Please comment...

You mean the military, correct? The one largely consisting of rural conservative pro-gunners who've all taken an oath to protect the American People and their Consitutional rights from enemies foreign and domestic?

What makes you think they won't divide along similar lines as the rest of the general population if ordered to do something that many of their friends, family and brothers and sisters in service view as unconstutional tyranny?

If you're talking about the US Military killing citizens who refuse to give up their constitutional rights, then you're talking about a civil war in which the military will be as divided as the rest of us. For every soldier who believes its their duty to disarm Americans in such a scenario, there'll be another who believes its their duty to protect them from disarmament.

As evidence of this, I cite all the veterens in organizations like CSPOA and OathKeepers and Civil Defense groups/militias all over the nation. They didn't get 'radicalized' into 2A supporters after leaving the service. They were by and large always Constitutionalists who are only able to freely voice their concerns once no longer active military.

Just look at history: every civil war on record has divided the military as much as it did the population. It wouldn't be any different here. And, its worth noting, if such a civil war were to be centered on an issue like gun rights, one side is necesssrily going to substantially 'outgun' the other.

 

the NRA is a corrupt corporate propagandizing disgrace. Compromise my ass. LOL

 

Sorry not happening. The police will take care of the civil war gun nuts.

 

Not even remotely close to factual REALITY!

 

You mean the militias that are classified by the FBI and the DHS as domestic terrorists and hate mongers?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/domestic-terrorism-focus-on-militia-extremism

https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...e-supremacy-domestic-terrorism-threat-888748/

 

I agree with your ideology that history repeats . But Hitler was far more intelligent that someone like Trump . He was more of a spiritual leader to the people.

 

You might notice the FBI specified militia extremism. Most miltias arent axtremists.

The article citing DHS was talking about white supremacism. Beyond a few groups that try to obfuscate their criminal activity or intent as civil defense, white supremacism has nothing to do with the militia movement. If you dont believe me, go post racist stuff on a milita forum. They'll permaban you immediately.

 

Make no mistake that white nationalists have a "spiritual bond" with their racist cult leader in the Oval office.

And yes, you are correct that Hitler was much smarter than the IMPOTUS. However Hitler ended up as a meth addict and there are unconfirmed rumors implying that the IMPOTUS is using Adderall which is the modern equivalent.

https://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trum...s-mocked-launching-miss-teen-universe-2900973

https://boingboing.net/2020/01/08/trump-sniffed-58-times-during.html

 

Assumes facts NOT in evidence to substantiate that allegation.

 

There you have it. Trump is like Hitler and his fervent supporters like the Nazis. Most disturbingly, Orange Hitler can do no wrong in their eyes, and this is rewriting norms and standards for the presidency and upsetting moral sensibilities in politics. Suddenly the unthinkable is the new norm, such as having an American president who calls the free press the enemy of the people and who regularly shuns other democratic nations and their heads of state in favor of foreign dictators, from whom he seems eager to get consessions and photo ops that he can use in his own propaganda campaign to hold on to power.

The problem, though, is that most people's understanding of Nazisms is dominated by the Holocaust and that little thing called the second world war. They'll assume that as long as Trump isn't ordering genocide or starting a global conflict, he and they really have nothing in common with their brother and sister fascists ~80 years ago. They fail to appreciate the dynamics, which you outline here, of how Germany reached that awful point in the first place. They focus on the 1940s and ignore the lessons of the '20s and '30s.

 

And what facts could even exist that would? More guilty until proven innocent? Your demands for proof in negative demonstrate your bias.

 

In WA and VA 'the police' or more specifically the lawfully elected Sheriff's are the ones raising posses and deputizing militias specifically to protect their communities from the enforcement of what they (and their constituents who elect them) see as unconstitutional gun restrictions by outside agencies. And as I've previously noted, in many states (WA for sure, not sure about VA) the Sheriff is constitutionally defined as the Chief Law Enforcement Official within his/her jurisdiction, giving them the lawful authority to do just that.

So which 'police' specifically do you expect to be 'taking care of the gun nuts'?

 

You made the allegation which places the ONUS on YOU to substantiate it.

There is plenty of evidence clearly supporting my position but you are unable to provide even a single shred of evidence to support yours.

If you allege something exists YOU must be the one to establish that it exists in a credible manner.

If you cannot then that means that your allegation has no credibility.

 

No Sheriff has the authority to VIOLATE the Constitution and the Laws of the Land irrespective of their own misinformed opinions on the matter.

 

Thats BS. How can I prove the motives of people I don't know? Your 'proof' is presumption of guilt by association, no more rational than the folks who claim all AntiFa are violent because one of them shot up a police station. There's no 'onus'. There's just your biased perception vs reality.

 

Cite which part of the constitution they're violating.

 

Thank you for establishing that your misinformed OPINION regarding the militia cannot be credibility substantiated.

 

YOU are the one who stated that they are violating the Constitution, not me!

Once again the ONUS remains on YOU to substantiate YOUR allegations about what YOU (and those Sheriffs) ERRONEOUSLY believe to be "unconstitutional gun restrictions by outside agencies".

If you CANNOT provide anything CREDIBLE to support your allegations it is NONSENSICAL to DEMAND that others must "prove you wrong"!

 

Anyone following along will clearly see you've either misunderstood or are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Go back and re-read. You suggested the Sheriffs are violating the constitution. The onus is on you to demonstrate how (you cant, because the Sheriffs are constitutionally obligated, according to the state constitution, to enforce the law in a manner that represents their constituents who elected them according to that same constitution, but have fun trying).

As far as the constitutionality of the gun laws they're resisting, that'll most certainly be up to the supreme court, hopefully before the whole thing turns into a hot war. Their objective at this point is to prevent enforcement and/or confiscation between now and then.

 

Your vapid attempt at PROJECTION just backfired by establishing that you do support the militias that the FBI and DHS have classified as DOMESTIC TERRORISTS since they are DEFYING the Constitution AND want to engage in a "hot war" against the duly elected Federal government.

 

You have yet to demonstrate how they're defying the constitution. You can make the claim all you want, but as yet it remains empty and baseless.

Cite your source that the militias preparing to resist gun confiscation in VA or WA have specifically been classified as terrorists by DHS or FBI, or that all militias have been. You've provided neither thus far.

On what basis do you claim they want a war? They're undoubtedly willing to fight for their rights, but I see no indication any meaningful number of them want to. Would you suggest that Europe wanted a war with Hitler just because they resisted invasion?

 

I just QUOTED what YOU POSTED!

YOU alleged that they are defying the Constitution, not me!

YOU alleged that they are preparing to resist, not me!

YOU alleged that they will engage in a "hot war" if they do not get their way, not me!

All of which ESTABLISHES what they are doing is tantamount to Domestic Terrorism as PROVEN by the FBI LINK that I provided in a prior post!

You are arguing AGAINST YOURSELF and YOUR OWN WORDS!

Do you even READ what you post?

 

Yes. I think there may have been some Germans who foreseen what was happening and left the country. The Jews on the other hand were not so lucky....

"New laws were implemented as the Nazi party was rising. These laws hindered actions of Jews that non-Jews could accomplish, and anti-Semitics could boast. One of these laws prohibited Jews from leaving Germany without a legal order, but a law before that kept Jews from getting a legal order nonetheless."

I think it is safe to say that most of us here do not have the means to just pickup and move to another country. Trump's wall may well serve useful at keeping people from escaping rather entering.

 

Yes military was my main concern for your safety. But there are other easier methods for them to disable your efforts. They could instantly freeze your bank accounts, your charge accounts, social security etc..shut off your electricity, fuel supplier, internet and phone provider...cutting you off from all food, water, supplies and communications.

 

Because the current version hasn't progressed that far yet...but it will. You may even be around long enough to see.