From: [email protected] (Slade Farney)
Subject: Re: HCI Sticker
Date: 01 Mar 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 20:30:30 -0600, Lino Torrez
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:35:34 -0600, Lino Torrez
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Terry Cross wrote:
>> >>
>> >> When a human joins the Hive, the Hive will issue him a firearm
>> >> and train him if he gives up his personal right to
>> >> Constitutional freedoms. After that, he must get permission
to
>> >> travel, he must speak always in deference to its superiors,
and
>> >> he must act, kill, or die without question.
>> >>
>> >> In recognition of his acceptance of total Hive control, he
will
>> >> be issued characteristic clothing with a badge that reads:
>> >>
>> >> "USMC"
>> >> "LAPD"
>> >> "NYPD"
>> >> "ATF"
>> >> "FBI"
>> >> "BLM"
>> >> "US Army"
>> >> "USN"
>> >> "Bureau of Prisons"
>> >> "US Customs"
>> >> "US Marshal Service"
>> >>
>> >> . . . etc.
>> >
>> >This is the same "Hive" whose members spilled their blood to
>> >insure that you have the right to make these stupid comments.
>>
>> I gather you are taking offense because the above list includes
the
>> US Army, USMC, and USN. Your response reveals the hive
mentality
>> to which I refer.
>>
>> The US Army is only an empty shell. It has no substance
and no
>> continuity without the poeple who make it up. You cannot attribute
>> to the "US Army" feats of sacrifice and heroism--only people
do
>> those things, not organizations.
>>
>> The last time the US Army was legally involved in conflict was
>> 1945. That was more than 50 years ago, and none of the
people in
>> uniform at that time are on active duty today. They were
citizen
>> soldiers, not career mercenaries, and they can no longer lend
their
>> heroism to the organization.
>>
>> So let us look at the present day organization that you are
>> defending:
>>
>> There is no provision in the Constitution that permits the US
>> government to operate an army in peacetime. Since this
country has
>> not been in a legally declared war since 1945, the "US Army"
is not
>> a legally constituted organization. It has no legal authority,
and
>> no legal right to federal money. Every transfer of funds
from the
>> US Treasury to the "US Army" is illegal.
>>
>> The very existence of a standing army in peacetime was anathema
to
>> the founding fathers. And the "US Army" has been doing
exactly
>> what historians for a thousand years have said a standing army
>> would do: It has involved the US in foriegn engatanglements
and
>> illegal undeclared wars. It has become a tool of conquest
and
>> empire, and made the words "American" a hated epithet among
peoples
>> around the world.
>>
>> And now we are watching this beloved "US Army" do the other
thing
>> that we haved been warned about. The US Army is sneaking
into
>> civil and domestic affairs. The Deputy Director of the
FBI
>> "terrorism" unit is an active duty colonel. "US Army"
troops are
>> used to fight the "drug war." Military helicopters were
brought
>> into Ruby Ridge and Waco for domestic "law enforcement," and
APCs
>> and CEVs were used at Waco.
>>
>> Watch for their starring role in the new anti-terrorism program.
>>
>> The "US Army" holds a monopoly of force in this country, and
we are
>> seeing just how loyal they are to the US Constitution.
It is now
>> composed of career soldiers who have deliberately signed away
their
>> Constitutional rights in order to live as barracks soldiers
as a
>> part of the hive, described above. They pretend to LOVE
liberty,
>> but they would prefer not to live IN liberty. Does that
make
>> sense?
>>
>> They pretend to be super-patriots, but we have only to read
the
>> advertizing that got them there to understand their real
>> motivations. "See the World," it said. "Get your degree.
Get a
>> pension. Be a man. Go for the adventure. Be all
you can be," etc.
>>
>> In other words, do it for you, man, it's fun.
>>
>> No mention of saving the FREE WORLD, eh? And the recruiters
get
>> what they advertize for. They get selfish thrill seekers
who are
>> willing to sell their liberties for the priviledge of having
>> someone else tell them how high to jump and when to come down.
>>
>> Too many of the cop organizations listed in the earlier post
are
>> staffed to the gills with "retired" military. They still take
>> orders like they had a direct-connect to God. They don't
>> understand or LIKE individual liberty. And they do not
support it.
>>
>> Quite fankly, there is not a hero in the whole bunch.
>>
>> When we see gross violations of the Constitution that these
birds
>> are sworn to defend, where are these heroes hiding? Why
don't they
>> stand up and say, "This is not permitted by Article __ of the
>> Constitution I am sworn to defend. You cannot hold men, women,
and
>> children prisoner for 51 days and torture them with experimental
>> weapons. You cannot use chemicals to gas them. You cannot
crush
>> their farmhouse while they are inside. You cannot use snipers
to
>> kill people who do not threaten you.
>>
>> "You cannot use military equipment, training, chemicals, and
>> techniques in civilian affairs.
>>
>> "You cannot ban political speech in support of the Republic
of
>> Texas. That is illegal by Amendment One of the Constitution,
which
>> I swore with my life to defend.
>>
>> "You cannot ban personal firearms. That is illegal by Amendment
Two
>> of the Constitution, which I swore with my life to defend."
>>
>> No, not a one of those hundreds of thousands of heroes said
>> anything.
>>
>> They are too worried about their educational bennies, their
>> commissary rake-offs, and their promotions and pensions, perhaps?
>>
>> There is a grave difference between loyalty to a principle and
>> loyalty to a political machine. You defend the US Army
as though
>> it were the former. But is operates perfectly as the latter.
>You are obviously someone who has no concept of Duty, Honor, Country.
Let me cut in here. This is not about soccer teams.
This is a matter
of what to kill for, and maybe what to die for.
With soccer, it's enough to look at the logo on the jersey.
With
killing and dying, it's quite proper to look behind the labels.
If
you tell me it is time to kill and die for Duty, Honor, Country,
I
hope you don't mind if I check that out for myself ? Are
we together
on this ?
After all, anyone can use those words. Libya probably tells
the
troops something very similar. Everybody says these words,
both white
hats and black hats. Terry Cross brought up a number of issues
I
think you ought to address before announcing she has "no concept."
>Yes I took offense because you included the US military. By that,
I
>mean that I took offense, because I believe in the principles
that
>the military is sworn to defend.
I believe Terry Cross says she supports those principles, as well.
Her arguments begin with an acceptance of the US Constitution as
the
legitimate source of law in this country.
>One of those being your right to disagree with me and others who
have
>(and have had) the courage to wear the uniform of their nation
and to
>face death in foreign lands.
If you have the courage to "face death in foreign lands," I think
you
should demonstrate a little more civility in facing Terry Cross's
"right to disagree," and her ideas of how the principles should
be
defended. You say you will kill/die for her right to her
opinions and
the expression of them, but then you say she is dishonoring the
"men
and women in uniform" by expressing them. Do you see the
contradiction here ?
>Oh, and tell me when has the MILITARY ever started a war? It is
not
>the military, but the civilian politicians who start wars.
You should delve into history a little deeper. Though the
situation
in Viet Nam had been going on for some years, what we call the
War did
not begin until after the US military created the Gulf of Tonkin
Incident by harassing the North for months until one day in August,
1964, they shot back. Then the military pretended to Congress
and the
American people that the attack had been entirely without provocation.
That incident so fired all us stooges up, both Congress and the
public, we wrote the checks, drafted the soldiers, and went to
war,
big time.
You may say the military was only doing the Johnson Administration's
bidding. You could also say they were obeying illegal orders,
and
should have refused. You could observe that they had deliberately
set
US service men up for death, not only those whose lives they risked
in
the incident, but the hundreds of thousands who died later.
You could
notice the Pentagon officials lied under oath to Congress about
the
event, too.
Without this cooperation by the military from the highest levels
to
the soldiers who partook in the incident, the War would probably
not
have been possible. So you tell me who got us into that one.
>While I agree that the founding fathers were against a standing
army,
>the plain fact of the matter is that for the last century, it
has
>been necessary to have a group of trained people on ready alert
in
>times of crisis. In today's world, where would a country be if
they
>had to wait 6 months to a year in order to train forces to meet
a
>National emergency?
In other words, you, like the deep thinkers in the Pentagon, think
you
know best, and therefore it is OK to break the law and flout the
Constitution in order to protect it ? Tell me I'm wrong.
>Would YOU be willing to take up arms in defense of your fellow
>countrymen?
I have my gun right by my side, even as I write.
>And if a war does need to be fought, would you rather fight it
in
>your front yard or theirs??
Now here is where we differ. When the war is in our yard,
there is no
question we have to fight. But when the war is oversees (and
the
Founding Fathers warned us that Europe would have many wars, and
we
should stay out of them), we have to be very careful in determining
what is our war and what is not.
It is no good to testify in court that you struck the other man
first,
but it was self defense because he looked as though he was going
to
look at you funny.
Basic truths and principles don't suddenly stand on their heads
when
you talk about nations instead of individuals.
>You speak of the military being used in civilian situations. Ok,
>let's talk aboout the National Guardsmen called out in times of
>National Emergencies such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes or
>whatever. Times when civilian resources are inadequate to meet
the
>public's needs. Let's talk about our men and women in uniform
who
>risk their lives to protect your property from looters, who set
up
>comminucations facilities so that the rest of the country will
know
>you are being cared for. who ensure that you have something to
eat in
>these times of crisis.
These are all good things, but none of them require a standing army.
You seem to be addressing some point Cross has made, but I cannot
figure out what. Can you point it out?
>Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are, first and foremost,
US
>Citizens.
This says nothing. So was Charles Manson.
>They are people willing to give up some of their personal freedoms
>and liberties in order to insure that the general populace can
>maintain theirs.
Cross addressed the purposes for which people join the Army.
I think
your point would be stronger if you confronted her points directly.
>I get so very tired of hearing this bulls**t from liberals who
think
>that the world is such a peaceful place and only the existence
of the
>US and her awful military is what makes thing bad. Wake
up people.
>Look around you.. be grateful that you live in a country in which
men
>and women are willing to die to insure that you can make complete
and
>total fools of yourselves because that is your right as Americans.
The world was not a playpen when the Constitution was written, either.
Again, you need more acquaintance with history.
>You have every right to disagree with these statement, and I'm
quite
>sure that you will, but to dishonor every man and woman who wears
or
>has worn a uniform makes you a bigot to the nth degree.
Cross's words were a little strong, but I do not think cries of
"bigot" enhance your position. We are, as I said, discussing
matters
of life and death. Surely we need deeper considerations of
our
principles than name calling.
Cross said the US Army is un-Constitutional. What is your
response ?
>I am NOT defending our corrupt, bloated government. I AM defending
>our brothers and sisters on the front lines for all of us.
Wait. There are no front lines. But when there were
front lines in
the past, and when there are front lines in the future, those of
us
who have preserved the Second Amendment and maintained a "well
regulated militia" will be ready to fight for ourselves.
On the front
lines.
It will not be THEM (the Army) protecting US (the citizens). It
will
be US (the citizens) protecting US (the citizens), just as it was
in
WW II. If the government was not so busy disarming the citizens,
we
would be our own army.
If the whole nation were involved in abiding by the Second Amendment,
I do not believe a professional army would be required. Then we
could
get back to being a lawful country.
And a free one.
--Slade
|