Previous Post
Next Post


For decades, gun control advocates scoffed at gun rights advocates who claimed that the government wanted to grab their guns. And then, Hurricane Katrina. The New Orleans police confiscated civilian firearms. (Click here for the NRA report.) Less well known: the National Guard joined the effort. Well, not all of them. Click here for Guardsman Joshua May’s refusal to violate his fellow citizens’ Second Amendment rights. One wonders if U.S. troops would grab guns in the aftermath of another catastrophe. Say, after a terrorist’s nuclear bomb attack. Or a massive earthquake. Or a major “civil disturbance.” Would American troops respect our right to keep and bear arms if called to confiscate? Doubtful. More than a few members of our Armed Intelligentsia have prepared for just such an eventuality (e.g., some gun owners have buried firearms). You?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I struggle with this concept. On one hand, I like to believe that our military will stay faithful to their oaths to defend the Constitution. On the other hand, we know what happened in Nazi Germany. Though, maybe the crucial difference in that scenario was that the SS were government agents, not military, but I’m not completely sure. So, of course, I can see the ATF confiscating door-to-door but I’m hopeful that the military and the national guard would refuse and fight on our side.

  2. no. not on a large scale. yes they made a gun grab after katrina,then they got spanked for it. during the time of richard nixon’s losing his grip on the white house and his sanity i lived in the barracks. we had this talk amongst ourselves. what would we do if nixon tried to use the military to stay in power. most of us said we would take our weapons and go over the hill before we’d turn them on americans.

    • bud, that was 2 generations ago the past is a different country. they do things differently here. the troops will do what they are told and trained to do, with enthusiasm.

  3. This is sort of a double edged sword isn’t it? I mean we want the troops to be trained to handle a situation like Katrina so we don’t make the same mistakes. Regardless of my feelings towards the Occupy movement and the City of Oakland they handled the situation without a lot of escalation. I mean Oakland could have turned into another Kent State, but the police kept their hands off the rigger for the most part.

    If Katrina wasn’t such a massive failure on all fronts by Local, State and Federal government they could have acted to declare Martial Law and the taking of guns would have been within their rights under the Constitution. Not that I am condoning the disarmament, I am just pointing out that there was a correct way to do things but alas, nothing in the Chocolate Crescent City was done right.

    • “and the taking of guns would have been within their rights under the Constitution”

      How so? Is it within their legitimate government powers to take away guns based on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights or is it based on newer White House National Security Council resolutions, new laws passed by Congress ie Patriot Act type laws, and often subjective US Supreme Court rulings?

      Personally, I don’t think the government is entitled to have any ‘rights’. Only private citizens can have individual rights. I do recognize that a legitimate government can and needs to have legitimate government powers.

      • In the Constitution under Article 1 it allows for the President and the Congress to suspend Habeus Corpus and use the Militia to suppress insurrection. Essentially The President, Congress or a Governor can declare a state of Martial law and use the military to control the situation and enforce the rule of law as they see fit. Which is basically what happened in Katrina, except they did it out of order. The Governor brought in the National Guard (National Militia) and used the police force to enforce the rule of law, but he declared Martial Law after they arrived and the Superintendent of New Orleans issued an order to disarm civilians. Had the Govenor declared a State of Emergency, then declared Martial Law all of the actions of the police, militia and security contractors would have been permissible, (as long as they were issued with authorization from the acting government).

        There is an order to how you can do things during a disaster. The local government must ask the state to declare the area a disaster zone, the State must ask the Feds for assistance before the National Guard and FEMA can be utilized to issue aid. I believe the Stafford Act spells out this process. I believe the Patriot act has amended or added additional powers to Homeland Security (who controls the National Guard) which are spelled out in Section 13 of the National Response Framework which I believe was employed during Katrina ie. Deputizing, Site Security, Crowd Control and general policing.

        • While I don’t agree with the extra powers government has awarded itself and the definition of insurrection, I appreciate your reply. The American people do have the right to rebel against an unjust government or one that takes powers unto itself that oppress the liberty of the people as I understand the original laws.

        • BS!

          “Essentially The President, Congress or a Governor can declare a state of Martial law and use the military to control the situation and enforce the rule of law as they see fit.”

          The constitution defines particular criteria (invasion and insurrection) as reasons. This is nowhere near “as they see fit.”

          The constitution was written precisely to prevent government from depending on the whim of men. To think otherwise betrays a deep lack of education and insight.

          Katrina is NOT an example of the constitution in action. It is an example of government acting UNconstitutionally.

          The directive to disarm the population was later found improper and NOL was ordered to return the guns (not that they complied).

          Also, Governors do NOT need the ok of the feds to mobilize their state NG’s.

    • No part of the Constitution allows for the “INFRINGEMENT” of the Bill of Rights! μολὼν λαβέ!

      • Article 1 section 9 and Article 1 section 8 allow for the government to suspend the constitution if it is necessary. Well not suspend it, but to ignore it until such times as they see fit. Abe Lincoln did it, Andrew Jackson did it, and Roosevelt did it. History is a b!tch if you care to study it.

        • Yet more evidence as to why the Constitution does not actually protect an individual’s natural, inherent rights.

        • BS! Total BS. I think you got very poor grades in history. Section 9 permits suspension of habeas corpus in case of rebellion or insurrection. Section 8 is silent in this regard.

          The Supreme Court said in Milligan that martial law destroys the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. ML can be imposed in areas where civil law has broken down to the point that it cannot function. This is nowhere near your “ignor[ing] it [the constitution] until such times as they see fit.”

          Jackson’s declaration was limited to his encampment and surrounding 4 mile area. Jackson’s suspension of habeas was was overruled by a local judge, but this was entirely a matter of chain of command and Jackson needing proper orders(to confirm the end of the war). There was no suggestion of impropriety.

          Lincoln’s was limited to “prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy.” (
          Lincoln’s imposition of martial law was congressionally approved. It was not the act of a power mad hater of the constitution. Rather, it was the thinking of the best and brightest of his time, the representatives of the people. That it was later found unconstitutional proves that our system of checks and balances works.

          Roosevelt’s was limited to Hawaii. A court later found that it went on too long. Again, this is a matter of checks and balances and defining precedents – specific guidelines absent from the constitution. There is no evil power grab here. Nor is there any evidence to support your implication that these past examples are evidence of leaders who feel like they can suspend the constitution as they see fit.

          None of your examples support your statements.

          Nowhere does the constitution consider or allow suspension of the constitution or civil rights.

          Note carefully, please, that I am NOT arguing that a corrupt politician or president might attempt to suspend our rights. But this is certainly not permitted under the constitution.

          A simple reading of the constitution would have shown you that you are incorrect. I guess sometimes facts are a bitch too.

        • I disagree it allows suspension of the Constitution. If they can suspend the entire Constitution because of an emergency, then why bother having a Constitution. What that refers to is the ability to hold a person against their will without charging them with a crime for an extended period of time.

    • “they could have acted to declare Martial Law and the taking of guns would have been within their rights under the Constitution. ”

      So very, deeply, wrong. See my comments below.

      You need to re-evaluate your education on the matter of the constitution before posting on the subject.

      Even if martial law is imposed (not that the constitution even considers this term), there is no precedent to support the idea that it would involve a revocation of all constitutional rights. Martial law has usually been used to keep order in the streets and fight spies or other illegal combatants. So perhaps large demonstrations may be limited (for a limited, reasonable period of time matching the events necessitating imposition of ML). But there are no instances where large scale civilian gun confiscation occurred, other than Katrina (which was an illegal act by an extraordinarily corrupt local government).

      There is no “correct way” to go about revoking our civil rights. Again, not to say that corrupt politicians can’t try. It’s just that it’s impermissible under the constitution.

      • I will just use this space to reply to Dubya,

        As to your first objection, you allude to the circumstances in which Habeas corpus can be suspended by the President. You are correct Article 9 does say it can be revoked during Insurrection or Rebellion, but Article 8 states that Congress may “[Call] forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union…” Governor’s also have the ability to declare Martial law which was the case in Katrina. You are correct that there are certain limitations to the federal government declaring martial law and suspending rights, however those clauses do not pertain to the states who govern by a different set of rules set forth in their own constitutions and can request federal aid according to the rules set forth by the Stafford act. Which you haven’t read, but you barely read what I wrote anyway.

        With respect to Katrina, I never said Katrina was an example of the constitution working, in fact I said the opposite that the Crescent City did everything wrong. What I did say was that had the followed the Stafford act and declared a State of Emergency, Requested Aid from the Federal Government (FEMA and the NATIONAL GUARD ie the NATIONAL MILITIA) and then declare Martial Law the actions taken AS LONG AS THEY WERE ORDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT would have been legal. Under Louisiana penal code RS:392.6 allows for specific circumstances that the government can declare a state of emergency. In that clause it allows for the disarming of citizens under very specific circumstances. The disarming of citizens was illegal because the order was not made during the declaration and the firearms were not returned to the civilians before they were dismissed. However that does not mean that during Martial Law civilian disarmament could not be made more permanent.

        Now let’s look at some of the legal actions that have been upheld during martial law. The suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, holding a person without cause, relocating individuals to “internment camps”, suspension of firearm sales, the setting of curfews, restricting the right of assembly, and the confiscation of arms of potential enemy combatants. Of all of these actions taken and upheld by the supreme court, two are enumerated by the Constitution. Under current laws there is not a limit to the rights that can be suspended under martial law, so it is not a stretch to say that 2a could be suspended, again or that other rights could not also be suspended. It is pretty hard to vote if you are in an interment camp.

        Now on to my list of Presidents who have declared Martial Law and suspended parts of the bill of rights; the OP said that no part of the Bill of rights could be suspended. You clarified my remarks and proved that they could, specifically the 1st, (Freedom of Speech and the Right to Assembly), 4th (unreasonable search and seizure) 5th, (Due process), 6th (Trial by Jury), and possibly the 9th. In LA during a State of Emergency your firearms can be confiscated which would cover 2a (but must be returned unless you are arrested, but since you can be denied due process it and arrested without cause they can keep your firearms for until the State of Emergency is over.) So my remarks were justified, and proven by you. Thanks. You might want to bone up on your reading skills before going off on a tantrum.

        • State and Federal issues are entirely different. I was addressing Federal. Let’s not confuse the issue by co-mingling them.

          My point was that the Const. foresaw and allowed for the suspension of habeas in cases of insurrection or rebellion.

          Court precedent, established in response to the Federal use of this suspension has shown that this power must be limited in both time and scope.

          There is no Federal example that shows this limitation hasn’t been inherent in all of the suspensions. Subsequent court actions have simply been a matter of how limited they were.

          In Hawaii the suspension should have been removed sooner.

          Jackson’s suspension lasted until he received orders through his chain of command, later than a local judge wished. This resulted in a $1,000 fine that he paid and was reimbursed by the federal government. This was a petty matter.

          Lincoln’s suspension was found to overreach because civil courts were available to try Milligan’s case.

          Each of these precedents do, indeed, establish that suspension of some civil liberties is allowed by the constitution and court precedent in time of war, but they also prove my point that the suspensions are carefully limited in scope.

          The fact that I disagreed with you does not mean that I didn’t read your post. Indeed, I read it very carefully, andI also re-read the pertinent sections of the constitution and summaries of the court precedents.

          Your main point is that the constitution allowed widespread revocation of the constitution at the whim of our leaders. Careful reading of the constitution and of the resulting court precedents clearly shows this in incorrect.

          You seem to rely on a misreading of the constitution, a misunderstanding of the case precedents, an inability to separate federal from state actions, nebulous and deep-seated fears and a willingness to think the worst of our constitution and country to arrive at this conclusion. Why do you fear that you might be considered an enemy of our country? There’s no other way that you might be subjected to any legal, proper suspension of rights.

          Yes, when you mingle ignorance and fear to slur our constitution and country, I will throw a tantrum, if that’s what you mean by laying out the facts for you.

          Stop listening to the fear-mongers who want to throw our constitution away.

          If you want to say you fear that a corrupt leader could try to take away our God-given and constitutionally protected rights, I will join you wholeheartedly. I, too, fear powerful men.

          So did our country’s founders. That’s precisely why they wrote the constitution as they did.

          I trust our constitution and the people of this nation as the best possible means to uphold freedom and democracy. I would fight to the death to protect them, if I was placed in front of a fit target.

          When you allow your fears and confusion to move you into the camp that says the the constitution itself is part of the problem, as far as I’m concerned, you’ve joined the enemy camp.

          Not that I will ever face you, but there are many, many who might. Be happy that this is still a time of peace. You still have time to resolve your issues and confusion.

      • Dubya, your inability to follow the conversation astounds me.

        The reason I co-mingled state and federal laws regarding States of Emergency and Martial law is because Hurricane Katrina is mentioned in the original post by RF. I stated my position that while the confiscation of firearms was done improperly by the SI at NOPD, there is a way that it could have happened that is permissible under the constitution. Another poster asked me how and I explained that Congress and the President may suspend Habeas Corpus and use federal troops to quell an insurrection OR enforce the laws of the land. And that a Governor may follow a chain of command that would allow him to request federal assistance in dealing with an emergency using the Stafford act. In the Stafford act it explains how much money and federal law enforcement personnel may be used to help local police. As part of that, the Governor could declare martial law request the President or congress to suspend Habeas Corpus and utilize a state law allowing police and federal troops to confiscate civilian firearms. All of that is permissible Under Federal and State laws and all of it is Constitutional.

        Another poster said that the entirety of the Bill of Rights could not be infringed, to which I replied that it could until such time as the Government sees fits. I did not say that there weren’t time limits to the infringement, or that another branch of the government could limit Congress or the President, but simply that the government as a whole could infringe upon our civil liberties and the constitution allowed for it.

        Now each instance where The President s did suspend rights ie infringe citizens rights the Supreme court ruled some suspensions were overstepping their bounds. However, that proves my point because the Supreme court is the judicial branch and part of the government. The whole of the government decides how long to suspend our rights, not the populace. So the government, of which the supreme court is a part of, can take away our civil liberties and they alone decide for how long they can be revoked. I did not say that the government can revokes our rights on a whim, you inferred what I did not imply. In fact i laid out a very specific instance with very specific factors that would justify a revocation.

        If you want me to break down how a Governor can start a chain of events that will allow for him to confiscate firearms I can. But the gist of it is can be founfArticle 1 section 8, Article 1 section 9, and Article 6 of the constitution. As well as the 10th amendment, the Stafford Act, and the National Response Framework. Combing the powers and actions described withing these articles, sections, acts, and guidelines a Governor can take your guns.

    • As the token Nasty Guard jack-booted thug here, please accept my condolences on the loss of all of your firearms in a series of unfortunate boating accidents. It’s weird that it happens to everyone I am likely to encounter in the course of my duties, but I guess it’s just one of those things.

  4. I had to double layer my tin-foil to get through that. I’m conflicted on how to feel about all this information. On one hand, I definitely get that this guy’s job is to blow things up into a conspiracy theory, so I take the report with a healthy dose of Sodium Cloride. On the other hand, I know that post-September 11, a lot of really shady, liberty infringing, privacy striping things occurred that, before 2001, people would have shit bricks over and revolted. The Patriot Act is more like the Big Brother Act.
    I can understand beefing up security and preparing for all eventualities, but am I the only one who would rather face the miniscule chance of being in the blast radius of a terrorist attack over knowing 100% that at almost all times, there is something monitoring my actions?

    • Your not the only one, but you are in the minority. The vast majority of Sheep believe they need to be protected and willing to sacrafice their liberty to be protected from even the smallest threat versus being self-reliant and be ready should something happen. Freedom is not free and the boogie man is not ever present in every shadow but many sheep do thing this way.

    • Alex Jones is completely unreliable as a source of information, imo. He’s considerably cleaned up his websites, to tone down the blatant lunacy.

      He promotes everything from 9/11 “trooferism (that it was done by Bush) to (space) alien abduction to “alien” takeover of our genome (

      This is a true high-functioning psychopath on the order of L. Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones.

      TTAG should know better than to give him any airplay. If he’s quoting good sources, go there and quote from them.

  5. another keyboard commando heard from. back to the grownup part of the discussion. i don’t know if i accept that martial law is allowed under our constitution. where’s the due process that we’re supposed to have during legal proceedings? same question with curfews. you’re being placed under house arrest without charges or a trial. maybe ralph has the answers to this. ammo first. that’s fng cherry talk.

    • During the War Between the States, Honest Abe suspended the right of habeas corpus. He also suspended the First Amendment as it pertained to pro-Confederacy writings, shutting down many newspapers and broadsides that disagreed with him — without evidence of any wrongful activity except for such disagreements. He had people that he or his minions viewed as dangerous confined without trial. He sent government troops to occupy places that were not in rebellion.

      Granted, the so-called Civil War was a “civil disturbance” beyond parallel, but I’m not encouraged that a modern government wouldn’t do the same or worse under lesser circumstances.

      After all, what’s the point in having power if you can’t abuse it?

      • What Abe did was found unconstitutional, but only in the places where the courts could still function, but we interred thousands of German and Japanese Americans during WWII in the name of safety. As far as I know Exclusion zones have been upheld constitutionally as long as they are not based on race.

        • The US government is a perfect example of a country having a excellent constitution, though, like all governments, has the propensity to ignore it and hope for the best.

          Lets face it: the fact stands that governments of all types will do whatever the hell they want and deal with the consequences later.

      • The Civil War was an insurrection, exactly as contemplated by the language of the constitution.

        Suspending habeas corpus, an act allowed by the constitution in case of insurrection IS imprisoning without trial. Our forefathers foresaw this necessity.

        Lincoln’s suspension was explicitly limited to “prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy, as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. ” That is illegal combatants.

        Suppression of the enemy’s free speech (read propaganda) is not an unusual act in time of war. By their secession, I’m guessing (seems rational but I lack references now), the southern states lost the protections of the U.S. Constitution. They themselves chose not to be a part of it.

        And as far as “minions” goes? The term presupposes an evil leader. Are you going to go there with Lincoln?

    • jwm, I think this is the part of the Constitution you’re looking for:

      “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

      The Supreme Court has also added that Habeas can only be suspended if and when the civilian courts cannot operate.

  6. There are not enough of them to take the guns, some 300+ million, from 85 to 133 Million Americans. Once it started it would spread like fire through the country. Then the shooting would start.

    US Military 1.2 to 2.5 Million-most stationed/deployed overseas

    Federal, State, Local Law Enforcement 750,000-850,000

    American Firearm Owners 85 to 133,000,000

    80,000 troops are not enough. Plus, they had better make peace with God before they started!

    • The sheer numbers aren’t what you have to use to calculate the odds of victory. The discrepancy between the firepower available and the training of the forces must be accounted for.

      I don’t believe there will ever be another successful revolution in America… Bunker busters, advanced surveillance equipment, and billions of dollars in training vs. hunting rifles and handguns and OFWGs with little or no training…. Its almost worse than bringing knives to a gunfight.

      • I agree completely. Kandahar in Afghanistan was brought under control of the US will less than 100 men on the ground. In fact I think it took 2 special forces teams and a dozen or so Jets to defeat 1,000 plus Al Queda. As mush as we like our black rifles, these guys were shooting at the US troops with Ar’s and Remington 700’s. They had Anti-Aircraft, Full auto AK 47’s and RPG’s, will full loads of ammo and hand grenades. I don’t know about you, but I can’t easily get my hands on any of that hardware, nor do I have the training and support of the U.S. military. Any insurrection in the US will be met with a swift end before it can even begin to build momentum.

        • research the “snowball” effect of guerrilla war. ARs and Remington 700s will quickly change into machine guns, rocket launchers, and missiles.

        • Look at the numbers – 4 million total military, police, and federal agents (this includes paper pushers who’ve never touched a gun) and conservative estimate, about 65 million gun owners in the US. That means that as long as we kill one of them for every 16 of us that they kill, we’ll still have at least 250,000 gun owners left standing after they’re all dead.

        • I don’t mean to nitpick here Toten, but how are you going to shoot down Jets, Drones, Tanks, APC’s and all of the other millions of dollars of hardware that the US military have at their disposal? Deer rifles and knock-offs of military weapon systems won’t stand for very long against the full force of the US military. Like I said, in Kandahar 11 men on the ground and their air support topple the Taliban and installed Karzai as the new President. Gun-owners are not a unified fighting force, nor are they all well trained or equipped to handle a mass insurrection. SPECOPS teams would hammer the life out of the resistance while the ground troops would simply keep the peace much like Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention that a lot of the gun-owners out there are OFWG’s with families and health issues. It’s hard to fight a war from the couch.

    • I have to disagree. Americans are law abiding and peaceful, for the most part. If they were ordered to turn them in, most would, and without a fight. The few holdouts who refused would be taken down one at a time and punished.

      The difficulty for the G wouldn’t be in the taking of the guns, it would be finding them. People would hide their family guns just like Catholics hid their family bibles under Henry VIII.

      • Large numbers ofAmericans have no problem breaking laws they consider unjust. Traffic laws and marijuana come to mind immediately. There would be an enormous amount of passive resistance from selling guns illegally to stashing and hoarding, enough to render the whole enterprise futile.

    • There is also another nasty bit of reality to consider – if our fellow citizens are up in open rebellion against the police/military, that may be one thing, but are you going to be the first to bite the proverbial bullet when they knock on your door?

      There was a scene in some movie years ago – may have been The Gambler, but don’t recall. In any event, the protagonist is holding off a moderate sized crowd with a derringer. Someone shouts – let’s get him – he only has two shots, to which the protagonist replies, yes, but which two of you want to be the ones to die?

      Sadly, any gun confiscation would be door to door with overwhelming force. Sure, some people would resist, but they and their families would promptly be shot and most people – even most gun owners would not likely resist a door-to-door action.

  7. Freeport is correct. Mass confiscation would be a logistical nightmare, if not outright impossible due to the sheer numbers involved. The cost alone would be astronomical without even getting into the reimbursment issue. The value of guns would immediately skyrocket as well, almost certainly resulting in an almost instantaneous thriving black market, with just as many confiscated guns being sold right back under the table.

    • If they made it a law that citizens must turn in their weapons or face a heavy prison sentence, a large number of those guns would walk back into the police/military stations without incident or having to knock down doors, or even giving rebates. Remember, gun owners have been proven to be the most law abiding of citizens.
      Even myself, I would have to think long and hard, weighing risk/benefit if such an event were to occur. Would you face almost assured death of yourself, your family, and your dog to stand up against an unjust government? Life (however short) in a prison meant to make you as uncomfortable and terrified as possible? Torture? Starvation? As I said, for me that would not be an easy decision. There is a chance that life after the guns were taken away would be bearable, but there is almost no chance of standing up to an army alone. Even in a group of rebels, your quality of life and chance of survival are decimated. More than likely, the number of people actually willing to act to preserve liberty and gun rights are substantially lower than you would think when you read “keyboard Commando” posts online.
      I just hope that in my lifetime we never have to find out firsthand. Lets see, I’m 20 something, with a life expectancy around 80, give or take… Can the US make it 60 more years without domestic incident? Doubt it, and apparently so does the government…

      • Ralph beat me to the point about turning in guns in his reply to Freeport. I swear I didn’t plagiarize! Great minds think alike and all that.

      • Oh, I would never try and shoot it out, that’s asinine. But given the choice of turning in my guns for little or no reimbursement or selling said now-suddenly-worth-a-ton guns on the black market and maybe at least breaking even or turning a buck? I have alot of money invested in this hobby, let’s leave it at that.

      • Yes, a lot (most?) of the law-abiding citizens would turn in their weapons if the government demanded it. What about the criminal element? They could become an un-organized (or loosely organized) army against the gun-takers, and they could very effectively annoy the gun-takers to the point that they begin to realize the folly of what they are doing.

        The US Army and our allies lost the Vietnam War against a ragtag group of poorly organized guerillas. The Soviet Army was driven out of Afghanistan by the guerillas there. In fact, our own US Revolutionary war started as a guerilla war, and guerilla tactics were often used throughout that war.

        I agree that you can’t defeat the US Military face-to-face, but almost any army can be defeated by a protracted guerilla war. Elephant in Africa have been killed by too many mosquito bites.

        • Bob, you have not studied your history very well. The military never lost in VietNam. The politicians lost that war back here in the good ol USA! They caved to the liberal-commie, that was marching in the street. They caved to the money influence that was being tossed at them.

          The military never lost a major engagement in Nam. That war was lost by the good kind hearted liberal, that bled for every commie that was killed over there.

          The bastards that spit on us, whether it was literal or figurative, were the ones that lost that war. The military did it’s job. We did our job, but we were betrayed by the govt. and the good kind hearted liberal.

          My cousin thoght it was more important to dig a well in some dirt village in afreeka, than it was to support the personel in Nam. She thought it was more important to make bad jokes about POW’s, than saying thanks to those of us that served.

          You keep believing that “…we…” lost that war, as opposed to the govt. throwing away over 58,000 lives in combat. That doesn’t include the ones that comitted suicide, after returning home, or the ones that offed themselves in country.

          Bob, you just keep believing the liberal BS. Thats what your good at.

        • Whoa, Paul! I did not mean to imply any of those things you think I was implying, and I completely agree with you.

          The thing is – That is how and why a guerilla war works so well if you are a small force against a large force. It prolongs the conflict to the point that the citizens of your enemy grow weak and tired of fighting it. Then eventually the citizens and their government start turning against their own military in the conflict. Then it is only a short time before the citizens and eventually their government demand that the military get out of that war. When that happens, the guerillas have won.

          As you stated (and I agree with what you said), that is exactly what happened in the Vietnam War.

      • I wouldn’t last long in a “1984” type of society (I’m getting old and I’ve always been a stubborn SOB who wears his discontent on his sleeve) so I think I’d be willing to “bite the proverbial bullet” as Jim Barrett said.
        Add the possibility that not just your guns, but YOU would be “confiscated” as well… in such a situation, it is likely they’d be rounding up people as well as guns. So I think I’d choose to make my exit from this life with a bang, so to speak. And who knows? I might even take one or two of them with me. If there’s a Hell (and if Christianity is true, that’s where I’m going) at least I’d know I went down a winner, or at least scored 1-1.
        Of course, it helps in my case that I have no kids, and live alone…

  8. It is a truism that the military always prepares for the last war and the last war is Iraq. A war primarily fought in urban environments. A lot of the things we did in Iraq and even Afghanistan look like how you would operate in a martial law environment. So are the troops being trained for martial law or just another Iraq?

      • I think you miss my point. INFOWARs is not a reliable source of information on the Army’s training syllabus. What looks like training for martial law to them looks like training for urban combat against an insurgency to me. Didn’t these guys go on and on about how the security for the NATO summit was just a dry run for martial law? Disturbances were handled by the CPD in a manner that they handle any similiar less high profile event.

        To put things in perspective the number combat brigades in the US Army might be able to control NYC, DC and maybe Chicago. The National Guard, which by the way has seen as much service overseas in the ast 10 years as the regular Army, is controlled by the Governors. Any attempt at imposing martial law without their consent would start a Second Civil War and the Feds know they will not win it.

        • “what looks to me”? There are videos of these trainings where they have volunteers to scream “I’m an american, you can’t do this, I have rights” while they are being zipcuffed and black bagged. Subtlety is not the government’s strong suit, the problem is they’ve never needed to be subtle because americans are on the whole like cattle walking off a cliff because they see grass on that mountain over yonder.

  9. Which is more likely?
    A group, even a large group, of armed men will take over our government and steal our country or a small group of politicians will use the Army to dictate to all of us?
    Their planning and tactics looks more designed to implement the will of a few politicians than to assist Americans in keeping their rights and way of life.

  10. on the subject of the “info wars”. if half of what alex jones and his crowd says was true they would’ve been in orange jump suits with bags on their heads on their way to gitmo or worse. alex is using the same freedoms he claims we don’t have to avoid getting a real job and sell his dvd’s to the tin foil hat crowd.

    • It’s unfortunate that the only libertarian with any real presence on talk radio is also a conspiratorial loon. (His bit on the government using juice boxes to make kids gay is hilarious!)

  11. This country’s independence was won with a war considered impossible to win against an english military far better equipped than we were at the time. Bring a knife to a gun fight analogy still sometimes looses, sometimes the knife fighter wins. We did in the 1700s, why couldnt we now? Americans for the most part are law abbiding, but the point will come when the laws are so ridiculous that they wont be tolerated anymore and will fight back. Guns are still property, and when property is forcefully taken from you, you will find some, if not a lot, will resist and fight back. There have been many that have given their lives over land and less because of the principle and the right of freedom.

    We the people, means a lot in our constitution. We the people lend our powers to the government, not have them taken away by the government. And that concept is beginning to be recogonized once again. How far things will go will be up to the people and the governments willingness to take from them. The people, just like water can sit there and heat up, to a point. But like water, the people will boil over quickly when that specfic temp is reached. I wont say IF, its just when that temp is reached it will spread quickly and broadly.

    Yes, apparently I am a gun owner, as well as a LARGE extended family on both sides. No, none of us will give them up. Neither will any of our friends, not a single person I have ever talked to will either. Those objects that the government fears are the stuff of tradition, values, tools of legit trade and sport. We may be on the low end of the totem pole when it is compared to the trained military and equipment, but as pointed out, the individual gun owner is high in numbers and I would say in numbers much higher than the example given.

    I firmly belive that just such an order could be given to the military to force the government will against us. I also FIRMLY belive the military would refuse such an order. They may train for such a thing because training doenst mean an action will be taken. The order for action will be one of great internal conflict of the top brass before such an order would ever reach the troops.

    I am just saying,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  12. Nothing strikes me as dumber than burying weapons, except maybe for caches at remote locations.

    If it’s time to bury them, it’s time to use them.

    As to the .gov attempting confiscation? Sure. Why not? They do illegal an stupid things all the time. Make up a context Declare “emergency”, feed bogus info to the press and viola!

    We can be pretty sure federal law enforcement will be happy to do so. Big city LEO as well. The rest, probably less so to not at all.

    The military? That’s a crap-shoot there. You are asking them to mutiny. Perhaps desert. Definitely risk .mil style punishment.

    If there is large scale resistance and some killing of civilians involved on any scale, I think many will go through the motions and report negative results. Others will find a way to stand down. Some will comply and that’s a worry.

    But I am fairly certain that if the federals try to act alone, they will quickly lose control, having bitten off far too much.

    People burying weapons are irrelevant. They have taken themselves out of the picture totally. They are DE-facto compliant. They have rendered their arms useless.

    If it’s time to bury them, it’s time to use them people.

    The real question is, just how many of the gun store commandos, the tacticool, the self defense advocates, the ‘constitution as a shield’ ideologists, the sportsman (aka fudd’s) and all those who advocate 2A will resist, to what degree, and what will force them to act. It’s going to come down to individuals at least at first, as the .gov and it’s special interest cronies already know of, track, spy on, and maintain intel on any group that has the slightest chance of turning on them.

  13. From what ive seen in my time in the Air Force, 90% of military members will obey a direct order to seize arms. Members today are taught ethics , true, but they are reminded far more often that the Chain of Command is sacrosanct. Should the balloon go up on civic disarmament during Martial Law ,the choice for military units ordered to take arms will be upholding their oath to defend the Constitution at the price of being imprisoned and their families becoming destitute , or following illegal orders and bringing food home to the wife and kids. Damn few people are going to put a stranger’s right to keep and bear arms over their careers and their families survival, and we should expect as much if we end up crossing that bridge.

  14. What most people are forgetting here is that the military is made up of regular people, not faceless government drones.

    As an officer in the United States Army I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And anyone ordering the confiscation of arms from civilian hands is an enemy of the Constitution. I took an oath to serve the people of the United States.

    I am a regular person. I’m also a soldier. I would sooner be lined up against a wall and shot than turn against the people I swore I would defend.

    • I would sooner be lined up against a wall and shot than turn against the people I swore I would defend.

      I do not believe — I refuse to believe — that it will ever come to that, but if it did, you’ll find most of your “buddies” perfectly content to serve on your firing squad.

    • Should that situation ever come about, I’d prefer you at least took a few of the traitorous, oath-breaking bastards with you.

    • There is a gigantic point to be made here… and I’m just the guy to make it.

      Officers take an oath to the Constitution alone.
      Enlisted take an oath to the Constitution as well as “to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me.”

      Just who makes up the majority of our military force… oh yeah, Enlisted folks… who took an oath to “obey the orders of the President.” Good luck convincing them that etherial Constitutional ideals are more important than direct orders and espirit de corps.

  15. We spend really unimaginable amounts of money on training and equipping these myriad forces and groups. these guys in this video are a little out in right field, but this many people gearing up and training is certainly frightening. I really cannot conceive of a trillion $, but it will buy a lot of stuff, pay a lot of people who would love to do what they are trained to do.
    look at world war 1. who really wanted it? Europe was geared up and ready, but once things get started, they take on a life of their own and can be impossible to stop.

  16. I believe life in and of itself is not the greatest possession. “Live free or die” is pretty much what I believe. If you live as a slave, a subject, or a serf, what are you really? You’re an animal, a worthless speck of sand in the government’s sandbox. You live but you’re not alive. The spiritual side of life, pretty much its sole redeeming value, is gone.

    I do not accept a “bearable” life. I do not accept “privileged” rights. I and every living thing are born inherently free and I accept nothing less, despite what people as a whole accept.

    And when it comes to family, I’d rather my child be fatherless and free than have me huddling beside him under the lash of oppression.

    And to answer the question, no, I don’t bury guns, though don’t fault those that do.

  17. They will do what Australia and the UK did;

    “You are now a felon (yep, no due process), you have 90 days to surrender said firearm(s) or face X amount of years in prison”.

    Then the American gun owner will fall into one of the following three categories;

    1, Those who surrender their firearms (and lose them and their rights forever)
    2, Those who hide their firearms (and spend the rest of their life looking over their shoulder)
    3, Those who fight (and lay down their lives, punishing those responsible for their Treason.

  18. I dont think anyone in DC really wants another civil war, insurrection or even any types of riots like the 1960’s, so door to door is mostly not on the menu from the feds./ I could see some states trying something like that, esp those states that do not have laws on the books that protect gun owners during an emergency or martial law.
    As for DC, I believe they will continue to do what they have been doing for the last couple of decades…chip away at our Constitutional Rights, law by law, encourage citizens to turn on each other, etc.
    With technology the way it is, the more citizens with blood, DNA, fingerprints and even retinal scans (when those go mainstream) in government databases, it’ll be very tough to get away with anything for any prolonged period of time. Google mines the hell out of our internet usage, and the feds do the same plus more, they would have big edge before the first shot is fired.

  19. i’m not as eloquent as some of you. but i served at a time that the military was held in low esteem. while traveling in uniform on a civilian airline i was called a baby killer at sfx. it was a very unpopular war and we enlisted people suffered as a result at home. i cannot imagine that american soldiers wouldn’t feel the heat from their own family and friends if they deployed into a major american city and started going door to door and even murdering,yes murdering, american civilians. you talk lightly of following orders and volunteering gor firing squads. we weren’t raised in the hitler youth. some of you seem to be intelligent and well spoken. you need to rein in your over active imaginations.

    • Boo hoo, you suffered at home, just as the Vietnamese suffered in their homes, at least you got a live, unlike so many vietnamese citizens. They may feel the heat from their friends and family, but they will still follow orders. Can you point to a single time in history when they have refused to fire on American citizens? From the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 to Kent State in 1970 they have always been more than willing to follow orders. They will even attack veterans and their families, with rifles, bayonets, tanks and chemical weapons as demonstrated by Gen. MacAruther, Gen. Eisenhower and Maj. Patton at the Bonus Protests in Washington DC in 1932. When Gen. MacAruther was ordered to stop his brutal assault on his fellow countrymen, by his Commander and Cheif, he refused to do so, because he didnt like the veterans suspected political viewpoints.

  20. a confused moment at kent state and 4 people died. troops being ordered to clear out a squatters camp in dc. from this you deduce that the evil stormtroopers are ready to goes house to house and commit murder. you are past a tin foil hat. so much fear and hatred in your soul and you’ve never even heard a shot fired in anger. of what use would you be if your own worst case scenario cameto past.

    • “A confused moment”? Really? What a euphemism for a massacre of unarmed civilians! You still havent mentioned any incidents where troops were ordered to fire upon Americans, and refused to do so.

      Those were just a few of the countless incidents thru out American history where the military has been more than willing to follow orders, and massacre their fellow countrymen because a politician or corporation ordered them to. Take for instance the Ludlow Massacre where the Colorado National Guard was brutally suppressing strikers, leaving 25 dead including women and children. Or the Auto-Lite Strike where the Ohio National Guard was suppressing strikers, leaving 2 dead and dozens injured.

      You’re a cop arent you? The only reason your union exists today, is because civilians better than you laid down their lives in support of organized labor.

  21. i looked at the wiki article about the bonus marchers. tanks and military grade weapons envolved and only 4 deaths reported. seems to me a lot of those soldiers must have not had their hearts in it. sort of supports what i’ve been saying. you’re cherry picking a few isolated cases in a more than 200 year history and claiming that proves the evil soldiers look forward to slaughtering the innocents. you need to get back on your meds.

    • They certainly wounded more than enough with bayonets, and were more than willing to demolish thousands of homes with tanks. Those veterans were gassed with a arsenic based chemical weapon by Bismark in WW1, and were gassed again with the same chemical weapon by the “greatest generation” when they got back home.

      I listed only 3 incidents because i dont really feel like writing a PhD dissertation in the comment section of a blog.

  22. WHY did Obama float the idea of a Civilian Security Force as well armed as the military?That’s a paramilitary and the hallmark of every modern dictatorship-a force loyal to the leadership rather than to the country.Just think-the NKVD;SS;Falange;Revolutionary Guard;Red Guards;Tonton Macoute;Gestapu(Sukarno’s Indonesia);Blackshirts;Iron Guard,etc-across the board serving communists,fascists,and plain old cut of personality dictators.
    A very un-American idea.

  23. There’s a saying that if you think it’s time to start burying your weapons, it may well be past time to start getting ready to use them.

    Some years back, Vanderboegh wrote an essay entitled; “What Good Can A Handgun Do Against An Army?”. It’s a thoughtful and reflective piece that addresses many of the ideas and concerns in the posts above. It’s worth a read.

    4G warfare would be messy for all involved and I don’t think that it’s likely that this country will be going down that dark road anytime soon. That said, it could happen. If it were to happen, I don’t think that it would play out exactly the way a lot of people seem to think it would.

    Katrina was a black swan event of relatively short duration. The confiscations “seemed like a good idea at the time©™”. Once things had calmed down and people had time to reflect upon the epic cluster f*@k that had just occurred, mistakes were recognized and lessons were learned, on all sides.

    In the nightmare scenario that so many are so concerned about, it is worth considering a few points. The early stages of such a scenario would likely have many of the antagonists participating in the pogroms copping the “Nuremberg Defense”, “I was just following orders”. It wouldn’t be too long before many of those same people would see the error of their ways and have the courage (moral and otherwise) to stop following illegal orders. Our all volunteer armed forces aren’t made up of the sons and daughters of Berkeley political science and “fill-in-the-blank “studies” professors, Chicago politicians and community organizers or Upper East Side sophisticates and glitterati you know. Yes, the politicians in this country have a truly awesome and fearsome amount of war materiel and personnel at their beck and call. Bringing it to bear against our own citizens, on our own soil, would be a very tough nut to crack. I think those same politicians who might be tempted to start playing with such fire would have a hard time mustering those forces to start running drone strikes on grandpa or carpet bombing the local rod and gun club. Sustaining such madness would be even more difficult, even if they were to get a lot of people to play along in the early stages.

    As Freeport56 pointed out above, the numbers game that our would-be tyrants face is indeed daunting and I’m sure that the Armed Intelligentsia™ aim to keep it that way.

    So, in our dystopian future the earth’s magnetic poles have reversed and we now have Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein in the Whitehouse, John Kerry is Secretary of Defense, Josh Horowicz is AG, Dennis Henigan is Secretary of State and Rosie O’Donnell is Speaker of the House. They take it on themselves to order thousands of precisely timed, exquisitely coordinated and simultaneously executed O-dark-thirty no knock raids to round up all of those nasty guns from all of those simply dreadful rednecks in fly over country. AND IT WORKS!! All of those raids are successful. Thousands of guns are hauled in, thousands of rednecks and their families and pets lie dead or dying. WooHoo!! Now the real fun begins.

    Within hours of the news getting out, their utterly brilliant opening salvo in Civil War v2.0 will have, by default, declared open season on every politician, every cop and every bureaucrat in the land; no bag limit. Those sons and daughters of our all volunteer armed forces that I mentioned earlier, the ones who just had their uncles, grandpas and cousins killed, maimed or incarcerated, what will come of them? Well, if the Mexican government thinks they have a problem with leakage of munitions from the military to the cartels, the US government would have the same problem a thousand fold. Then the coup would occur, the fighting would end and everyone responsible for and/or associated with starting Civil War v2.0 would be rounded up, stood against a wall and shot. The national debt would be erased by selling lottery tickets for spots on the firing line.

    Or something like that.

  24. no matt, i’m not a cop. i’d be much more skilled with a computer if i was. you claim tp be an anarchist. but your constant bleeding for the strikers and unions makes a liar of you. you’re just another run of the mill communist.

  25. yes, i read that about haymarket. doesn’t change the fact that as an avowed anarchist you’re supporting the creation of very highly organized agencies, as in unions. i’ve worked union, they’re just another form of government. personally i don’t believe you’re an anarchist, you simply love to argue. this is your hobby, a way to fill the hours of your day.

  26. lol. i’m retired but i’ve got more in my life than to sit and go on rage fueled searches and cherry pick incidents that are generations apart to “prove” how broken our system is. if it helps fill your lonely hours you have my permission. i’m signing off now. i’ve got family doings to attend to. have a nice day now.

  27. State National Guard are not federal and do not have the same posse comitatus restrictions as us Federales, until they are federalized. Until then, they are “owned” by the governor and can be used for law enforcement.
    Aside from that, as a Marine and a Judge Advocate that has often trained units on the PCA impact on their range of action (“No, you can’t help the local sheriff execute a warrant. No, I don’t care if the governor calls you asking for help, you can’t” etc etc) I am appalled at how little some of you think of us military types. Oh well.

  28. Wake up folks.I’m 60 y/o and have seen a definite trend toward socialism/communism in this country for several decades.Cetertain elements have been laying the groundwork for a “Takeover” of the republic since the 50’s.Lenin him self said that to conguer the United States you needed to do it from within.You need to infiltrate the legal/political and most importantly the educational systems of our country.The A.C.L.U. was founded,in the 30’s,by lawyers who were members of the American communist party.This was before we rally understood the danger of communism.We have former terrorists,like Bill ayres,teaching in our universities.I remember getting intelligence updates on his group,the Weathermen,when I was in the Army.They advocated a “Violent overthrow”of the government.And he is a friend of Obama.The left-wing has been preparing for this day for decades,chipping away at our constitution under the guise of “Political correctness/tolerance/crime control etc”.They finally have us to a point where we are on the fence,and they brought in Obama to “Close the Deal”. Obama has shown a great deal of contempt for our heritage/laws/constitution/congress etc.This man is drunk with power and is NOT going to leave the White House willingly.I predict he will impose Martial Law,whether it is justified or not,priorto the 2014 mid-term elections.He does not want to risk losing the senate.If he imposes Martial Law,he will stop free elections/dismiss congress/recess the supreme court/seize private weapons and property without a warrant,and cancel the constitution.When you’ve lost your freedoms and realize he is not “Saint Obama”you’ll have only two choices..blood in the streets or chains on your throat.I personally will die trying to prevent my granddaughter from growing up as a slave to socialism.What ever choice you make I wish you well.But as for me,I prefer to die with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other(Liberals hate that book too),than live on my knees.In closing let me remind you of the plight of Ernst Rohm.Ernst was the loyal leader of the SA(stormtroopers)who were instrumental in putting Hitler in power.But in true tyrannical form,when Hitler no longer needed him he had Ernst arrested and executed.A true tyrant sees the people as nothing more than tools to serve him.And Barack and Michelle “Antionette” definitely want to be served.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA…Wherever she is.

  29. Come on ppl wake up guns are bad all around so is violence and there is no need for either I don’t own a firearm of any kind all guns are for is to kill ppl no one should own firearms anywhere not sure even law enforcement should have guns as they are just as careless as anyone else. Can’t we all get along?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here