30 Percent of Republicans Say True Americans May Have to Resort to Violence to Save U.S.

The 101st Airborne helped enforce Little Rock school desegregation. If they had been fired on by locals, what do you think they would have done? The army had no problem putting down the 1932 veterans march, injuring 55 veterans.

Obviously the 3rd Marines are not going to just drop into the middle of community and start firing at civilians for no reason, but to enforce a court order, even a ridiculous one, or some other cause, do you expect they going to follow orders?

 

The only way they are going to fire is if they get engaged first. And that’s just common sense protecting yourself. I can tell you as a marine, I would not follow any officer or ncos order to fire on American citizens

 

What if you were told they were domestic terrorists?

 

doesn’t matter. As long as they are not an actively a threat to me I would not do it. I swore and oath to the constitution, not to congress, not to a president, not to a party. And certainly not to some butter bar officer.
Words like domestic terrorist are thrown around too easily.

 

Thank you, I will. Saying liberals want "open borders" is BS. Same for them promoting pederasty. There's way to much name calling and lies in this country.

The infrastructure bill is a good thing.

 

Yes, words like domestic terrorist are thrown around too easily, but that's the age we live in. But it seems you may be willing to take your chances with an illegal order defense at court martial, but others in your unit may not.

 

The more the court martial the faster they lose their grip on power. I would willingly spend the rest of my days in prison then violate my oath to the constitution.

 

The news media are making money. All of them.

 

Yep. And, sowing division and gaslighting viewers.

 

What is it with you lefties and thinking nobody can come up with ideas on their own? While I've heard the name "Mark Levin", I have no idea who he is. I'm guessing he has some sort of show on cable TV or maybe online that you deem right wing and therefore crazy, but I don't get my ideas from him. Just a day or two ago someone asked me nearly the same question about someone/thing called OANN. I also have no idea what/who that is. My ideas are my own.

Now that that is out of the way, I am familiar with our Constitution, having read it many, many times, and back when I was able bodied, I actually carried around a small book that had it's contents within so I could reference it when circumstances made sense to do so. Yes, I am highly small-l libertarian, and I believe that government is best that governs the least. Our Federal gov is SO FAR outside what the men who wrote that document could have ever even pictured, I'd bet some of them have been rolling in their graves for many more decades than most of us have even been alive.

But I'll keep it simple, and ask you but two questions.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to:
1- Create a Department of Education? (Chosen mostly at random, I could ask the same about a LOT of Departments and agencies.)
2- To ban weed or any other mind altering substances some people like to put in their own bodies? Before you take a stab at that one, I'd remind you that even the Congress that brought us Prohibition realized they didn't have the authority to just ban booze, therefore before doing so they (somehow) managed to get an Amendment passed that specifically granted them that authority.

Let's start there, eh?

BTW, no, I do not consider the totality of the US Federal Government to be illegal. But a lot of it is. I also realize I'm trying to pee up a rope here, as I do with many things I say here (like why is it my responsibility to pay for the children of perfect strangers to me to get educated?), but most of them at least make for good mental masturbation. And maybe, if I can influence just a few people, and they in turn can influence just a few more, just maybe one day our government will come back to some level of sanity and live within the bounds set for it by the Constitution.

 

Well I thank you very much for that kind sir, I was giving a rough estimate but you are correct math is important at numbers matter... However the more salient part of my post is thus.... If you choose to believe 18 million of your fellow Americans wish political violence well that's the world you can live in because I know that's not part of reality

 

I don't think they need special specific authority from the Constitution to create any "Department" they want. I don't see why they would.

You are correct. Under the original interpretation of the Constitution the federal level of government was only supposed to pass laws that were appropriate to regulate commerce between the states.
But politicians love passing laws that ignore or don't entirely follow the Constitution.

The Left in the US has a tendency to believe that the federal level of government should completely control the entire country, and they can't see a reason why states should be able to have separate local policies. In fact many of them are ultimately looking for a world government, where the entire world is run like one big country. It's a mentality of thinking.

Many of them don't understand the point of the Constitution or don't agree with it, why there are supposed to be separate jurisdictional powers reserved for the states.

Of course there are also some authoritarian conservatives as well, some of whom are not very Constitution-minded or Libertarian in their thinking.

 

You do realize there are already ideological purges going on. Right now in more of a casual sort of way.

They would probably cultivate over time a special group to do specific tasks.

It was the same with many Nazi atrocities. It was not just random soldiers who were selected for the task. Soldiers were hand-picked by the higher ups who they knew would be unlikely to have any problem carrying out the task.
Sometimes they would start out with little atrocities, to weed out the individuals who would have moral qualms.

 

You are cherry picking your case to find one that supports your view. But I now understand you have no desire to consider the evidence. I will leave you alone. I have been on forums long enough not to flog dead horses.

 

Feel free to explain what you think happened if you think it happened differently

 

Do you really believe in what you write? But maybe you consider the military personnel to be aliens?
In reality, military personnel are the same US citizens as all other people. Therefore, the military is also divided by political views.
Historical example, (given your last name, you should know) - Question - who arrested the Russian tsar? The answer was that the Russian tsar was arrested by the chief of the tsarist general staff, Alekseev. Question - Who arrested the royal family? The answer is that the imperial family was arrested by the head of the capital (at that time of the Petrograd ) military district.
Therefore, your statements that the army will suppress the uprising of the people do not stand up to historical examples.
Of course, the army can side with the authorities, but this is not always. Remember at least Chile and Pinochet, look at Turkey (how many times did the military revolt in Turkey?)
And if you have forgotten your roots, then I will remind you that during the civil war in Russia, half of the officers of the tsarist army were on the side of the Bolsheviks. (For example, do you know who General Brusilov is? He was on the side of the Bolsheviks)

 

Again, do you really think people are going to kill strangers over healthcare or free college? Always remember that a Civil War effectively ends the nation fighting it. Even in our own case the United States of 1865 was not really the same US that had existed in 1860. The congeries of near sovereign States was gone, we were in actual fact a Union; We not Us

 

Simple. Because they require Constitutional Authority to do ANYTHING! And no matter how good an idea might be, or how popular it is, if the Constitution has not delegated authority to the Congress to do it, they can't! If it's that damn popular, go get an Amendment passed. They ALMOST need Constitutional authority to go take a whizz, but I suppose that's a personal matter.

The Constitution provides a very limited scope of enumerated powers the Congress has, and if it ain't on that list... well, then it ain't within their purview.

Yes, I know. And I think that is one of the biggest problems we have in our Country today. Another of what has got to be at least top 5, but probably more like 1 or 2 is people having children who have no business even babysitting OPKs. So much so that I'm wondering if we ought not start requiring licenses for people to procreate in the first damn place. Or, failing that, we could just go back to the idea of "rugged individualism", where they are solely responsible for the housing, care, and feeding of their own families, and we don't simply accept it as a given that we're going to demand people to pay the bills of others who are complete strangers to them. I would carve out exceptions for those who, due to physical or mental disability are literally unable to do so, as well as veterans.

I don't give a good *******n what anyone "believes in". The Constitution is not some religious tome written by 3rd Century goat herders that creates nutty "belief systems" from people who didn't even understand that bacteria and viruses, rather than the wrath of some god or goddess, is what causes diseases. It is real, it exists, and most importantly it says what it says. If you don't like it, if you think it's outdated, if you think it needs to be changed, there is a way to do that, and it isn't simply ignoring it and pretending it's not there in the room with you.

I realize you were mostly agreeing with me with your post, so this little mini-rant (and believe me, for me, this is JUST a MINI rant) is not necessarily directed at you personally, but for those whom the shoe fits...

 

General welfare clause and the commerce clause....

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/17/08/when-it-comes-education-federal-government-charge-um-what

Now the Cato Institute disagrees but they are a libertarian think tank, they think we should go back to the articles.

 

You nailed it!

 

Infotainment, not news.

Our Founding Fathers tried to set up a political system that discouraged political parties and then turned right around and formed them. Their efforts seem to have had about as much effect as telling teenagers not to have sex.

Mindless tribalism stoked by the media.

 

I think the idea that millions of Americans, right or left, want violence is nuts.

 

It's never millions that get actively aggressive, it's a hardcore group of zealots. What mainstream millions have to watch closely is how much support they are getting and why.

 

Well good for you, but I don't think that represents the opinion of most enlisted military, and it for sure doesn't represent national military leadership.

 

They receive their talking points so they assume everyone else does too.