Foreign troops to confiscate Firearms

[oneshooter]

Recently a poster here expressed his desire to remove all firearms from American citizens. This would be done with the "help" of foreign troops on American soil. Canadian and Mexican troops were mentioned.

So the question is if this came to pass how would you react?


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[flyingfysh]

1. this is stupid; why post this nonsense?

You may as well add questions about what if unicorns and leprecauns helped whoever.

[SteveM]

39. Well, we do have authoritarian posters who promote gun-bans...

With all talk about "paranoia," "living in fear," "guns for everybody," and such coming from gun-controllers, you should be aware that the use of foreign troops to confiscate guns of U.S. civilians was indeed advocated in this forum. As long as such police state tactics are advocated by progressives, some folks kinda overlook a dictator's methods. We don't. Not wanting to put words into the OP's mouth, this is a way to "publicize" to the rest of DU just what some "gun-controllers/prohibitionists" are advocating. Lately.

[slackmaster]

50. I assume it's intended to make fun of Don Caballero

And I support doing that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. This nonsense was posted in response to nonsense like this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=294852&mesg_id=294927

[timeforpeace]

2. I long for the day that something like this is all I have to worry about.

[baldguy]

3. Ignorance-fueled fantasies like this serve no purpose.

[virginia mountainman]

7. Just so you know...

An ANTI Civil rights advocate, made the statement the OP is referring too...

[SteveM]

40. I agree. You should see that post advocating foreign troops. Do you agree with it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Then get your guy to stop proposing such things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=294852&mesg_id=294927

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Help buy all meens!

'specially if it was the mexican army who would be confiscating. That would be great!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. Other: Stop watching my old VHS of Red Dawn right before bedtime.

[oneshooter]

6. The subject was brought up by a poster

on the Guns forum. There was, and still is, a lot of discussion about it.

He also claimes that 80-90 percent would willingly surrender thier firearms.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

41. Red Dawn? It's cloudy, here. Read the post by a "gun-controller/banner."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Other: Educate myself before responding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=294852&mesg_id=294927

[chrisa]

77. (Sprays huge machine gun randomly, as 30 Russians fall)

and a huge tank inexplicably blows up.

"Wolverines!!!"

[MineralMan]

8. Moronic Poll

There is no such plan.

[PavePusher]

11. No-one ever said there was.

It's a "hypothetical" situation that has been advocated by a D.U. member.

Reading around, it seems s/he has some supportes here. How truely sad for our Republic.

[SteveM]

42. It was advocated by a "progressive" poster in this forum. Check it out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. It was proposed here and is attempting to be justified down thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=294852&mesg_id=294927

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. Option #3, and then if threatened #7.

[frebrd]

10. As the saying goes......

if they come for my guns, they can have the bullets first!

[spin]

12. It amazes me that many votes went for "Help the foreign troops as much as possable"...

I wouldn't support ANY foreign troops on U.S. soil attempting to confiscate all firearms. The two most important amendments in the Bill of Rights were the first and the second. They guarantee all the other right that citizens enjoy in our country.

If the citizen's right to keep and bear arms was taken away, we would live in a police state.

Many people point to other developed nations that have strict gun control as examples we should follow. I disagree. Our country is different and in many ways superior to other nations in many ways. As an example, our government trusts its citizens to own firearms. That concept coupled with freedom of the press are the most liberal and progressive ideas ever penned on paper.

I will grant that all too often, firearms are misused with tragic results. One the other hand, firearms often are used for self defense to prevent severe injury or death. There is always a downside to every good idea. Electricity is essential to our lives but the pollution generated by power plants destroys the environment and can cause sickness and even deaths. Just as we can work on solutions to pollution, we can work to reduce the violence caused by firearms.

Better enforcement of existing laws and improvements in the NICS background check system would be beneficial as would a zero tolerance policy toward violent felons caught carrying firearms.

Confiscation of all firearms might is the dream of a government that wishes to rule our lives with an iron fist. The "War on Terror" has already been misused to erode the rights and freedoms we enjoy. The powerful elite are attempting to take away our rights of privacy by monitoring all communications and turn us into a nation where we are afraid to express our honest opinions. The ruling class would love to have a compliant group of wage slaves to support their privileged lifestyle.

And in the OP the Mexican army was mentioned as a force to confiscate firearms. That's JUST what we need!

Corruption in Mexico's military could become an increasing problem as the army takes the lead in fighting the country's powerful drug gangs. President Felipe Calderón put the military on the front lines of the nation's drug war when he came to power 2 1/2 years ago. Since then, Mr. Calderón has tried to quell a wave of violence and has taken over policing duties from corrupt police departments in parts of the country.

This isn't the first time army officers have been linked to the Sinaloa cartel. Mr. Guzmán has regularly visited a ranch in the remote mountains of Chihuahua state to check on his marijuana crop with some protection from the Mexican army, according to a 2008 Mexican intelligence document reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The Mexican military has said it was unaware of the allegations.

***snip***

More recently, an unknown number of elite Mexican soldiers trained in counterinsurgency and counternarcotics tactics have defected and gone to work for the cartels, according to the government. Analysts say the involvement of the defectors -- known as "Zetas" -- who went to work as enforcers for another cartel, the Gulf cartel, has increased the already high level of violence in Mexico's drug wars. Analysts fear drug gangs will find willing recruits in the thousands of soldiers who desert the Mexican military every year.

Some human-rights organizations charge that Mexican soldiers, lacking in police training, have been increasingly involved in abuses including murder, rape, and forced disappearances. New York-based Human Rights Watch says accusations of abuse lodged with Mexico's National Human Rights Commission, an autonomous government agency, skyrocketed to 1,230 complaints in 2008 from 182 complaints in 2006. Mexico's defense ministry didn't have any comment. In the past, the ministry has said it takes seriously and investigates accusations of human-rights violations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124510705768916735.html

[On the Road]

16. I Am a Little Shocked, Too,

thar anti-gun sentiment is strong that it would lead people to cooperate with an occupying force. But even on DU, those responses are only 35-40%, assuming none of it's being freeped to make DUers look like traitors.

And I don't own a gun or particuly want one.

[spin]

20. Some people here will say that pro-gun people want everybody...

to be armed.

That's false. I totally respect your decision not to own a firearm.

If an occupying force were to enter this country with the object of disarming people, there are plenty of strategies that could be employed by an individual to resist. Many do not require firearms.

If you did desire a firearm in order to resist, I'm sure you could get one from a gun owning friend.

[On the Road]

32. Things Would Change a Lot if the Us Were Occupied

Not that that's very likely, but that was the premise of the thread. Whatever problems the US has, patriotism trumps concerns about gun ownership by a lot. I would not particularly welcome our new alien overlords, whoever they might be.

As far not owning a gun, I even taught riflery at a YMCA camp (not particularly well, but the kids liked it). I live in South Baltimore, but still feel safer without guns around. Just not an issue with me.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. I cant wait for the canadian invasion! I will help a lot!

Oddly I can't actually reply to anyone else in this subthread.

Oh buy the weigh, I saw the Clue Fairy and he sez that sum peoples maid be puling you're leg.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Feel free to ask him yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=294852&mesg_id=294927

[-..__...]

46. Then they shouldn't have a problem...

burning in the funeral pyres alongside their Canadian and/or Mexican liberators.

[Bonhomme Richard]

13. Show me the post. A link. I just got that crazy email from my

wacko RW cousin.

[oneshooter]

14. As you wish

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x293831#293852

First reply to post.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Bonhomme Richard]

15. Oh yeah. The same guy that suggest voting for republicans...

in Indiana cause that's who can get elected.
Not taking the bait.

[SteveM]

43. Oh, would that be the Brady Center Republicans?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. He's downthread justifying his position right now.

[virginia mountainman]

17. You know, I wonder, who will protect those that choose the first option??

Once the Foreign troops leave the neighborhood??

Ahh yea, I foresee many house fires, and folks not waking up...

That would be a problem, if you sell out your neighbors to a foreign army..The troops, THEY WILL go home, or leave YOUR community at some point, at some point, leaving you, to face, the people you pissed off, alone...

As in history, COLLABORATORS ARE DEALT WITH HARSHLY....For once they "turn on their community, and their own people" NO ONE, will morn their loss.

As pointed out above, such a scenario, you would find, Du'ers, Freepers, Repuke, and Democrat alike, cheering one the flames of a burning collaborator's house.

[cowman]

18. Yup

that's the one incident in this country that would unite the people be it Dems, Repubs, Ind., Teabaggers, and just about everyone else plus I suspect the majority of anti-gun people who would learn to use a gun real fast, The only ones who wouldn't are the collaborators who, like you said, would fare very poorly by the loyal americans

[Warren Stupidity]

31. The Chinese Army will protect us!

We will get little red books too!

[Don Caballero]

19. As the poster this poll is pertaining to I feel as though I should explain myself

I am against firearms. All firearms in the hands of non-security personnel like police and military. Guns are responsible for the lion share of murder and suicide in the United States. Many other civilized nations have restricted the right of civilians to own firearms. The gains we saw with gun control through incrementation are slowly being eroded. The suggestion for a foreign military to help is also misconstrued. These armies would be much like UN peace keeping forces in war torn countries. They would help confiscate the weapons but would not be allowed to fire upon civilians.

[spin]

21. What you advocate is a police state...

and many other developed countries are in fact police states. I would prefer to live as a freeman not as a slave.

The citizens of those countries trust their government to not become corrupt and tyrannical. The government of our country trusts its citizens to own firearms and realizes that if it does becme overly corrupt or tyrannical, the citizens have the means to resist.

Don't believe for a moment that our government can't change for the worst. Richard Nixon is an example of a President who had little regard for the rights of American citizens.

During Richard Nixon’s presidency, Jack Anderson was America’s premier investigative journalist—and Nixon’s most despised. In the most chilling crime contemplated by the President’s men, Anderson was targeted for assassination.

***snip***

In this ugly atmosphere, the White House started plotting Anderson’s slaying—one scoop Anderson was not able to break himself. That juicy story was unearthed by Watergate ace Bob Woodward. In a September 21, 1975 Washington Post piece, Woodward reported that an unnamed top White House aide gave Nixon’s chief spy E. Howard Hunt “the order to kill Anderson.”

The plan allegedly involved the use of poison—one that could not be detected during an autopsy—obtained from a CIA physician. Woodward wrote that the assassination order came from a “senior official in the Nixon White House,” and that it was “canceled at the last minute . . .” He added that former Watergate investigators were surprised “that such a plan could have been kept secret for so long.”
http://www.crimemagazine.com/jack_anderson.htm

But neither the domestic nor the foreign policy failures of the Nixon presidency are as significant as his deleterious impact on American institutions. Wicker is absolutely correct, though it's hard to believe he's thought out the implications, that the sheer size and inordinate power of the Cold War presidency and government made corruption and scandal inevitable. The Nixon presidency was one long object lesson in the dangers of granting such power to the government. But the manner in which Nixon personally corrupted the Presidency is unforgivable. No president can possibly oversee a bureaucracy as vast as the one we've built up, so the excesses of subordinates can often be forgiven. But where, as in the Nixon presidency (or the Clinton presidency, for that matter), the President himself helps foster a climate of criminality, then he must bear great responsibility for their actions. Arguments over who did what and what the President knew about Watergate are therefore interesting, but immaterial.
http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/740

Louis Tackwood, a man of patriotic courage among a world of too many cowards, made his public appearance in September, 1971, in a press conference that could have been broadcast over the entire world. Tackwood's information was ignored by people who know better and should have taken his words seriously.

A former paid agent of the Los Angeles Police Dept. for nine years, Tackwood surfaced and disclosed the kinds of jobs the LAPD expects an agent provocateur to do for them. The most important revelations made by Tackwood gave a good view of that invisible government John Kennedy warned about.

The "Glass House" is the Los Angeles Police Department, the same agency that took care of candidate Robert Kennedy four years ago. Tackwood resigned from the LAPD after he became familiar with their plans for the 1972 elections, known by the name "Squad 19." Agents of the police department were to create enough violence at the Republican National Convention that martial law would be declared. Tackwood states:

"Squad 19 was formed by CCS (Criminal Conspiracy Section) and the FBI to provoke violence at the republican Convention in 1972.

"It involves coordinated contingency plans under the direction of CCS and FBI.

"The plan entailed planting a number of agent provocateurs both inside and outside the 1972 republican Convention. Agents were to infiltrate the groups planning demonstrations against the war and poverty. At the time of the demonstrations, these agents were to provoke street battle with police surrounding the convention hall. Meanwhile, agents inside the convention hall were to plant explosives timed to blow up coincidental with the riots in the streets. The purpose is to kill a number of delegates.

"The result would have been to create a nationwide hysteria that would then provide president Richard Nixon with the popular support necessary to declare a state of National Emergency.

"Orders came directly from the State Department of Justice, District Attorney Evelle Younger, on these special squads.

"Richard Nixon would then arrest all militants and left-wing revolutionaries and cancel the 1972 elections. He could invoke special emergency powers leading to the detention of political activists. Martial law would be achieved."

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Why%20Was%20Martha%20Mitchell%20Kidnapped%20-%201.html

How did Ricard Nixon feel about firearm ownership.

Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.
--- William Safire (originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15.

I should also point out the comment you made,

"The suggestion for a foreign military to help is also misconstrued. These armies would be much like UN peace keeping forces in war torn countries. They would help confiscate the weapons but would not be allowed to fire upon civilians."

is ridiculous. There is no possibility that citizens would willing turn over their firearms to an invading army just because some Canadian or Mexican politely asked them to.

Most American gun owners would stick a finger in the face of the soldier and say, "Fuck you!"

Things would rapidly go downhill from that point.

edited to add comment about possibly the most foolish statement I've read on DU.

[Don Caballero]

23. Exactly the opposite of a police state actually

We would be a much freer and peaceful nation without the scourge of guns on the streets.

[spin]

24. You haven't developed a rational way to accomplish your goal...

of taking firearms from people.

What you propose would cause far more bloodshed and death to accomplish than merely doing nothing.

[bossy22]

25. freer?

maybe peaceful, because you don't need civil rights to have a peaceful society. I was in china once on a vacation and i have to say its a very peaceful place- doesnt mean they don't have an overbearing police state government.

[Don Caballero]

38. Looks like quite a few fellow DUers understand my position

[SteveM]

44. About putting Mexican and Canadian troops on our soil?

[cowman]

45. Maybe

so, But after we got done with the foreign troops, we would go after the likes of you and your ilk and it wouldn't be pretty. Besides, name 1 country that would send its troops here on such a suicide mission, I suspect no country would take up your offer, they would be met and destroyed long before they could even get close to our shores

[PavePusher]

58. Unless they came from Mexico...

we southern inlanders would never get to join the fun. :cry:

[Katya Mullethov]

64. Theyre coming one at a time

Transforming the electorate and reinvigorating the ponzi scheme that is social security .

[DrCory]

63. And When Those Foreign Troops Leave

Defeated and demoralized, you'd better go with them.

[rrneck]

22. It's been a long day

and I needed that. You're funny. You should take that act on the road. :rofl:

[PavePusher]

26. "They would help confiscate the weapons but would not be allowed to fire upon civilians."

Then your chance of success would equal < zero.

Congrats, you just started a war.

[oneshooter]

28. You wanted a poll. Ya got one! n/t

[cowman]

34. Do you really

believe that if a foreign army came to america and started to try to disarm law abiding citizens that we would just say "OK Mr blue helmet UN person here are my weapons?" What planet are you from? You would see alot of dead UN forces. Not only would the civilian population rise up and fight but the U.S. Military would slaughter any foreign army on our soil and after we were done with the UN we would go after whoever invited them in if the Military doesn't first. Your idea is so far in left field that it borders on insanity

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. UN peacekeeping forces or not, not more than a handful of people would support

FOREIGN nationals on American soil, here to take away the only protection American citizens could ever wield against a hypothetically tyrannical government.

My street only has four houses. I know my neighbors, and I live at the dead end. Someone will die on their way down my street, should they come for guns expecting to be allowed into houses for the purpose of CONFISCATING a means of sustenance and self-defense. Guaranfuckingteed.

I think you would find that even people who might currently support such a silly notion in theory would suddenly chafe once they saw someone in a foreign uniform exerting authority over American Citizens.

Not happenin', my friend.

Can you say Silly Pipe Dream?

[proteus_lives]

36. Wow, you keep getting worse.

"The gains we saw with gun control through incrementation are slowly being eroded."

Yes, the right way. Through the courts and voting. You want to use force to get your way.

"These armies would be much like UN peace keeping forces in war torn countries."

Yeah, because that always works. :eyes:


It's scary how willing you are to give your rights.

[-..__...]

48. Blue helmets make sight acquisition and alignment...

much easier.

[cowman]

51. I suspect that

you would be the first that we would hunt down as a traitor as soon as we wiped out the "UN Peacekeepers"

[jeepnstein]

65. Then why didn't you propose...

a group of foreign social workers, or high school exchange students to go around confiscating the arms? Don't go around making excuses or trying to muddle up your invading army's mission statement. You advocate stripping American citizens of their Constitutional Rights through the use of foreign troops.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. You realize they would NEED to fire upon civilians right?

ROE always allows return fire.

This is pretty much the worst possible option. People have been joking and passing around fears of 'the UN' coming to disarm them for decades. You'd be playing right into the most tinfoil of tinfoil hat conspiracies by promoting or suggesting, or <insert non-existent diety here> help everyone if it was actually implemented.

This would turn the US into a war zone. Plain and simple. It's not even a funny joke.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. "They would help confiscate the weapons but would not be allowed to fire upon civilians."

That will certainly make it easy to kill them.

[Euromutt]

27. The Mexicans have two divisions, the Canadians have one

That's 50,000 troops (including the truck drivers, company clerks, cooks, etc.) to disarm 50 million gun-owning households. This may take a while.

[oneshooter]

29. Lots of drive by un-recs. n/t

[aikoaiko]

33. Report my tragic boating accident as I was transporting my guns.

:shrug:

[proteus_lives]

37. Mine would "gone" by the first news report of such nonsense.

[-..__...]

47. And some here wonder ...

why gun owners are opposed to any firearms registration scheme.

[slackmaster]

49. I have plenty of extra Mosin-Nagants and Mausers to go around

Bring it on.

[cowman]

52. I agree

bring it on. I may be an old fart but I still remember my days in Vietnam and I would use everything I learned in that sad chapter of my life as I suspect every former and present combat soldier would and there are a hell of a lot of us more than willing to stand up to foreign troops and the likes of people like Don Caballero

[cowman]

53. And the

vast majority of us are well armed and proficient in the use of said arms

[PavePusher]

54. Ditto that.

But anyone who borrows one is going to get a brief ration of shit for not being prepared in advance. (I will, of course, take into account someones economic circumstances.)


M-N at Big 5 - $100-150 (less through other sources)

1500-2000 rounds of ammo and a handful of stripper clips (practice, practice) - $200-400

The ability to be self sufficient for some of your food, or an effective guerilla against invading forces (ANY forces) - Priceless

[slackmaster]

55. Get a Collector of Curios and Relics FFL and you can save a lot of money

And in the case of a restrictive state with high sales taxes like California, a whole lot of hassle and a whole lot of money.

Many of the Web- and mail-order dealers give 03 FFLs the same pricing they give to 01 FFLs (dealers). The discounts apply to everything they sell, including ammunition.

[PavePusher]

57. Yeah, I'm starting to get serious about doing that...

My M-N, Mauser, Enfield and Springfield habit will be better fed that way.


Sigh, there goes another closet. Safes are such a pain. I never should have let my parents talk me into buying the smaller house....

[slackmaster]

59. At $30 plus about another $30 for supplies (e.g. bound book), it's one of the best .gov deals

It's good for five years, and can pay for itself in a single purchase.

I once had six rifles delivered to my house in a single shipment.

[PavePusher]

56. I have begun to wonder...

If ideas like this are being floated by political... agents (for lack of a better word)... to gauge the political winds for such things. Sort of an informal polling process, without having the results, or the persons researching such, ending up in the public media view.

I'll get me hat now... :tinfoilhat:

[one-eyed fat man]

60. in a way you gotta admire the guy.

That level of stupid is way beyond just natural ability. It must have taken decades of dedicated practice!

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

61. With the mexican corrupt like it is, I don't think I would want them take our guns.

What would stop Mexico from taking back Texas?

[slackmaster]

62. Mexicans don't want to take our guns. They just want to borrow them.

[oneshooter]

74. I screwed up on the poll

#1 and #4 are the same.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

75. Not really. #4 is more cynical although the Cash value is the same. N/T

[chrisa]

76. That would be impossible.

It's against international law, I'm sure, and it would be political suicide. That's not even getting into pro or anti gun arguments yet.

The original poster is joking, though. I find his/her writing pretty entertaining, and the responses of people who think he's serious very funny. You're attacking a strawman he/she set up to be the typical ignorant anti-gunner who is unknowingly advocating Fascism / far-fetched ideas / simplistic solutions to a complex problem - Probably why his posts cause so much contraversy! :-)