RoyGBiv wrote:TexasGal wrote:I can tell you last year, on another forum where I moderate, a member posted a story that got my attention. He said his son was in the military and came home upset because his squad (don't know if that is the correct term, sorry) had been called out by their leader one morning. A man who was not in uniform was nearby watching. The officer asked them a question. He asked them if they would fire on US citizens if given the order to do so. To a man, every one of them said they would refuse. Reportedly the mystery man was not happy to hear that from his expression. The officer ordered them not to speak of this to anyone including their families upon threat of prosecution. The next day after he posted the story, he PM'd me to ask me to remove the entire thread. When he told his son he had posted the story, the son became very upset and told his father the entire squad had been threatened and he didn't know what he had done. I deleted the thread. This member is a fine man. A truthful man. I have no reason whatever to doubt any of what he said. If this is true, there are elements in our government trying to quietly put together the means of enforcing their will upon the citizens of our nation. I hope none of this is true, but when I read this thread, it sounded uncomfortably similar. I can not imagine that such a thing would not cause outright mutiny in the armed forces. Perhaps this is a plan for marshal law in the event of the financial collapse of our nation. That is a real possibility if we keep committing financial suicide. Imagine the chaos when the government has to truly institute austerity measures the likes of which have never been seen.
Thanks for sharing that. Chilling.
ETA: What was the time frame for the story TexasGal?
There was this incident in 1995...
http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-pri ... -citizens/
1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”
If you follow the inforwars link, and then from there the link to the Freeper page from which he "sources" this infamous survey (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088237/posts), will find a few posts down ANOTHER, more informative link, largely debunking this survey by interviewing the survey's
actual author:
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/resister.don/resistr5.htm. THAT page has since been taken down (and in following up on it, I found an even more interesting link:
http://cd.textfiles.com/blackcrawling/T ... SIST~5.TXT. However, I ultimately did find THIS LINK (
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm) where the survey author gives a defense of what he was trying to accomplish. Guess what...... it turns out that he is actually on our side.
Author’s Defense
We have talked at length with the author of this survey, Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham, and about his motivation in creating it. He provided us with a copy of the 197-page thesis he wrote after analyzing the responses given by the Marines. His thesis helped him to earn a Master of Science degree in the area of manpower, personnel, and training analysis from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
Anxious to defend himself from charges he is pro-UN, Cunningham repeatedly contended in his interview with THE NEW AMERICAN that he is no enemy of America and no participant in any plan to demoralize U.S. troops. He maintained emphatically that he wanted only to confirm and then pass on to higher authorities his fears about "the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans." He added: "I’m a life member of the National Rifle Association, an ardent constitutionalist, and I’m even disappointed with the NRA spokesmen who don’t do a very good job defending their position."
About the "firing on Americans" part, the interviewer says:
Firing on U.S. Citizens?
While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"
Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."
Alex Jones crashed and burned on this one. Go figure.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
