The Civil War Of 2016: U.S. Military Officers Told To Plan To Fight Americans...

[Mr.Nick]

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

I didn't come up with the scenario, Jake, Col.Benson and Ms, Weber did. The clear intent of the article they wrote is to be politically provocative.

By the way, last I checked, we don't even summarily execute Taliban insurgents in the field in Afghanistan, but I gather you think the army should summarily execute Americans here at home. I don't know what you're smoking or otherwise ingesting today, but your thinking has definitely become unsound.

P.S. Wasn't it your side that complained we were "executing enemy prisoners" in Vietnam?

Which law is that?

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

Really? Then explain the tyrannical SCOTUS purpose???

 

[rightwinger]

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.

I didn't come up with the scenario, Jake, Col.Benson and Ms, Weber did. The clear intent of the article they wrote is to be politically provocative.

By the way, last I checked, we don't even summarily execute Taliban insurgents in the field in Afghanistan, but I gather you think the army should summarily execute Americans here at home. I don't know what you're smoking or otherwise ingesting today, but your thinking has definitely become unsound.

P.S. Wasn't it your side that complained we were "executing enemy prisoners" in Vietnam?

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

Really? Then explain the tyrannical SCOTUS purpose???

Interpret the constitution and whether laws passed by the other branches comply with it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read Article III of the Constitution, Nick, and get back to us.

You guys can barely read much less understand.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The second amendment is not a law. There are however, thousands of gun laws on the books

It's a right - a civil liberty - hence law.

Gun control laws are tyrannical....

Your feelings on guns are moot considering the Second Amendment exists - what you or anyone else feels is "logical" is irrelevant, and that is something a lot of progressives don't comprehend...

If that's the case, why do gun laws exist? How do we determine which guns can be sold, who can legally buy them, where and when you can fire them?

A right is not a law. However, laws must comply with those rights

Gun laws exist because tyrants have zero respect for the Bill of Rights (see Chicago)...

The SCOTUS only ruled against the city of Chicago on their tyrannical Second Amendment position - yet Daley refused to comply.

When fucks like that makeup a majority - you're going to have tyranny.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which law is that?

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

Correct, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, it’s that case law which establishes the limits of government authority and the limits of our civil rights. All laws must conform to Constitutional case law and laws (or parts of laws) which are offensive to the Constitution are invalidated accordingly.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I didn't come up with the scenario, Jake, Col.Benson and Ms, Weber did. The clear intent of the article they wrote is to be politically provocative.

By the way, last I checked, we don't even summarily execute Taliban insurgents in the field in Afghanistan, but I gather you think the army should summarily execute Americans here at home. I don't know what you're smoking or otherwise ingesting today, but your thinking has definitely become unsound.

P.S. Wasn't it your side that complained we were "executing enemy prisoners" in Vietnam?

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

Really? Then explain the tyrannical SCOTUS purpose???

Interpret the constitution and whether laws passed by the other branches comply with it

You mean weather or not laws contradict or outright violate preexisting laws?

Sorry to break your mind but the Bill of Rights are our founding laws - our founding rights and liberties....

 

[The Gadfly]

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side? I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry. Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.

Jake, I served too, including a combat tour as an infantry officer in Vietnam; and I cannot think of anything so odious, as having to order my men to open fire on Americans in the streets of an American town here at home! Only in the gravest extreme, when civilian law enforcement had exhausted all efforts and utterly failed to resolve a situation like the one outlined, would I do such a thing; even then, I would do it with the deepest personal and professional regret. I would not wish to be on either side of such a conflict, a position I have stated repeatedly here. You, apparently, would relish it.

One might well ask, if we ever come to a day when only military force used against our own people here at home will keep the nation together, whether what we would have become, as a nation and a people, would be worth it. An authoritarian, garrison/police state, whether of the Right or of the Left, with the constitution we swore to support and defend in tatters, hardly seems a worthwhile objective.

 

[Mr.Nick]

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

Correct, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, it’s that case law which establishes the limits of government authority and the limits of our civil rights. All laws must conform to Constitutional case law and laws (or parts of laws) which are offensive to the Constitution are invalidated accordingly.

Really? are you that fucking stupid calling the Bill of Rights "case law?"

If you haven't noticed its called the Bill of Rights for a fucking reason...

Your post is nothing than more proof that progressives hate liberty and the Bill of Rights.

Case law my ass 500,000 + men and woman have died for those ideas and you have the fucking audacity to call it "case law?"

 

[The Gadfly]

The second amendment is not a law. There are however, thousands of gun laws on the books

It's a right - a civil liberty - hence law.

Gun control laws are tyrannical....

Your feelings on guns are moot considering the Second Amendment exists - what you or anyone else feels is "logical" is irrelevant, and that is something a lot of progressives don't comprehend...

If that's the case, why do gun laws exist? How do we determine which guns can be sold, who can legally buy them, where and when you can fire them?

A right is not a law. However, laws must comply with those rights

Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[rightwinger]

Really? Then explain the tyrannical SCOTUS purpose???

Interpret the constitution and whether laws passed by the other branches comply with it

You mean weather or not laws contradict or outright violate preexisting laws?

Sorry to break your mind but the Bill of Rights are our founding laws - our founding rights and liberties....

They are not laws, they are rights

You cannot arrest someone for violation of the first amendment. The bill of rights is directed at the government, not the people.

 

[rightwinger]

It's a right - a civil liberty - hence law.

Gun control laws are tyrannical....

Your feelings on guns are moot considering the Second Amendment exists - what you or anyone else feels is "logical" is irrelevant, and that is something a lot of progressives don't comprehend...

If that's the case, why do gun laws exist? How do we determine which guns can be sold, who can legally buy them, where and when you can fire them?

A right is not a law. However, laws must comply with those rights

Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes

 

[Douger]

Which law is that?

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

They have you right where they want you.

 

[Mr.Nick]

It's a right - a civil liberty - hence law.

Gun control laws are tyrannical....

Your feelings on guns are moot considering the Second Amendment exists - what you or anyone else feels is "logical" is irrelevant, and that is something a lot of progressives don't comprehend...

If that's the case, why do gun laws exist? How do we determine which guns can be sold, who can legally buy them, where and when you can fire them?

A right is not a law. However, laws must comply with those rights

Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If politicians can manage to do that then they can ban Free Speech, Freedom of Press and Religion... Once they do that they can raid your home to make sure you're buying the appropriate amount of veggies from company X etc.... Of course by then we will all be reading the "Red Book" and it will be mandatory to hang the portrait of dear leader above your brainwashing machine aka TV...

All it takes is one domino to knock the rest over...

 

[Mr.Nick]

If that's the case, why do gun laws exist? How do we determine which guns can be sold, who can legally buy them, where and when you can fire them?

A right is not a law. However, laws must comply with those rights

Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes

At least you're honest with your tyranny....

You're the reason why presently this country is so fucked up.

You don't deserve your freedoms...... People died for those ideas and you support a regime that would destroy them with authoritarian fashion...

You're a piece of shit coward and will always be one.... That's a fucking fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Odious? Putting down domestic terrorists who turned their backs on the Constitution, on electoral and constitutional process?

I would have no professional or personal regret for putting down rats who soiled Old Glory by rebellion.

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side? I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry. Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.

Jake, I served too, including a combat tour as an infantry officer in Vietnam; and I cannot think of anything so odious, as having to order my men to open fire on Americans in the streets of an American town here at home! Only in the gravest extreme, when civilian law enforcement had exhausted all efforts and utterly failed to resolve a situation like the one outlined, would I do such a thing; even then, I would do it with the deepest personal and professional regret. I would not wish to be on either side of such a conflict, a position I have stated repeatedly here. You, apparently, would relish it.

One might well ask, if we ever come to a day when only military force used against our own people here at home will keep the nation together, whether what we would have become, as a nation and a people, would be worth it. An authoritarian, garrison/police state, whether of the Right or of the Left, with the constitution we swore to support and defend in tatters, hardly seems a worthwhile objective.

 

[The Gadfly]

If that's the case, why do gun laws exist? How do we determine which guns can be sold, who can legally buy them, where and when you can fire them?

A right is not a law. However, laws must comply with those rights

Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes

Thank you for the clarification. Now, perhaps you can explain, if you progressives can disarm the people before the courts can rule on it, just what constitutional remedies the people would have, when the law is overturned. ANY? In fact, if not in law, you would have effectively deprived a great many people of their constitutional right; is that your intent?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read Article II, carefully.

Yes, the People have the opportunity to overthrow the government, and will face the consequences for failure.

Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes

Thank you for the clarification. Now, perhaps you can explain, if you progressives can disarm the people before the courts can rule on it, just what constitutional remedies the people would have, when the law is overturned. ANY? In fact, if not in law, you would have effectively deprived a great many people of their constitutional right; is that your intent?

 

[The Gadfly]

Odious? Putting down domestic terrorists who turned their backs on the Constitution, on electoral and constitutional process?

I would have no professional or personal regret for putting down rats who soiled Old Glory by rebellion.

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side? I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry. Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.

Jake, I served too, including a combat tour as an infantry officer in Vietnam; and I cannot think of anything so odious, as having to order my men to open fire on Americans in the streets of an American town here at home! Only in the gravest extreme, when civilian law enforcement had exhausted all efforts and utterly failed to resolve a situation like the one outlined, would I do such a thing; even then, I would do it with the deepest personal and professional regret. I would not wish to be on either side of such a conflict, a position I have stated repeatedly here. You, apparently, would relish it.

One might well ask, if we ever come to a day when only military force used against our own people here at home will keep the nation together, whether what we would have become, as a nation and a people, would be worth it. An authoritarian, garrison/police state, whether of the Right or of the Left, with the constitution we swore to support and defend in tatters, hardly seems a worthwhile objective.

Then you would have been OK with the military being ordered to hunt down and kill members of the Weather Underground? After all they openly tried to overthrow the UNited States government. How about the rest of the "revolutionaries" of the "New Left"-did THEY not "soil Old Glory be rebellion"? Should we have summarily executed them too?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far left or far right. The SLA got what they deserved.

If you can't do the job, troop, resign the commission.

 

[MikeK]

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side? I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry. Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.

If you were still in the Airborne, and if there were such an uprising today, and if you were ordered to participate in armed suppression, would you respond obediently without concern for the reason for the uprising?