Plan to use military forces against civilians

Well it is no surprise that oboma wants the military to kill American civilians. However it is no surprise that the military leaked the story, as I do not think the career military would have followed an order that would have ment their court martial. As it sure would have.

An the liberals wonder why we conservatives fight for our Second Amendment rights. The to keep arms, and the right to bear arms. I assume it has always been a mystery to them since 1791.

During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles 20+ years ago, then-President Bush (the elder) sent troops to L.A. without the invitation (so far as I can discover) of the California Legislature, which was in session at the time (and took other riot-related action). Nary a peep about it, though I remarked on it to my friends at the time.

The problem is more than executive disdain for the Constitution; our system is corrupt at every level-- State and local legislators and officials for the most part aren't even jealous of their own powers or duties. Exceptions, like the occasional honest Sheriff or State legislator, make the news because they're so rare-- and get denounced as kooks for trying to do their own duties.

What has occurred encompasses many points. The United States were NEVER formed into a single nation and thus each state was and is a nation, equal in status to any nation of the Earth. Thus the Framers made it so the federal government had to be invited into the state to help IF and when (if necessary and when proper) the state requested help. People began to claim and others believed that the N&P clause expanded powers, allowing implicit powers related to the granted powers. This idea is easily proven incorrect by simply reviewing the powers in Article I Section 8. One will note that IF the N&P acted in the manner claimed that clearly half of all explicitly granted powers are moot. So if one continues in the vein of believing the N&P expands powers then one is claiming the Framers were ignorant and failed to understand the breadth of the N&P clause. I doubt that. I suspect it is modern day folks who are ignorant and wishful.

Now people believe the US is a singular entity because they have been brain-washed with the Pledge of Allegiance. For proof that the US are plural try reading the treason section (Article III Section III) or the emoluments section (Article II) and note that the US is spoken of as them and their. Never was the United States to form a single nation and destroy the individual nations that formed the Union. BUT because so many people are ignorant of the real United States and what THEY are, the concepts of state sovereignty have been eroded and the federal government believes it can do whatever, wherever it wishes. Blame yourself for reciting the Pledge, transferring your allegiance from your nation (your state) to the federal government.

I challenge anyone to find the United States referred to as a nation in the Constitution FOR the United States. I know you cannot because all references were removed in 1787. Try reading Eliott's Debates or Meigs' Growth of the Constitution. In those you will learn that the Framers considered many of the powers which are today usurped and denied those powers to the federal government.

We have failed to keep our servants in check. We have accepted violations of the Constitution in the name of the ends justifies the means. We allow the courts who are creatures of the Constitution, to tell US, the Creators of the Constitution, what it means even though they have no authority to do such. The courts have made the greatest mess such as the egregious Barron v Baltimore of 1833 and the Kelo decision more recently. The courts do not act in a proper neutral way which is why there are such big battles to get persons that lean to the left or to the right. If they were finding truth, there would be no leaning. But they do not search for truth of justice. They seek power as to all the others in office.

There is no power granted to use the army or navy within the borders of any state for an insurrection and there is no N&P implied authority. The feds are allowed to use the Militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. BUT with insurrections, the feds are limited to acting only when requested by the legislature of the state or by the executive. Every use without a formal request has been an illegal, unconstitutional use of force.

Yikes,

I was there during the Rodney King riots. The military did come, but they did not do anything at all, just set up staging areas, within a day or two, the riots ended.

Now there was some blackwater type groups were there also, Marriott had them at their hotel in Marina Del Rey, CA. They drove around the property with loaded machine-guns, with orders to shoot rioters on sight. Most of the rioters knew that if they left the area they were in, they would be put down quickly, the State did not care if they destroyed their own neighborhood, but would not let them head towards Beverley Hills, Hollywood, or any other rich neighborhood.

I have also heard that the US Congress thought about passing the US Patriot Act during that riot.

And the Posse Comitatus Act?

The probability of President Obama utilizing the military on civilians, will be subject to a matter of perception and IF, we the people, determine it to be justified. Should our government decide to arbitrarily advance the military against "civilians", we the people, by authority of the Declaration of Independence,
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying the foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall see most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.".

Under 10 U.S.C. 311, the "unorganized" militia shall attend to matters at hand. Under 32 U.S.C. 313, the unorganized militia is comprised of those persons between the ages of 17 to 45 years of age and all former members of the Armed Forces, including retirees. Since there are approximately 40 million veterans, (qualified marksmen with small arms (rifle, handgun, bayonet or knife), the civilian portion of the "unorganized militia" will not be lacking of leadership, extensive combat experience, large familiarity of combat tactics, explosives, and small arms to light arms and certain types of crew serve weapons.

The Second Amendment provides the necessary authority to access individual, small arms- rifles in either single action up to and including semi-automatic action; handgun in revolver or semi-automatic; combat knife of 6 inches or more.

It is with this "unorganized" militia force that democrats and liberal fear. Control the oil and they control the economy; control the banks and they control commerce; control the firearms and they control the people. Government will no longer be subservient to the people. It will be the "...tail wagging the dog.".

The Second Amendment is the failsafe that our founding fathers instituted to secure a democracy with a Republican form of government.

Under 10 USC 311 and 32 USC 313:

The Congress do not have and never had the authority to define or restrict the Militia. Constitutionally speaking there is no unorganized Militia. Congress were given the power to organize the Militia, that is to take ALL that are the Militia and organize them. The Framers considered having a "select" Militia during the 1787 Convention and that concept was turned down at least 3 times. The claim of the Courts that the National Guard is the organized Militia is about as good law as was Dred Scott. Neither the courts nor the Congress nor the Executive, being a creatures of the Constitution, owing their existence to the Constitution, do not have the authority to determine what or who comprise the Militia.

The Second Amendment grants nothing, provides nothing. The Second Amendment is a enumeration of a Right that predates the Constitution and owes nothing to its enumeration in the Constitution. Whether the 2nd is there or not, We the People have the Right to Arms. The 2nd places no restrictions on what kind of weapons the individual owns, that paradigm is another falsehood perpetrated by those in power who have no authority to restrict the Right endowed by God. When a bill of Rights was discussed, many warned that 1) the bill of Rights was not necessary because Congress had no power to legislate in those areas and 2) the inclusion of a bill of Rights would allow some to claim Congress had
the power because there would be no reason to restrict that which could not be exercised.

10 USC 311 and 32 USC 313 exists for the mere purpose that the federal government acknowledges
the existence of the "unorganized" militia. Just as the Second Amendment does not grant, give or provides the rights to keep a firearm and the right to bear a firearm, it merely acknowledges the fact that the "pre-existing" right to keep and bear arms exists and is under the protection of the U.S. Constitution, per mutual agreement between "we the people" and the federal government we did create and ordain for our "...safety and happiness.", and established this CONTRACT of Public Trust.

Though the Second Amendment places no restrictions on the types of weapons one may obtain and keep, it does say for "...the core purpose of personal self-defense." (Washington, D.C. v. Heller). Now we have specific categories applicable to the bearing of arms. Defensive and Offensive. Defense, entails the notion of survival, self-preservation, the protection of family and property. Offensive, entails the notion of forward actions, to deny power, control, and the exercise of individual will, thoughts and decisions.

A single-action or semi-automatic actionable rifle or handgun to engage an adversary from a distance will suffice, in the matter of hand-to-hand-combat the knife is the acceptable form of defense in a physical confrontation. An individual right cannot be justified to encompass a full automatic rifle or pistol or a step up from "small arms" to "light arms" or "medium crew served arms" such as fully automatic machine guns, 3.5 bazookas or 90 mm recoilless rifles or grenades. This later category of arms leans towards "offensive" necessity and an urgency for indiscriminate
termination of multiple hostile adversaries.

If someone is in your garage, unauthorized, you would not deploy a claymore mine booby-trap, or begin to throw hand grenades.

When the Constitution fails, the "unorganized" militia exists. They were at Concord, Bunker Hill, and Lexington. The "unorganized" militia cannot be ordered to surrender or lay down their arms. Yes, the "organized" militia ceased to exist when the US Army incorporated the National Guard and the Guardsmen are sworn to duel oaths or allegiances, to both federal and state governments, both, sovereign within their own political spheres. A person is part of the "unorganized" militia until he is called forth to report at a specific destination; not later than a specific time; on a specified date and signed in. By the way, the government calls it a "draft". The most common method of calling forth the "unorganized" militia. For if the individual person is not part of the active military or the "organized militia", then who is... the President and the U.S. Congress
"...calling forth...", if it is not the "unorganized" militia? For, it is ONLY THE MILITIA, both organized and unorganized that can be constitutionally ...called forth. A person becomes part of the registered "unorganized" militia when that person registers for "conscription" within his state. (Houston v. Moore (1820) Chief Justice John Marshall).