes. You carried them home. And every one of them shook Dr. Paul's hand. Marine, you really did proud that day.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are surprised and happy to represent to you the fine men and women on the United States Marine Corps.

[pacelli]

Very laudatory and obsequious toward authority figures today, Oyate. First the police, now the marines. Who is next?

[SnappleLlama]

I wish I had been able to shake Dr. Paul's hand... :(

[Danke]

Very laudatory and obsequious toward authority figures today, Oyate. First the police, now the marines. Who is next?

The Shamers?

[Danke]

I wish I had been able to shake Dr. Paul's hand... :(

Then join the Marines! :p

[The One]

I wish I had been able to shake Dr. Paul's hand... :(

I wish I lived on Dr. Paul's hand instead of inside John McCain's massive cheek.:(

[Danke]

I wish I lived on Dr. Paul's hand instead of inside John McCain's massive cheek.:(

Now that would make Joseph jealous!

[GunnyFreedom]

Very laudatory and obsequious toward authority figures today, Oyate. First the police, now the marines. Who is next?

Ahh-HEM. [evil eye]

don't you dare lump us in with the jack-booted thugs! Marines (which should be capitolized, btw) tend to be strict constructionists way more than most, and even more than most other servicemembers. We will lay down our lives to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic!

I can assure you that Marines by and large take our oath more seriously than most anybody else who takes that same oath.

[rampanthog]

I believe that there Gunny. In fact I am certain that a large part of the armed forces stand behind this movement, the Marines first and foremost.

[Acala]

I wish I lived on Dr. Paul's hand instead of inside John McCain's massive cheek.:(


Hahahahaha!

[Acala]

Ahh-HEM. [evil eye]

don't you dare lump us in with the jack-booted thugs! Marines (which should be capitolized, btw) tend to be strict constructionists way more than most, and even more than most other servicemembers. We will lay down our lives to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic!

I can assure you that Marines by and large take our oath more seriously than most anybody else who takes that same oath.


I believe the time will come when we will depend for our lives and the future of a free republic on individual Marines and our other armed forces choosing to disobey unconstitutional orders and refusing to fire on their fellow Americans struggling against tyranny. They will decide if there is to be a civil war that we might win, or just a boot crushing us into the dirt relentlessly.

[rampanthog]

IMHO, the only way this gets ugly is if HLS or FBI/FEMA try and round us all up. This would be a grave mistake. I really, honestly do NOT believe the brass of our Armed Forces would tolerate that, and certainly not those in the lower ranks.

The irony of all this is our Constitution, while we stand for everything it embodies and call for R3VOLUTION, our armed forces and law enforcement are sworn to defend it.

[GunnyFreedom]

I believe the time will come when we will depend for our lives and the future of a free republic on individual Marines and our other armed forces choosing to disobey unconstitutional orders and refusing to fire on their fellow Americans struggling against tyranny. They will decide if there is to be a civil war that we might win, or just a boot crushing us into the dirt relentlessly.

Well, if you think it's actual Marines coming after you, all you gotta do is hang a banner in your front yard that reads: "Chesty Puller upheld his oath, will you?"

There is a very real reason that we are taught our loyalty structures in this order: "God, Corps, Country"

Yes, I know that Marines have been sold a bill of goods doing 'exercises' in Main Street USA that look an awful lot like martial law in America, but they are told those excercises are to prepare them for Iraq, not the USA.

I'd wager 80% of Marines would bolt if you asked them to violate the Constitution. Maybe 50%-60% of the Army and the Navy, and 40%-50% of the Air Force and Coast Guard would do the same. Now, if you 'tricked' them into it, lower those percentages by 10% to 15% across the board...but that difference will be comprised of those who can be 'awakened' pretty easily once confronted with the truth.

Worst case scenario would have federal goons threatening to stand servicemembers up before a firing squad if they refuse to obey, but in THAT scenario, Marines specifically would likely have a huge knee-jerk reaction and push the numbers UP rather than down. Believe it or not, Marines often have problems with authority....I know that's counter-intuitive, but take it from someone who has been there and done that. ;-)

[rampanthog]

"God, Corps, Country"

Which leads me to believe that the United States Marine Corps would be the first to defect.

I live in Germany and I have LOTS of contact with active duty service men and I can only echo your statement Gunny. It is clearly obvious that they are NOT happy campers and to an extent already feel betrayed.

[Acala]

Well, if you think it's actual Marines coming after you, all you gotta do is hang a banner in your front yard that reads: "Chesty Puller upheld his oath, will you?"

There is a very real reason that we are taught our loyalty structures in this order: "God, Corps, Country"

Yes, I know that Marines have been sold a bill of goods doing 'exercises' in Main Street USA that look an awful lot like martial law in America, but they are told those excercises are to prepare them for Iraq, not the USA.

I'd wager 80% of Marines would bolt if you asked them to violate the Constitution. Maybe 50%-60% of the Army and the Navy, and 40%-50% of the Air Force and Coast Guard would do the same. Now, if you 'tricked' them into it, lower those percentages by 10% to 15% across the board...but that difference will be comprised of those who can be 'awakened' pretty easily once confronted with the truth.

Worst case scenario would have federal goons threatening to stand servicemembers up before a firing squad if they refuse to obey, but in THAT scenario, Marines specifically would likely have a huge knee-jerk reaction and push the numbers UP rather than down. Believe it or not, Marines often have problems with authority....I know that's counter-intuitive, but take it from someone who has been there and done that. ;-)

Well then, some would-be tyrants are going to have a pretty tough time enforcing martial law IF the people decide to resist. I guess that means the big question is WILL the people resist?

[rampanthog]

Yes, the people will resist, I truly believe that.

[lucius]

Well then, some would-be tyrants are going to have a pretty tough time enforcing martial law IF the people decide to resist. I guess that means the big question is WILL the people resist?

Something to ponder:

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
- Henry Kissinger, Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

[Oyate]

"God, Corps, Country"

Good to know you are there Gunny. How's my fire? Am I finally dialing it in?

[AxXiom]

I wish I lived on Dr. Paul's hand instead of inside John McCain's massive cheek.:(


oops. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little!

Ax

[pacelli]

Something to ponder:

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
- Henry Kissinger, Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

They sure as hell didn't do anything to the chinese paramilitary units beating the hell out of people while 'guarding' the torch. Kissinger thought it out too much. He didn't count on American Idol. I didn't see any of our military or police out there protecting our citizens from getting roughed up by chinese paramilitary.

[Anti Federalist]

Ahh-HEM. [evil eye]

don't you dare lump us in with the jack-booted thugs! Marines (which should be capitolized, btw) tend to be strict constructionists way more than most, and even more than most other servicemembers. We will lay down our lives to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic!

I can assure you that Marines by and large take our oath more seriously than most anybody else who takes that same oath.

As a percentage, Gunny, how many are "defectors in place"?

[GunnyFreedom]

Good to know you are there Gunny. How's my fire? Am I finally dialing it in?

Yep, you're getting your groups down. Just remember,

the way the Marines teach it:

Chanting:

statement (response)

sight alignment (align the sights on the target)
sight picture (clear front sight tip)
breath control (natural respiratory pause)
trigger control (slow steady squeeze)
follow through (keep the trigger to the rear)

Or, the way the Appleseeders teach it:

The Six Steps:

1) Sight Alignment
2) Sight Picture
3) Natural Respiratory Pause
4A) Keep your eye on the front sight tip
4B) Keep your mind on the target aligning the sights on target
5) Steady squeeze
6) Follow Through

with some dry fire practice, some ball and dummy drills, we'll get you down to a better than a 500 yard iron-sight shooter guaranteed.

[Oyate]

Yep, you're getting your groups down.

Copy that Gunny. This is ops, and until we set up shop next time, over and out.

We're done for now but we'll be back.

[GunnyFreedom]

As a percentage, Gunny, how many are "defectors in place"?

That's hard to say; the world itself has really changed in the last 11 years. The Marines themselves are going to be the same...pretty much the same for the last 100 years at least...that's just the nature of the Corps. But how many of them see what's coming and are already tensing for it would be really hard for me to estimate since the world OUTSIDE of the Corps is so different between 1997 and 2007.

I'll say that Marines for the MOST part only tend to watch the news if we are listening to find out if we have to go to a trouble spot. Let's say North Korea starts rattling it's sabre and scuttlebutt (rumor) has it we might get involved if the wheels come off. CNN will flick on all over the base where Marines want to learn if we'll be going.

That's good and that's bad, though. Marines won't get the Fox News brain-job; but neither will they hear a lot about the Patriot Act and the FISA bill.

Now you get into the Staff NCO level, E-6 and above, they tend to be more aware of the world outside of the Corps. And officers, of course, but they are in a different world anyway.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess that the Marines who are aware enough of what's happening in DC right now to be frightened for our future would probably be around 10% to 15%; and maybe slightly better than half of those are tensing for it to start (like a runner tensing for the starter pistol). Bear in mind though that's a wild ass guess. I could be way off in either direction. To get a clear picture of that one, I'd have to actually be on active duty right now to see what percentage of them saw it coming.

Now OF those who see it coming (whatever percent that may be - I guessed 10% to 15% above), I'd wager that around 60% are tensing for it to start like a sprinter waiting for the gun, so that when the balloon goes up they will disappear and head for their cache, 20% aren't doing a damn thing, figuring they'll figure it all out once it starts, 10% intend to stay loyal to the Gov't once we get to martial law, and the remaining 10% are eager for it all to begin so they get to knock some civilian heads around.

So KNOWING that the 10% to 15% figure is just a wild assed guess, the composition OF that 10 to 15 should be fairly accurate. Doing the math, 60% X 10% = 6% and 60% X 15% = 9% reveals that between 6% and 9% are tensed and ready to come to OUR side should the balloon go up.

So is all that about as clear as mud yet?

The one thing to remember, is that the big variable in this, is the percentage of Marines who are really AWARE of how much trouble we are in. I honestly don't know that one, because the country was very very different in 1997. However, the composition of those who ARE aware, I can tell you.

[Adam Kokesh]

Let's just say there's a good reason that Marines are over-represented in IVAW! Hoorah!

I mean HOOOOORAAAAHHH!!!

[LibertyEagle]

Something to ponder:

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
- Henry Kissinger, Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

Yes. That is what I'm concerned about and it really could happen, say, when our troops were mostly over in the Middle East fighting the war on a tactic.

[Danke]

I'd wager 80% of Marines would bolt if you asked them to violate the Constitution. Maybe 50%-60% of the Army and the Navy, and 40%-50% of the Air Force and Coast Guard would do the same.

I'd like to know where and in what capacity you have interacted with the other services?

The Air Force personnel happens to be the most educated.

Yeah, educated is an term open to interpretation.

But Marines have been at the forefront of most of our imperial adventures over the last 100+ years. Look it up.

To say they strictly abide by the Constitution is a joke.

But I don't think they will be firing upon me. TPTB have figured that out long ago already. The Marines will be busy in another foreign adventure while the UN, Canadians, Chinese, or some other force is called upon to quell the domestic unrest.

[LibertyEagle]

I mean HOOOOORAAAAHHH!!!

:)

Welcome home, Marine.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'd like to know where and in what capacity you have interacted with the other services?

The Air Force personnel happens to be the most educated.

Yeah, educated is an term open to interpretation.

But Marines have been at the forefront of most of our imperial adventures over the last 100+ years. Look it up.

To say they strictly abide by the Constitution is a joke.

But I don't think they will be firing upon me. TPTB have figured that out long ago already. The Marines will be busy in another foreign adventure while the UN, Canadians, Chinese, or some other force is called upon to quell the domestic unrest.

Um. The US Constitution does not apply to Guadalcanal. And, you will notice that most (certainly not all though) of the US foreign territorial holdings were originally either 'conquered' through diplomatic fiat (Samoa), purchased (US Virgin Islands), taken by the US Army (Guam, Puerto Rico), or are and have always been uninhabited.

America did in fact employ the US Marines to seize the Northern Mariana Islands from Japan in 1944.

So given those historical facts, I am a little curious to learn on what exactly you base your theory that the Marines were usually used for spearheading imperialism. In fact, quite the opposite is true. During the Boxer Rebellion, there were only 295 Marines deployed to China, while there were 3,125 Army soldiers.

The US Marines tend to spearhead combat operations that are more legitimate, and there is a very good reason for that. Contrary to common perceptions, Marines tend to have a short fuse with regards to authority, and are far more likely to rebel against an unlawful order than any of the other branches.

Just look at the disciplinary proceedings! In the USMC, it is really not awfuly uncommon to see a Court Martial involving an E-4 (Corporal) assaulting an O-3 (Captain). Corporal takes offense at Captains order and breaks his jaw. That kind of thing is simply unheard of today in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. ESPECIALLY the Air Force.

I have had LOTS of intra-service experience, and in my experience, the USAF will go along with pretty much anything the chain of command tells them to do so long as they still get their 5 star hotel barracks and their four seasons chow hall.

So go on and take umbrage all you like. But your passion does not align with the facts here.

[GunnyFreedom]

But I don't think they will be firing upon me. TPTB have figured that out long ago already. The Marines will be busy in another foreign adventure while the UN, Canadians, Chinese, or some other force is called upon to quell the domestic unrest.

To this point; that would be the stupidest thing the US.Gov has ever done, if that is the route they choose. First and foremost, most arms-bearing Americans would (rightly so!) be hesitant to fire on Americans, but the Chinese? They'll have a field day! Not to mention that if foreigners were selected to enforce martial law in the US, you's have 90% desertions in the USMC within 72 hours, coming home to defend the ranch, and probably 70% to 80% from the US Army. No matter how many are deployed overseas, there are still LOTS of troops at home.

[Kalifornia]

Well, if you think it's actual Marines coming after you, all you gotta do is hang a banner in your front yard that reads: "Chesty Puller upheld his oath, will you?"

There is a very real reason that we are taught our loyalty structures in this order: "God, Corps, Country"

Yes, I know that Marines have been sold a bill of goods doing 'exercises' in Main Street USA that look an awful lot like martial law in America, but they are told those excercises are to prepare them for Iraq, not the USA.

I'd wager 80% of Marines would bolt if you asked them to violate the Constitution. Maybe 50%-60% of the Army and the Navy, and 40%-50% of the Air Force and Coast Guard would do the same. Now, if you 'tricked' them into it, lower those percentages by 10% to 15% across the board...but that difference will be comprised of those who can be 'awakened' pretty easily once confronted with the truth.

Worst case scenario would have federal goons threatening to stand servicemembers up before a firing squad if they refuse to obey, but in THAT scenario, Marines specifically would likely have a huge knee-jerk reaction and push the numbers UP rather than down. Believe it or not, Marines often have problems with authority....I know that's counter-intuitive, but take it from someone who has been there and done that. ;-)

Gunny, I hope you are right, but I think your numbers are way off. I remember a report published in the late 80's in SOF that was done by a retired Col. My memory is admittedly fuzz after 25 years, but the gist was that he surveyed 500ish active duty Marines. A third would open fire on a group of protesting UNARMED U.S. civilians if ordered to do so. The vast majority said they would engage U.S. citizens engaged in an armed rebellion.

The reason why I remember that article is because it was instumental in changing my mind about wanting a military career.

[Oyate]

:)

Welcome home, Marine.

Some of the most beautiful words we ever get to say in our lives. Welcome home, soldiers.

Another thing that makes our movement different from any other.

[Danke]

So given those historical facts, I am a little curious to learn on what exactly you base your theory that the Marines were usually used for spearheading imperialism.

Nice way to twist what I wrote.

The Marines have been in most (all?) of our little wars expanding our empire. But being that the Army is larger, they usually have a bigger presence.




Corporal takes offense at Captains order and breaks his jaw. That kind of thing is simply unheard of today in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. ESPECIALLY the Air Force.

:rolleyes:

Officer are the ones mostly doing the direct fighting in the Air Force.


But your passion does not align with the facts here.

Pot calling the kettle black.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, I hope you are right, but I think your numbers are way off. I remember a report published in the late 80's in SOF that was done by a retired Col. My memory is admittedly fuzz after 25 years, but the gist was that he surveyed 500ish active duty Marines. A third would open fire on a group of protesting UNARMED U.S. civilians if ordered to do so. The vast majority said they would engage U.S. citizens engaged in an armed rebellion.

The reason why I remember that article is because it was instumental in changing my mind about wanting a military career.

That makes sense in the late 80's. Not the bit about opening fire aginst ann unarmed group of civilians; but that most would fight an armed rebellion. And armed rebellion in the late 80's meant something different than it does today.

Again, this boils down to what the world was like OUTSIDE the Corps at the time. In 1988, an armed rebellion would have been people fighting AGAINST the US Constitution, and they would be defending the US Constitution against domestic enemies.

Today, an armed rebellion would mean people fighting FOR the US Constitution, and that makes all the difference in the world.

[Acala]

To this point; that would be the stupidest thing the US.Gov has ever done, if that is the route they choose. First and foremost, most arms-bearing Americans would (rightly so!) be hesitant to fire on Americans, but the Chinese? They'll have a field day! Not to mention that if foreigners were selected to enforce martial law in the US, you's have 90% desertions in the USMC within 72 hours, coming home to defend the ranch, and probably 70% to 80% from the US Army. No matter how many are deployed overseas, there are still LOTS of troops at home.

I agree. Our government can't possibly be stupid enough to deploy a foreign army against a well-armed and fully awakened American people. It would be a slaughter. (Although a largely DISARMED and demoralized American people in a couple decades from now might be a different story.) This is why the stories about agreements with Canadian and Mexican armed forces concern me very little.

When Ron Paul was asked if, as President, he would deploy the military if Canada invaded Montana, he answered (and I paraphrase) "I think Montana could probably handle that by itself, but I would deploy the military to help them if they needed it. They wouldn't.

[GunnyFreedom]

Nice way to twist what I wrote.

The Marines have been in most (all?) of our little wars expanding our empire. But being that the Army is larger, they usually have a bigger presence.


From where I sit, it looks like you are the one doing the twisting. The Northern Mariana Islands are the only territory in the world seized by Marines that remains part of our territorial empire today, and that was seized during a Constitutionally declared war against Japan in response to an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor.



:rolleyes:

Officer are the ones mostly doing the direct fighting in the Air Force.


And, in line with what I said earlier, officers are the least likely to bolt, given that they have the greatest amount of state indoctrination.



Pot calling the kettle black.

Nevertheless, I am providing facts and rational logical arguments to back up my claims, where you are simply saying "no, it aint so!"

[Anti Federalist]

To this point; that would be the stupidest thing the US.Gov has ever done, if that is the route they choose. First and foremost, most arms-bearing Americans would (rightly so!) be hesitant to fire on Americans, but the Chinese? They'll have a field day! Not to mention that if foreigners were selected to enforce martial law in the US, you's have 90% desertions in the USMC within 72 hours, coming home to defend the ranch, and probably 70% to 80% from the US Army. No matter how many are deployed overseas, there are still LOTS of troops at home.

That was going to be my next question.

Thanks for your previous response as well.

As I am sure you can understand, I regard this to be of critical importance.

[Danke]

Again, this boils down to what the world was like OUTSIDE the Corps at the time. In 1988, an armed rebellion would have been people fighting AGAINST the US Constitution, and they would be defending the US Constitution against domestic enemies.

Today, an armed rebellion would mean people fighting FOR the US Constitution, and that makes all the difference in the world.

What has changed?

[GunnyFreedom]

What has changed?

In the late 80's there were not nearly so many eggregious violations of the Constitution in place. We had, what? The income tax and a few gun laws?

Today we have the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, The John Warner Defense Appropriations Bill, Free Speech Zones, and heavy restrictions on our right to redress grievances just to name a few off the top of my head.

Back in the late 80's, the Bill of Rights was (mostly) intact, with a little issue with the 2nd, and a little more of an issue with the 9th and 10th amendments.

Today, there are more holes than what is left untouched!

The 1st is greatly weakened, the 2nd is weakened but has recently received relief from the USSC. The 3rd is irrelevant today, although they make a practice of abrogating it in Iraq, so should they ever work in the US I imagine they will abrogate it here too. The 4th is basically gone. The 5th is basically gone. The 6th is in OK shape, as well as the 7th. The 8th is in good shape sp long as you aren't poor or black, but the 9th and 10th amendments have been missing for over 100 years.

And people are starting to notice it, too. People who tend to pay attention to the US Constitution wil notice it faster than others.

[Danke]

In the late 80's there were not nearly so many eggregious violations of the Constitution in place. We had, what? The income tax and a few gun laws?

Today we have the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, The John Warner Defense Appropriations Bill, Free Speech Zones, and heavy restrictions on our right to redress grievances just to name a few off the top of my head.

Back in the late 80's, the Bill of Rights was (mostly) intact, with a little issue with the 2nd, and a little more of an issue with the 9th and 10th amendments.

Today, there are more holes than what is left untouched!

The 1st is greatly weakened, the 2nd is weakened but has recently received relief from the USSC. The 3rd is irrelevant today, although they make a practice of abrogating it in Iraq, so should they ever work in the US I imagine they will abrogate it here too. The 4th is basically gone. The 5th is basically gone. The 6th is in OK shape, as well as the 7th. The 8th is in good shape sp long as you aren't poor or black, but the 9th and 10th amendments have been missing for over 100 years.

And people are starting to notice it, too. People who tend to pay attention to the US Constitution wil notice it faster than others.

I agree.

So it's a matter of degree that will perk up a Marine?

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree.

So it's a matter of degree that will perk up a Marine?

I wouldn't say degree so much as notice. In the 80's they woudn't have KNOWN that our US.Gov was eating the Constitution. Today it's a LOT more obvious.

In other words, in the late 80's I'd imaginr a Lance Corporal asking, "Hey Gunny, what's up with these people?"

Gunny says, "I dunno, something about they want the right to own moarters."

Where today Gunny says, "It seems they believe the US Government is in gross violation of the US Constitution."

LCPL says, "Oh. well. hmm." and the two share a look.

that kind of thing.

[Danke]

I wouldn't say degree so much as notice. In the 80's they woudn't have KNOWN that our US.Gov was eating the Constitution. Today it's a LOT more obvious.

In other words, in the late 80's I'd imaginr a Lance Corporal asking, "Hey Gunny, what's up with these people?"

Gunny says, "I dunno, something about they want the right to own moarters."

Where today Gunny says, "It seems they believe the US Government is in gross violation of the US Constitution."

LCPL says, "Oh. well. hmm." and the two share a look.

that kind of thing.

I wonder how many in Fallujah are sharing that look?

[GunnyFreedom]

I wonder how many in Fallujah are sharing that look?

I'm sure a lot. Of course it makes a big difference when it's at home compared to overseas.

Mind you, I do want to clarify that a US action within the US borders against US Citizens is the LEAST PROBABLE SHTF scenario that I envision. I envision a thousand different SHTF scenarios more probable than that one.

I mean, as an S-2 (Intelligence) guy when I was in, helping prepare the various scenarios, I do feel obligated to prepare for every concievable scenario even the ones you don't really expect. So I have done a lot of thinking about it. But more likely is an economic collapse followed by a gangland/black market takeover, or followed by an imported Islamic extremist insurgency. In which case the US Armed forces would be on our side anyway.

I just want to make clear that the scenarios we are talking about here are those that I consider to be the least likely.

[Kalifornia]

That makes sense in the late 80's. Not the bit about opening fire aginst ann unarmed group of civilians; but that most would fight an armed rebellion. And armed rebellion in the late 80's meant something different than it does today.

Again, this boils down to what the world was like OUTSIDE the Corps at the time. In 1988, an armed rebellion would have been people fighting AGAINST the US Constitution, and they would be defending the US Constitution against domestic enemies.

Today, an armed rebellion would mean people fighting FOR the US Constitution, and that makes all the difference in the world.

sorry gunny, but I gotta disagree. the anti-fed groups that spawned in the late 80s were complaining largely about what we are complaining about today. overarching feds and a loss of sovereignty and states rights. it took them some time to get hostile enough to start confronting the feds in the 90s.

Now if you are saying that your boyz are a little behind the political curve and would have been considering some communist insurgency, that might explain it somewhat, but SOF was concerned enough about patriot/constitutioanlist/sovereignty groups to run the report, so Im not sure that totally explains it away.

[Danke]

sorry gunny, but I gotta disagree. the anti-fed groups that spawned in the late 80s were complaining largely about what we are complaining about today. overarching feds and a loss of sovereignty and states rights. it took them some time to get hostile enough to start confronting the feds in the 90s.

Now if you are saying that your boyz are a little behind the political curve and would have been considering some communist insurgency, that might explain it somewhat, but SOF was concerned enough about patriot/constitutioanlist/sovereignty groups to run the report, so Im not sure that totally explains it away.

Yes. I have talked with a few of these warriors. And they basically have thrown their hands up in the air at the sheeple.

Kinda like reinventing the wheel now, to them at least. Been there, done that... seems to be a prevalent attitude.

Also, my impression is they are now not interested. Look after yourself, trust no one.

But guys like G. Edward Griffin give us hope. He has been saying these things for years, and he has stuck around.

[GunnyFreedom]

sorry gunny, but I gotta disagree. the anti-fed groups that spawned in the late 80s were complaining largely about what we are complaining about today. overarching feds and a loss of sovereignty and states rights. it took them some time to get hostile enough to start confronting the feds in the 90s.

Now if you are saying that your boyz are a little behind the political curve and would have been considering some communist insurgency, that might explain it somewhat, but SOF was concerned enough about patriot/constitutioanlist/sovereignty groups to run the report, so Im not sure that totally explains it away.

Back in the 80's there was no way the US.Gov could have passed a Patriot Act, or a Homegrown Terrorist Act, or the FISA Amendment. Regardless of whether people saw the Gov't going in a bad direction back then (I did myself as a matter of fact) the fact is we were in a different environment altogether. The things that the Gov't is doing today could not have even been comprehended back in the 80's period.

[Kalifornia]

Back in the 80's there was no way the US.Gov could have passed a Patriot Act, or a Homegrown Terrorist Act, or the FISA Amendment. Regardless of whether people saw the Gov't going in a bad direction back then (I did myself as a matter of fact) the fact is we were in a different environment altogether. The things that the Gov't is doing today could not have even been comprehended back in the 80's period.

seems to me that the primary difference between then and now is that now they do it openly, wrapped in the flag.

I was really hoping that after the waco and ruby ridge fiascos and the very misguided blowback, that someone in dc learned some lessons.

turns out the only lesson they learned was that gthy needed a foreign threat instead of a domestic one to get their agenda approved.