Our friends at the U.N. are at it again!

[LANTIRN]

You obviously never heard of the Bolshevik revolution nor the war of 1917, nor the Ruso-japanese war.

I think they are also forgetting the American Civil War where American soldiers DID shoot and kill Americans. Not to mention every other civil war in the history of the world; soldiers follow orders to shoot far better than they are being given credit for in this thread.

[onemeangixxer7502]

I think they are also forgetting the American Civil War where American soldiers DID shoot and kill Americans. Not to mention every other civil war in the history of the world; soldiers follow orders to shoot far better than they are being given credit for in this thread.

x2, I hate to think it but I wouldn't be surprised to see it. They will feel they're doing their patriotic duty.....

[David]

The American civil war in my opinion has nothing in common with what a civil war would look like in our country today. The country and the army is completely different today than how it was in the 1860s.

[LANTIRN]

The American civil war in my opinion has nothing in common with what a civil war would look like in our country today. The country and the army is completely different today than how it was in the 1860s.

Because only one would involve Americans killing Americans?

[Forever_frost]

Because only one would involve Americans killing Americans?

You'd have some that would, and you'd have some that wouldn't. You'd also have veterans with the same training, no ROE and personal weapons that often rivals what the military can field, with the ability to fade into general populations fighting back.

[ceyko]

You'd have some that would, and you'd have some that wouldn't. You'd also have veterans with the same training, no ROE and personal weapons that often rivals what the military can field, with the ability to fade into general populations fighting back.

The reason I think a lot of military would enforce the government's will, at least initially is because of black outs.

It's fairly easy for the military to quarantine their personnel and describe the situation as they see fit. If the senior leadership (O-6s and above, in higher level command positions) do not squash that - it could happen.

Eventually, things could change depending on how all that goes. Initially, I feel that most military would think they are following lawful orders since it is very possible they'd not know any better.

Not the same scenario, but sort of like how N. Korea would pummel S. Korea until everyone figured out what was going on and had a chance to regroup and reinforce.

On principle alone, I think eventually a lot of military would desert and support family/whatever. Overall though, I'm just not sure exactly how it would all play out. I do feel confident that the first few months at least would not be good.

[YALE]

I think you'd get some defecting officers, but on the whole, it'd be contained to pockets of resistance, when that happens, though, those pockets will look like Chechnya.

[Vertnut]

Dick Morris just explained how the UN treaty CAN lead to gun control. His web-site (dickmorris.com) has the scenario on the front page of his site along with a petition to sign. If Hillary and Barry sign the treaty, it's in effect until the SENATE votes it DOWN. With Reid running the senate, it never comes up for a vote. Why would Hillary even sign it if she knows it will not be ratified? She knows the loop-holes forwards and backwards. It has to do with the "Supremacy clause" and could repeal our second amendment.

[Trip McNeely]

Fuck those blue helmeted fucktards.

[ceyko]

Dick Morris just explained how the UN treaty CAN lead to gun control. His web-site (dickmorris.com) has the scenario on the front page of his site along with a petition to sign. If Hillary and Barry sign the treaty, it's in effect until the SENATE votes it DOWN. With Reid running the senate, it never comes up for a vote. Why would Hillary even sign it if she knows it will not be ratified? She knows the loop-holes forwards and backwards. It has to do with the "Supremacy clause" and could repeal our second amendment.

Wonder if anyone would take a bet on her disarming the people protecting her? I love how a ton of these politicians want guns gone from us, but yet they more than indirectly have guns protecting them daily.

[CJ]

*loads ammo*

[jw33]

This is just another UN policy that is designed to strip our, and other country's, sovereignty away. In my opinion we should be very worried with something like this because it is always incremental. We won't wake up tomorrow, next month, or probably even next year when firearms are illegal or can only be owned/obtained by the very well off and UN "peacekeepers" are patrolling our streets. And yes I do believe given the right circumstances the overwhelming majority of our military would kill US citizens. There is little reason to think what occurs every single day in other parts of the world today and has happened time and time again over the course of history could not happen here at some point.

[Gtracer]

Slap me if this is crazy but what if the UN becomes the problem...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/17/un-agency-slammed-after-refusing-us-request-for-probe-into-iran-n-korea/?test=latestnews

Seems like they have their own agenda....


:0 <-----suprised face

[YALE]

Dick Morris just explained how the UN treaty CAN lead to gun control. His web-site (dickmorris.com) has the scenario on the front page of his site along with a petition to sign. If Hillary and Barry sign the treaty, it's in effect until the SENATE votes it DOWN. With Reid running the senate, it never comes up for a vote. Why would Hillary even sign it if she knows it will not be ratified? She knows the loop-holes forwards and backwards. It has to do with the "Supremacy clause" and could repeal our second amendment.

That's not right. It would have to be ratified before it would become law, just like any other treaty. Remember when NAFTA got signed? It took a while to become law because ratification took forever.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good rundown of how that works:

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate a treaty, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.
In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[1] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[2] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War.

[Dacotua]

*loads ammo*

I generally load 50 rounds of ammo a night. Anymore than that, I get bored and I won't do it.

Besides 50 rounds only takes about 20 minutes of time. I've probably got more ammo loaded now than I'll ever use, but I still like to have it.