# President to Deploy Troops inside the US



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Just saw the President state he was going to ask cities and states to stop the riots, and if they didn't do enough, he would send in federal officers & the US military to do it for them. Never thought I would see this day.

I couldn't believe it and figured I heard wrong, so I played it back again to confirm what I heard. Seems he is going to enact the Insurrection Act of 1807.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Due to the failure of many mayors and governors to protect life and property...

Still, it makes me nervous for several reasons.


----------



## sonofliberty (Jun 1, 2020)

Hell, it is mostly democrats burning democrat cities. Just have him do an EO saying no federal funds to rebuild or repair damages.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> Due to the failure of many mayors and governors to protect life and property...
> 
> Still, it makes me nervous for several reasons.


Can you imagine if any Democratic president had said those words? I just can't imagine our troops being used inside the USA when not requested. Normally, that is illegal. Somehow I think most conservatives, once again, are gonna stay silent.


----------



## sonofliberty (Jun 1, 2020)

******* said:


> Can you imagine if any Democratic president had said those words? I just can't imagine our troops being used inside the USA when not requested. Normally, that is illegal. Somehow I think most conservatives, once again, are gonna stay silent.


My position on the use of federal troops in the USA is simple. Washington and Hamilton should have been hung when they first did it in order to set the tone. I suspect politicians would be much more circumspect in their actions.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

When I was in my teens my Mother"RIP" told me I would live thru a revolution, never could imagined she was right! Could not really wrap my head around the idea.

Still can't believe what's taking place.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

I sure miss the days when being conservative actually meant something. What the hell happened to small government and fiscal responsibility? And no one cares anymore. Only thought that comes to my mind is I've lived too long. As if a government ordered shutdown and killer hornets wasn't enough, now we have our President saying he will send in our military when not requested.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

We have democratic governors and democratic mayors that are basically refusing to control the rioting and protect life and property. It advances their agenda to allow this mayhem to continue. Now there are many many american citizens that are being harmed by this violence. So if mayors and governors refuse to protect citizens, then it pretty much falls to the president and his only real tool is the military. Some may not like using the army to restore order, but what other choice is there? I would love to see the army caputure the leaders of antifa and designate them as “enemy combatants”. Send em to Gitmo.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Not many know or remember this, 

The US Marines and the 82nd were put on an 4 hour alert.

They were going to be sent to washington DC to prevent Nixon from refusing to step down, and take over.

I don't remember all the details, but I did know a Bird Colonel who was involved in the plan.

There were people in the military and congress that were with him, it was to stop the commies in congress.

As all know he stepped down and nothing happened, except we have more commie sympathizers in congress.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Chiefster23 said:


> We have democratic governors and democratic mayors that are basically refusing to control the rioting and protect life and property. It advances their agenda to allow this mayhem to continue. Now there are many many american citizens that are being harmed by this violence. So if mayors and governors refuse to protect citizens, then it pretty much falls to the president and his only real tool is the military. Some may not like using the army to restore order, but what other choice is there? I would love to see the army caputure the leaders of antifa and designate them as "enemy combatants". Send em to Gitmo.


The Congo or Yemen might be better. I do not want those dirt bags back. Still deploying Regular troops makes me uneasy. At this point the violence is more about causing crap that you can get away with rather than protest.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Kill em all, let God sort them out, Joking! Sorry bad humor. These are serious times.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

2006-07 suspension
In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[10] 
Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that: 
The President may employ the armed forces ... to ... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition ... the President determines that ... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order ... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such ... a condition ... so hinders the execution of the laws ... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law ... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[11]
In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.[12] It was originally written to limit presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

WHERE ARE THE COPS? WHERE ARE THE SHERIFFS? WHERE ARE THEY?

In these cities that have been affected by this lawlessness, where are the local cops, mayors, sheriffs, council members, city managers? They all take your money every week and build a pension that you pay for. Where the hell are they in all of this?

Scumbags, everyone of them.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Chiefster23 said:


> We have democratic governors and democratic mayors that are basically refusing to control the rioting and protect life and property. It advances their agenda to allow this mayhem to continue. Now there are many many american citizens that are being harmed by this violence. So if mayors and governors refuse to protect citizens, then it pretty much falls to the president and his only real tool is the military. Some may not like using the army to restore order, but what other choice is there? I would love to see the army caputure the leaders of antifa and designate them as "enemy combatants". Send em to Gitmo.


So which city or state has lost control to terrorists? Who makes that judgement? You saying local government is not responsible to protect their citizens? You saying we need Federals to decide if & when they come in and take over... without being requested?

Keep in mine the word precedent. In this case you may agree with the president... why I have no idea. But once this happens, any president will be free to do so from now on. Wonder if you will feel the same when a liberal president enacts the same act for some trumped up reason, and determines due to the emergency they will confiscate your guns and declare martial law? There is a reason conservatives believe in state's rights and limited federal government. There is a reason this law is the ONLY time a president can use the military inside the US. When there is any doubt, LESS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BETTER!!!


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Maybe Trump knows something we aren't privy to.

I heard today antifa has upped their game quite a bit with communications, medics, explosives, etc, etc, etc.

Maybe another country is pushing the buttons.

I've been behind Trump all this time. I'm not going to start second-guessing his decision making now.

One of the reasons we are all here in the first place is for a SHTF scenario. We talk about it a lot.

Maybe the time spent talking is coming to an end and the time for doing is upon us.

Dunno.......


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> Maybe Trump knows something we aren't privy to.
> 
> I heard today antifa has upped their game quite a bit with communications, medics, explosives, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


Maybe the sky is falling? You know, criminal acts during a protest are nothing new. Both extremes of the left and right live for these times. Like with every other protest that degrades into looting and other criminal behavior, this protest will wind down. However, once you open the door to one person being able to decide when to send in federal troops to take over for a city or state, when not requested... that will never go away. Then we become a true police state. I am absolutely amazed that "conservatives" around here are so cavalier with something as momentous as this. I will guarantee you there will come a time when you will rue the day we let this happen.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

******* said:


> So which city or state has lost control to terrorists? Who makes that judgement? You saying local government is not responsible to protect their citizens? You saying we need Federals to decide if & when they come in and take over... without being requested?
> 
> Keep in mine the word precedent. In this case you may agree with the president... why I have no idea. But once this happens, any president will be free to do so from now on. Wonder if you will feel the same when a liberal president enacts the same act for some trumped up reason, and determines due to the emergency they will confiscate your guns and declare martial law? There is a reason conservatives believe in state's rights and limited federal government. There is a reason this law is the ONLY time a president can use the military inside the US. When there is any doubt, LESS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BETTER!!!


Which city has lost control? Take your pick. The news is showing clip after clip of rioters burning, attacking, and looting with police nowhere in sight. You say the feds shouldn't interfere unless requested. Well who determines when they are requested? Tonite on the news I saw an interview with a crying woman who explained that the mob looted and burned every store within walking distance. Bus service is not running in her city due to covid. She is screwed! Nowhere to buy groceries. I'm sure she would be very glad to have the army come in an restore order. All the shop owners that have been looted and burned would gladly have Trump send in the army. I'm sure you would welcome the feds if Mrs. ******* was beat with a 2x4 and your local police were being told to stand down and not engage the mob. Does deploying the military set a bad precedent? Yep! But do we simply allow these progressive governors to allow rioters free rein to loot and burn?


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

As far as martial law and confiscating guns........ they already do that anyway. Remember hurricane Katrina>


We are in uncharted waters in this country today. I don’t know which answeres are right or wrong. I just know we are in deep shit!


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Chiefster23 said:


> As far as martial law and confiscating guns........ they already do that anyway. Remember hurricane Katrina>
> 
> We are in uncharted waters in this country today. I don't know which answeres are right or wrong. I just know we are in deep shit!


I'm sure there is no right or wrong.

One thing I am sure of, at the point we think Big Brother is our salvation for every crisis, then yes the shit has hit the fan. Have a new virus... Big Brother will shut down private business and force you to stay home. Can't earn a paycheck during this shutdown... Big Brother will print more money and friggin' give it to everyone. Have a riot... Big Brother will come in and take over your law enforcement.

Guess I'm a loner. I'm FRIGGIN' SICK OF BIG BROTHER. I DON'T TRUST BIG BROTHER. I WANT AS LITTLE GOVERNMENT AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

But y'all go ahead and cheer on Big Brother. And all this happens with "conservatives" in control of the presidency and the Senate. What the hell is gonna happen when liberals take over... for those of y'all that think there is a difference in parties.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

******* said:


> So which city or state has lost control to terrorists? Who makes that judgement? You saying local government is not responsible to protect their citizens? You saying we need Federals to decide if & when they come in and take over... without being requested?
> 
> Keep in mine the word precedent. In this case you may agree with the president... why I have no idea. But once this happens, any president will be free to do so from now on. Wonder if you will feel the same when a liberal president enacts the same act for some trumped up reason, and determines due to the emergency they will confiscate your guns and declare martial law? There is a reason conservatives believe in state's rights and limited federal government. There is a reason this law is the ONLY time a president can use the military inside the US. When there is any doubt, LESS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BETTER!!!


There is a long precedent of federal troops being deployed by Presidential order.

Woodrow Wilson - 1919, troops to 20 US cities to quell race riots
Herbert Hoover - 1932, sent troops to the Washington Mall to drive off the WWI vets demanding their promised bonus
Harry Truman - 1946, sent troops to act against striking rail road workers
Dwight Eisenhower - 1957, sent 101st Airborne troops to Little Rock to end riots over school integration
Lyndon Johnson - 1968, sent troops to Chicago to act against rioters at the Democrat Convention
George H.W. Bush - 1989, sent troops to St. Croix, US Virgin Islands, to restore order from civil unrest after hurricane Hugo
George H.W. Bush - 1992, sent troops to Los Angeles to restore order after riots broke out
George W. Bush - 2001, sent troops to guard airports after 9/11


----------



## Joe (Nov 1, 2016)

@******* I understand your position on limiting government involvement in our lives. I am a proponent of that as well. At the same time what if a horde of vandals and thieves descended on your farm that you have worked and sacrificed for for years. Would you not want some assistance? Would you not expect that with the nature of a republic that you would should have some help. After all you have paid tons in taxes to support and maintain a standing force that is sent worldwide to quash "evil". Why not have the same protections we afford others for ourselves? These folks that are looting and burning are not doing so to make a statement . They are making an attempt to destabilize society and civilization as we know it. PS I am glad you are back on the forum again. You were AWOL for a while and we missed you. Joe


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

FWIW - I'm watching Fox5 Live out of DC on my phone.
If fed troops are going to get involved anywhere tonight, I'm guessin it will be there.
If someone can suggest a better link to watch - please speak up.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Plans to destroy monuments seem stalled...

*Armed patriots standing guard outside the Alamo! Remember the Alamo! #ID2AA*


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

******* said:


> I'm sure there is no right or wrong.
> 
> One thing I am sure of, at the point we think Big Brother is our salvation for every crisis, then yes the shit has hit the fan. Have a new virus... Big Brother will shut down private business and force you to stay home. Can't earn a paycheck during this shutdown... Big Brother will print more money and friggin' give it to everyone. Have a riot... Big Brother will come in and take over your law enforcement.
> 
> ...


You are not a loner.

Federal troops being unilaterally sent into the states without a request from the state and local government is an EXTREMELY bad idea!


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> There is a long precedent of federal troops being deployed by Presidential order.
> 
> Woodrow Wilson - 1919, troops to 20 US cities to quell race riots
> Herbert Hoover - 1932, sent troops to the Washington Mall to drive off the WWI vets demanding their promised bonus
> ...


And what do every single one of those past presidents have in common?

A - They are all progressives. Do you really want a president thinking "because Woodrow Wilson or Lyndon Johnson did it, it must be a good idea"?


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

My head hurts.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> You are not a loner.
> 
> Federal troops being unilaterally sent into the states without a request from the state and local government is an EXTREMELY bad idea!


Problem is that those governors don't want this stopped. They are liberals and have empathy with AntiFa. The people are suffering because of this.

I'm no big fan of troops in the streets, though. The PDs know their streets and their people. Their intelligence divisions should be able to pick out the riot leaders, and snatch&gab teams should be able to extract them from the crowds. Troops? They might be hammers and all the people, demonstrators and rioters alike, might become nails.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Inor said:


> You are not a loner.
> 
> Federal troops being unilaterally sent into the states without a request from the state and local government is an EXTREMELY bad idea!


Sets a very dangerous precedent. Imagine how the next socialist regime might utilize that "authority".


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> Problem is that those governors don't want this stopped. They are liberals and have empathy with AntiFa. The people are suffering because of this.
> 
> I'm no big fan of troops in the streets, though. The PDs know their streets and their people. Their intelligence divisions should be able to pick out the riot leaders, and snatch&gab teams should be able to extract them from the crowds. Troops? They might be hammers and all the people, demonstrators and rioters alike, might become nails.


If "those governors" have empathy for Antifa it is because their constituents _want_ them to have empathy for Antifa. The reason those governors are not asking for federal assistance quelling the riots is because a majority of their electorate is okay with the behavior of the rioters. If they are okay with it, why should I spend my tax dollars to send in the military? Let them burn their city down and when it is gone, it is gone. Too bad, so sad...


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Oregon, especially Portland, has a looooong history of taxing and regulating to the point they drive businesses OUT. THEN they complain about low wage jobs LOL. Wait until that city collapses due to their "hands off" policy on ANTIFA, and all investment capital flees.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> If "those governors" have empathy for Antifa it is because their constituents _want_ them to have empathy for Antifa. The reason those governors are not asking for federal assistance quelling the riots is because a majority of their electorate is okay with the behavior of the rioters. If they are okay with it, why should I spend my tax dollars to send in the military? Let them burn their city down and when it is gone, it is gone. Too bad, so sad...


Oh, you are going to enjoy this night's podcast.

Now, I'd like to point out that everyone suffering didn't vote Democrat. Is there some way we are to separate the sheep from the goats or do we protect everyone and hope that the goats learn?


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Inor said:


> If "those governors" have empathy for Antifa it is because their constituents _want_ them to have empathy for Antifa. The reason those governors are not asking for federal assistance quelling the riots is because a majority of their electorate is okay with the behavior of the rioters. If they are okay with it, why should I spend my tax dollars to send in the military? Let them burn their city down and when it is gone, it is gone. Too bad, so sad...


So....a Republic, regardless of the ramifications?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Robie said:


> So....a Republic, regardless of the ramifications?


Yes. What is to be done when the enemy is no longer merely at the gates?


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

I'll leave it to you youngsters to sort out the mess.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Robie said:


> I'll leave it to you youngsters to sort out the mess.


What? A drive-by posting?


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

"A Republic, if you can keep it"

Franklin


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Denton said:


> What? A drive-by posting?


Here's what i think.

The enemy at the gate and within are using the very Constitution to bring down my country.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Robie said:


> Here's what i think.
> 
> The enemy at the gate and within are using the very Constitution to bring down my country.


The enemy uses the word and not the document, itself.

As a matter of fact, the true enemy hates the constitution and wants to destroy it. I could offer articles but they'd violate language rules. Those people are without shame or values.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> Oh, you are going to enjoy this night's podcast.
> 
> Now, I'd like to point out that everyone suffering didn't vote Democrat. Is there some way we are to separate the sheep from the goats or do we protect everyone and hope that the goats learn?


You are ABSOLUTELY correct that not everybody suffering voted for the mess they find themselves in. BUT, they all have the option to choose the same path Mrs Inor and I chose. At some point the only way to win is to just stop playing the game and go Galt.

The question every patriot has to answer for him/herself is when do you finally reach the point where you refuse to continue to fund your own destruction and/or subjugation? When you finally understand that doing the "patriotic" thing and helping to calm the madness and rebuild mess is nothing more than being complicit in your own destruction, then it is time to walk away and let the looters eat themselves.

I past that point several years ago. It took a few years after that to finally be able to walk away. No. I have no sympathy for the real patriots left in Minnesota or New York or Chicago or anywhere else. The smart ones will reach a point where they just walk away. The dumb ones won't.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Robie said:


> So....a Republic, regardless of the ramifications?


Absolutely.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> You are ABSOLUTELY correct that not everybody suffering voted for the mess they find themselves in. BUT, they all have the option to choose the same path Mrs Inor and I chose. At some point the only way to win is to just stop playing the game and go Galt.
> 
> The question every patriot has to answer for him/herself is when do you finally reach the point where you refuse to continue to fund your own destruction and/or subjugation? When you finally understand that doing the "patriotic" thing and helping to calm the madness and rebuild mess is nothing more than being complicit in your own destruction, then it is time to walk away and let the looters eat themselves.
> 
> I past that point several years ago. It took a few years after that to finally be able to walk away. No. I have no sympathy for the real patriots left in Minnesota or New York or Chicago or anywhere else. The smart ones will reach a point where they just walk away. The dumb ones won't.


Sorry, friend, but I don't guide my life by a book written by an Atheist.

I am an Alabamian. Always have been and always will be.

I have individual rights that I expect to be protected. These rights and liberties were given to me by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They were recognized by our Founders and no governmental authority has the right to violate them. If it takes the Federal government to protect them when the state authority will not.... shame on the state.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> Sorry, friend, but I don't guide my life by a book written by an Atheist.


This one is strictly Caesar's problem... I am pretty sure we can agree the folks perpetrating the destruction are Godless animals.



Denton said:


> I am an Alabamian. Always have been and always will be.
> 
> I have individual rights that I expect to be protected. These rights and liberties were given to me by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They were recognized by our Founders and no governmental authority has the right to violate them. If it takes the Federal government to protect them when the state authority will not.... shame on the state.


Again, you are mostly correct, but you left out one significant detail, the states are not violating anybody's rights in the case of the riots; they are refusing to protect them. It sounds insignificant but it is a HUGE difference if you care about Federalism. That is just too slippery of a slope for me.

Squatch was correct on your podcast this evening; these riots might be necessary for people in the libtard states to finally wake up and vote in some better leaders. Or maybe they are content with their cities being burned every few years...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> This one is strictly Caesar's problem... I am pretty sure we can agree the folks perpetrating the destruction are Godless animals.
> 
> Again, you are mostly correct, but you left out one significant detail, the states are not violating anybody's rights in the case of the riots; they are refusing to protect them. It sounds insignificant but it is a HUGE difference if you care about Federalism. That is just too slippery of a slope for me.
> 
> Squatch was correct on your podcast this evening; these riots might be necessary for people in the libtard states to finally wake up and vote in some better leaders. Or maybe they are content with their cities being burned every few years...


I disagree. The main reason for government is to protect the rights of the citizens. By allowing and nurturing those who are violating citizens' God-given rights, the states are more than neglecting their prime duties.

Speaking of Sas, let's say that there are only Sas and ten others in California who are likeminded. Are their rights to be discarded? Not in a constitutional-republic. Only in a "democracy."


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Too many godless people. Things are really gearing up now.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

StratMaster said:


> Sets a very dangerous precedent. Imagine how the next socialist regime might utilize that "authority".


Thanks. That is my whole point.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> I disagree. The main reason for government is to protect the rights of the citizens. By allowing and nurturing those who are violating citizens' God-given rights, the states are more than neglecting their prime duties.
> 
> Speaking of Sas, let's say that there are only Sas and ten others in California who are likeminded. Are their rights to be discarded? Not in a constitutional-republic. Only in a "democracy."


What you say makes sense but now let those on the left say the exact same thing when they take power. They will state that there are too many gun deaths/school shootings/whatever and since the main reason for government is to protect the rights of citizens... then declare martial law and seize all firearms from the people.

My whole point in this is to realize, when you let Big Brother overreach for a reason you support, that you allow Big Brother to overreach for reasons others support. It works both ways. For me it is simple. Don't let Big Brother overreach for any situation. People keep bringing up that I would want Big Brother's help personally if attacked. NO I DON'T !!!! I happen to understand what happens when you unleash Big Brother. It is bad enough dealing with local government. LAST THING I WANT IS MORE FEDERAL POWER. For every time it is used for a purpose you support, it will be used for a purpose you don't.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

To quell the LA riots the 7th Infantry Division and Marines from 29 Palms were sent in to dominate the streets. When you got a city burning to the ground you have to stop it before it spreads to the countryside. I actually think we are witnessing the deaths of mega cities.


----------



## Demitri.14 (Nov 21, 2018)

StratMaster said:


> Plans to destroy monuments seem stalled...
> 
> *Armed patriots standing guard outside the Alamo! Remember the Alamo! #ID2AA*
> 
> View attachment 106587


It Must be cold in Texas, that one guy has his hood up


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

dsdmmat said:


> To quell the LA riots the 7th Infantry Division and Marines from 29 Palms were sent in to dominate the streets. When you got a city burning to the ground you have to stop it before it spreads to the countryside.


The point of this discussion is when the president sends in the troops when not requested. That is what is different here. Where in the Constitution does it state the president has such authority over a state or city?

It is not unusual for local government to request federal help. What has never happened before is where the president states he is the judge and will determine if he sends in the US military to take over law enforcement... when not requested.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> I have individual rights that I expect to be protected. These rights and liberties were given to me by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They were recognized by our Founders and no governmental authority has the right to violate them. If it takes the Federal government to protect them when the state authority will not.... shame on the state.


Yes, shame on the state. But as I questioned above, where does it state in the Constitution, that the president alone has the authority to determine if a state has done enough to protect its citizens? Where does it state in the Constitution that the federal government can make that assessment... much less take over local law enforcement when not requested?


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> To quell the LA riots the 7th Infantry Division and Marines from 29 Palms were sent in to dominate the streets. When you got a city burning to the ground you have to stop it before it spreads to the countryside. I actually think we are witnessing the deaths of mega cities.


Naw, too much insect mentality remainng, no individual thinking.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Police are for keeping the peace
Military is to fight our enemies

when we use our military against the population (USA Citizens) we are treating them as enemies

We would be much better off if shop owners armed themselves and defended their stores and police kicked ass against the looters

looters are not protesting.. they are looting and should be shot - Police should view the situation as if their is a person inside the building that needs to be protected - because there could be ...

word gets out that "MF-ers are getting shot!" guarantee that people will think twice about looting


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)




----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

I am not for deploying regular troops within the country,

however if the mayors and governors will not do the job then send them in.

Look at NYC mayor's proud statement about reduced police presence, 

then last night Macy's and others were looted and burned.

I remember when the guard was posted around where I lived in 1953, in the aftermath of a tornado, 

there were signs on 4X8 sheets of plywood, message; LOOTERS WILL BE SHOT. 

Do not recall if any were shot, access to the devastation was if you could prove you lived there. 

We went through a checkpoint of National guardsmen, showed something to them and passed through.

I remember each one had one or two bandoliers of ammo for their M1 garands, they were not fooling around.

There were patrols by them in jeeps that we watched, while our parents were trying to recover belongings.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Now that Antifa are officially terrorists, does that mean we can hunt them down like we do in the Middle East?

Asking for a friend.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Now that Antifa are officially terrorists, does that mean we can hunt them down like we do in the Middle East?
> 
> Asking for a friend.


Nothing would give me more pleasure than caping one of those bastards while in the act of throwing a Molotov.

It really pisses me off to watch for years now the shit they do with no retribution on them, even with the cops standing by.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Just my 2 cents...

It's a lose/lose for Trump and the rule of law. 

If the national guard, military and police get dominant to stop this they will be accused of excessive force and racism.

If they do nothing then they'll get blames for "doing nothing" And not helping protect the citizens and the real "peacfull protesters"

My vote.... do nothing. 

Pull back the police, the national guard and army and have them all safe and secure in their precincts and military locations. 

Let the rioters burn down the cesspools like Detroit, L.A., Chicago. They are mainly burning their own neighborhoods and businesses. Let the Democrat mayors and governors deal with the problems they created. 

And when the rioters come to the suburbs... We won't need the police except in liberal democrats ruled areas where they have gun control. They'll get a taste of what they voted for. Won't change them though. They'd whine about not being defended then whine about excessive force. 

In the words of the philosopher Plato.. f’em.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Btw, the MSM and a few people in congress (AOC specifically) should be arrested for inciting violence and aiding a terrorist organization. You can read her comments all over the news.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Inor said:


> You are ABSOLUTELY correct that not everybody suffering voted for the mess they find themselves in. * BUT, they all have the option to choose the same path Mrs Inor and I chose.* At some point the only way to win is to just stop playing the game and go Galt.
> 
> The question every patriot has to answer for him/herself is when do you finally reach the point where you refuse to continue to fund your own destruction and/or subjugation? When you finally understand that doing the "patriotic" thing and helping to calm the madness and rebuild mess is nothing more than being complicit in your own destruction, then it is time to walk away and let the looters eat themselves.
> 
> I past that point several years ago. It took a few years after that to finally be able to walk away. No. I have no sympathy for the real patriots left in Minnesota or New York or Chicago or anywhere else. The smart ones will reach a point where they just walk away. The dumb ones won't.


I agree with your words. And, sadly, not everyone has the funds to do what you and MrsInor did, nor the bravery to do it without funds, like I did. Nor were we raised to believe we had no choices in our own lives. All that said - IMO - this is all way past protests, riots, antifa and even Soros. Fed v. State is what triggered CW. I don't know what's going to happen here - but I sure didn't see Fed v. State as the trigger for CW2. I'm not defending any position here, just sayin.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

SOCOM42 said:


> I am not for deploying regular troops within the country,
> 
> however if the mayors and governors will not do the job then send them in.


Without a request for help? Under what authority? Who determines how good a job is being done? You really wish to cede this much power to every president? You believe in state's rights?


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

dsdmmat said:


> To quell the LA riots the 7th Infantry Division and Marines from 29 Palms were sent in to dominate the streets. When you got a city burning to the ground you have to stop it before it spreads to the countryside. I actually think we are witnessing the deaths of mega cities.


So do I. Wonder where all those people are gonna go live now.

I'm assuming that the fed troops were not asked by CA officials to come help. Is that right?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Don’t the innocent people who live in these cities deserve protection?


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Let the people who voted these liberal leaders into power, deal with the consequences of their votes.

If the elected leaders want to not only allow but promote bad behavior....let their cities burn...let them live with their voting decisions.

Just don't come to me for my hard-earned tax dollars so you can rebuild it...only to have it happen again in a few years.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

******* said:


> Without a request for help? Under what authority? Who determines how good a job is being done? You really wish to cede this much power to every president? You believe in state's rights?


With local authorities not dealing properly with the problem, yes, I am talking Anarchist here not civil protesters.

Look at what has already happened by their incompetent leadership or design, disgusting to say the least.

There is a threat to national security caused by them, each time ANTIFA has gone into action the level has increased dramatically.

Do you want to wait until they break into an armory when more embolden and then to use those weapons on police and civilians???

They have been brought in before, will need to again if locals don't get their heads out of their asses.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Don't the innocent people who live in these cities deserve protection?


Of course they do. But the narrative around here is that the police have abdicated their responsibility, and I don't see that. Every news report shows the police out in force and many with help from the national guard. And if they need more help protecting innocent citizens, they can REQUEST help from the federals.

I would like to see proof where local government has withdrawn the police and handed their city over the lawlessness. Of course, they can't be everywhere, especially with a massed police presence surrounding peaceful protesters. But show me where police have given up.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Don't the innocent people who live in these cities deserve protection?


I dont want to see harm come to any of my countrymen no matter who they vote for BUT this maybe a time in history for "tough love". People have made their bed with poor choices in voting and coddling criminals and now must lay in it.

It's a tough call. Gotta admit I'm torn on this.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

SOCOM42 said:


> With local authorities not dealing properly with the problem, yes, I am talking Anarchist here not civil protesters.
> 
> Look at what has already happened by their incompetent leadership or design, disgusting to say the least.
> 
> ...


You didn't answer my questions.

No I don't want anyone to wait until it is too late. If the local authorities need help, they can use their own national guard or even REQUEST federal help.

Everyone is dancing around the main issue. Do we want the federal government superseding a state's right? Very simple question but watch out. You will get what you ask for.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Sasquatch said:


> I dont want to see harm come to any of my countrymen no matter who they vote for BUT this maybe a time in history for "tough love". People have made their bed with poor choices in voting and coddling criminals and now must lay in it.
> 
> It's a tough call. Gotta admit I'm torn on this.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I'm not torn at all.

This is not your father's democratic party. This is no longer just a difference of opinions. Back then, even though a person was of a different political persuasion, you still believed they had the best interest of America at heart. That is no longer true. These people want to destroy America, not make it better.

They certainly are my enemy.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

******* said:


> Of course they do. But the narrative around here is that the police have abdicated their responsibility, and I don't see that. Every news report shows the police out in force and many with help from the national guard. And if they need more help protecting innocent citizens, they can REQUEST help from the federals.
> 
> I would like to see proof where local government has withdrawn the police and handed their city over the lawlessness. Of course, they can't be everywhere, especially with a massed police presence surrounding peaceful protesters. But show me where police have given up.


How about that Minneapolis police station that was just burned to the ground after the police were ordered to not defend it.

Does that count in your book??????????????

What the hell kind of a political statement does that make to the onlookers???

How about NYC mayor bragging about reducing police presence during the riots.

There is plenty of footage showing police setting up perimeter roadblocks.

They were set up OUTSIDE of conflict areas letting the bastards burn everything down without interference.

Time and time again in many cities under attack, the mayors have ordered the police to stand down.

Do you live in another world and not see the news reports for the last decade at least??

In the state of Washington,

ANTIFA were creating havoc and attacking people while the police watched without interfering by orders from above.

SORRY my response was not swift enough for you, I am a hunt and peck guy started typing right after you posted.

It has taken me this long to respond, slow and arthritis.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Maine-Marine said:


> Police are for keeping the peace
> Military is to fight our enemies
> ...


NYC doesn't need the guard or fed troops.
NYPD has 36,000 officers.
Only problem is - their hands are tied.
They could stop this, shut it down; 
Cuomo/DuhBlasio don't want it to end.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

SOCOM42 said:


> How about that Minneapolis police station that was just burned to the ground after the police were ordered to not defend it.
> 
> Does that count in your book??????????????
> 
> ...


I would think you would understand tactical decisions when one is overwhelmed. I don't have enough info to declare all states run by Democrats have given up their responsibility to their people. I would think that is a stretch.

But you keep ignoring my point. So what? What Constitutional authority does the president have to send in the US military during a riot? Sure, that act would allow him to if say another country or terrorists actually took over. That is the only time the feds can do so. Not simply because you think the locals aren't doing a good job.

Seems folks around here embrace the Constitution only when it benefits themselves. I embrace it always. I embrace free speech even when I find it disgusting. I embrace state's rights ALWAYS. Soon as you allow someone to chip away at our Constitution, the sooner more gets chipped away. IMO, we must defend the Constitution always, but especially when we wish it would go away for our own selfish purposes.

The issue here is not are the Democrats doing a good job. It is not how good have the police done. It is, do you believe the Constitution must be adhered to?


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

The mayor of Mini or the police chief should have sent in people to reinforce the station,

I would have here when I was on the PD, I was OIC for a years while the chief was out IOD.

There was a political point to be made there and the city lost.

IMHO the equivalent of battle of khe Sahn, 

that station will stand as a recruitment poster for ANTIFA for decades unless they are destroyed.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

******* said:


> I would think you would understand tactical decisions when one is overwhelmed. I don't have enough info to declare all states run by Democrats have given up their responsibility to their people. I would think that is a stretch.
> 
> But you keep ignoring my point. So what? What Constitutional authority does the president have to send in the US military during a riot? Sure, that act would allow him to if say another country or terrorists actually took over. That is the only time the feds can do so. Not simply because you think the locals aren't doing a good job.
> 
> ...


I wonder....if a short time after the Constitution was fresh in everyone's minds, would the writers and signers of it have allowed what is happening the last 5-6 days to go on?

I bet we all can agree on a firm...NO.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> Yes, shame on the state. But as I questioned above, where does it state in the Constitution, that the president alone has the authority to determine if a state has done enough to protect its citizens? Where does it state in the Constitution that the federal government can make that assessment... much less take over local law enforcement when not requested?


Where does it state that the president has to wait for a request for assistance when the local and state governments aren't protecting the citizens of their states?

This provides him with the authority to act if he so chooses:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

******* said:


> I would think you would understand tactical decisions when one is overwhelmed. I don't have enough info to declare all states run by Democrats have given up their responsibility to their people. I would think that is a stretch.
> 
> But you keep ignoring my point. So what? What Constitutional authority does the president have to send in the US military during a riot? * Sure, that act would allow him to if say another country or terrorists actually took over.* That is the only time the feds can do so. Not simply because you think the locals aren't doing a good job.
> 
> ...


Does the act of Antifa being declared a Domestic Terrorist organization affect your position at all?
My knee-jerk is it should...but it's not impossible that a Lib Prez could declare gun-owners Domestic Terrorists...so yeah, I dont know.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Denton said:


> Where does it state that the president has to wait for a request for assistance when the local and state governments aren't protecting the citizens of their states?
> 
> This provides him with the authority to act if he so chooses:
> 
> https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim


A few people on a few forums I frequent are acting like....he's already done it.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> Where does it state that the president has to wait for a request for assistance when the local and state governments aren't protecting the citizens of their states?
> 
> This provides him with the authority to act if he so chooses:
> 
> https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim


You read it?

*Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.*


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

In my opinion, ANTIFA members are agents of a foreign power and should be dealt with on a federal level if needed.

You can argue constitutional semantics all day if you want to, it all ends when the bullets start flying and houses are burning.

I am not arguing your points they are correct in every way ideally speaking.

Are you going to tell me that I violated someone's right by shooting them,

as they poured gasoline on my home and was ready to light it up???

I spent 28 years total in the regular army and NG, I do know tactics and logistics, that station was a strategic blunder.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

MountainGirl said:


> Does the act of Antifa being declared a Domestic Terrorist organization affect your position at all?
> My knee-jerk is it should...but it's not impossible that a Lib Prez could declare gun-owners Domestic Terrorists...so yeah, I dont know.


No. My position is if they can't handle insurrection by themselves, they can call in the national guard. If they deem necessary, they can REQUEST federal help.

I don't play with the Constitution.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

******* said:


> You read it?
> 
> *Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.*


Also - that part I made blue ^^ reads like the President can call up, say, Nebraska NatGuard to assist in Kansas... I dont see the mention of Fed Troops in what you quoted.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Your thread title is very misleading.



> *President to Deploy Troops inside the US*


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

SOCOM42 said:


> In my opinion, ANTIFA members are agents of a foreign power and should be dealt with on a federal level if needed.
> 
> You can argue constitutional semantics all day if you want to, it all ends when the bullets start flying and houses are burning.
> 
> ...


I knew you understood tactics.  And I'm sure you've seen many a blunder. When the bullets fly and houses are burning, I'll join you in shooting the bastards. I'll even order up some Slippy pikes. That is however not the issue here. The issue is Constitutionally, can a president send in US troops without being requested just because, in his opinion, local government isn't doing enough.

My youngest son who lives in downtown Memphis is not a gun owner. But because of all this, he is coming down to the farm this weekend for some training on my 870 Police... which I will give to him.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> You read it?
> 
> *Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.*


Yup, I read it:

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Robie said:


> Your thread title is very misleading.


Why so. He stated he was prepared to enact the Insurrection Act and would send troops if not requested.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> Yup, I read it:
> 
> (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;


So who decides when these rights are deprived? Any riot? Any looting. 1 business? 100 businesses? 1000 businesses?

Who decides when authorities are unable, fail or refuse to protect? For me, that would be a wholesale removal of police from a city/state. I have not seen that. I've seen police fighting protesters and police getting shot. Just because Trump, or any president, doesn't think local government does enough, that is not enough reason to enact this law. Do it now, and one day a liberal president will do it after the next school shooting.

IMO, the "intent" of the law was that help would be requested or if unable to ask for help, the president could do so on his own. I don't think they intended to give up a state's right.

But go ahead & allow for unlimited presidential power. Just see how you like it next time around.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Robie said:


> Let the people who voted these liberal leaders into power, deal with the consequences of their votes.
> 
> If the elected leaders want to not only allow but promote bad behavior....let their cities burn...let them live with their voting decisions.
> 
> Just don't come to me for my hard-earned tax dollars so you can rebuild it...only to have it happen again in a few years.


I was a Soldier. I am a Soldier. I will always be a Soldier.
I voluntarily went to a foreign land to help the oppressed, the downtrodden, the abused, the murdered.
If you think I don't have the same compassion for my fellow Americans, you are mistaken.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

MountainGirl said:


> Also - that part I made blue ^^ reads like the President can call up, say, Nebraska NatGuard to assist in Kansas... I dont see the mention of Fed Troops in what you quoted.


Actually, from my understanding, the original act specified the US Army... because that was all we had at the time. I believe the amended act now adds the US Air Force, but still doesn't mention the Navy.

Typical government shit.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> So who decides when these rights are deprived? Any riot? Any looting. 1 business? 100 businesses? 1000 businesses?
> 
> Who decides when authorities are unable, fail or refuse to protect? For me, that would be a wholesale removal of police from a city/state. I have not seen that. I've seen police fighting protesters and police getting shot. Just because Trump, or any president, doesn't think local government does enough, that is not enough reason to enact this law. Do it now, and one day a liberal president will do it after the next school shooting.
> 
> But go ahead & allow for unlimited presidential power. Just see how you like it next time around.


First, you claimed the President had no authority to protect the citizens, quoting part of the Insurrection Act. Upon reading the applicable part, you want to argue when the appropriate time for using the military. Sorry, but I don't have time for that argument.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I was a Soldier. I am a Soldier. I will always be a Soldier.
> I voluntarily went to a foreign land to help the oppressed, the downtrodden, the abused, the murdered.
> If you think I don't have the same compassion for my fellow Americans, you are mistaken.


Did you help the people who supported Ho Chi Minh? Of course not.

That's what I'm getting at. The voters who elected the officials who are allowing and promoting all this, do not get my support...American (in theory only) or not.

Peaceful protesting is one thing. Promoting violence is quite another.

If you voted for the guy/gal that is promoting it....I have no use for you.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Denton said:


> First, you claimed the President had no authority to protect the citizens, quoting part of the Insurrection Act. Upon reading the applicable part, you want to argue when the appropriate time for using the military. Sorry, but I don't have time for that argument.


You don't have time to discuss presidential overreach? No time to determine if this is allowed by the Constitution or this law?

The Constitution gives most rights to the states. The feds can only override a state when EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution. This one and only law allows the feds to come in to protect citizens. But it explicitly states only when they can't do so themselves. Can you not see if we allow this, using this justification, you open the door to a liberal president to do worse?

But you are too busy.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Now that Antifa are officially terrorists, does that mean we can hunt them down like we do in the Middle East?
> 
> Asking for a friend.


Trump is handing these out


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Sasquatch said:


> I dont want to see harm come to any of my countrymen no matter who they vote for BUT this maybe a time in history for "tough love". People have made their bed with poor choices in voting and coddling criminals and now must lay in it.
> 
> It's a tough call. Gotta admit I'm torn on this.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


At least the MiltiaGun folks will stand up for freedom, where Stretchin' Gretchen won't.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Well, now it seems Cuomo says he can step in and remove DeBlasio cause he's doing such a shit job.
Sound familiar? LOL

https://www.foxnews.com/us/cuomo-de-blasio-riot


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

******* said:


> You don't have time to discuss presidential overreach? No time to determine if this is allowed by the Constitution or this law?
> 
> The Constitution gives most rights to the states. The feds can only override a state when EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution. This one and only law allows the feds to come in to protect citizens. But it explicitly states only when they can't do so themselves. Can you not see if we allow this, using this justification, you open the door to a liberal president to do worse?
> 
> But you are too busy.


You asked a question and I answered it. Then, you want me to ponder with you just how many businesses must be destroyed before the federal government is authorized to become involved. Now, you want to tell me about the Constitution. I'll take a few minutes to assist you on this.

The U.S. Constitution frames the Federal government, outlining its specific authorities and powers and which branch wields them. All other rights belong to the states and the individuals.

The primary mission of government (in our country) is to protect individual rights and liberties. Right now, an international organization (AntiFa), funded by a billionaire who hates this country (Soros), is using the cover of demonstrations to burn down cities in order to throw the country into chaos. Some city and state governments have chosen to not take action needed to protect life and property. If they won't do it, then that leaves only the federal government to do so.

Now, rather than getting into a numbers discussion, you simply tell us when the federal government should move.

I'm not arguing the military should be used, now. I already stated why it makes me nervous. I am simply stating that the authority is there to do that.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

******* said:


> You don't have time to discuss presidential overreach? No time to determine if this is allowed by the Constitution or this law?
> 
> The Constitution gives most rights to the states. The feds can only override a state when EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution. This one and only law allows the feds to come in to protect citizens. But it explicitly states only when they can't do so themselves. Can you not see if we allow this, using this justification, you open the door to a liberal president to do worse?
> 
> But you are too busy.


You call yourself a *******, I reckon that I am.

Around here The Posse aka Mounted Division block roads during emergencies, like accidents, fires, and now , probably this crap.

This is on a volunteer basis, with zero pay. But I will keep my county safe.

eta--My LG Fortune 2 on ATT, has not had signal all day, lots of cell outages since morning.....


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Robie said:


> Did you help the people who supported Ho Chi Minh? Of course not.
> 
> That's what I'm getting at. The voters who elected the officials who are allowing and promoting all this, do not get my support...American (in theory only) or not.
> 
> ...


Poor analogy.
The North Vietnamese were my enemies, they were trying to kill me.

They are no longer my enemy, and I would gladly sit down and drink a cup of tea with them.

It says in the Book of Mark that Jesus said the two most important commandments were to love God, and also to love your neighbor as yourself.

I try to do that as much as I can.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Heard one of his press secs on the radio..yep hes mo serious than a kanser as the East Texas grit eaters often say to one anther to denote something is really serious. Hes not going to and stand by while a bunch of crazy unsaved heathens destroy the Country. He's God's Man and the bad guys best look out. Think Mr Shotgun and I will stay up late tonight out in the shadows. I knows the drill lol. 
when the chips are down every gun counts. This maybe what we been prepping for all these years. Lets do our thing. God Bless the USA..God Bless Brother Trump!


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

******* said:


> Just saw the President state he was going to ask cities and states to stop the riots, and if they didn't do enough, he would send in federal officers & the US military to do it for them. Never thought I would see this day.
> 
> I couldn't believe it and figured I heard wrong, so I played it back again to confirm what I heard. Seems he is going to enact the Insurrection Act of 1807.


My first thought is it's not going to happen.
My second is we are so damn close to the oft spoken "blow it all up and start over" mantra.
Godspeed to us all!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

This is an article that needs to be read and shared far and wide.

https://noqreport.com/2020/06/02/la...has-to-die-in-order-for-their-world-to-exist/


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Black 5 said:


> If the state government refuses to protect the citizens, remove the government officials.
> Let Trump bring in troops. Screw all the second guessing. Your choices now are to stop the riots, or let them loot and burn until they get tired. And you know if you let them get away with it, they'll do it again with even more impunity.
> 
> You can discuss, debate, and philosophize all day. And all the time you are, buildings are burning, businesses are lost, and chaos is the daily agenda.
> ...


Exactly.
Obama let them get away with it over, and over, and over.
And that is why we are where we are.

Someone burning cop cars and stores? Throwing bricks at decent people? Or even worse, beating that store owner to death while filming it?
Shoot them down in the streets like the rabid animals they are. Shoot them dead so there are no huge medical bills for the taxpayers.

Harsh? You bet. But these animals are psychopaths with no conscience or sense of right and wrong.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Exactly.
> Obama let them get away with it over, and over, and over.
> And that is why we are where we are.
> 
> ...


Worth repeating!!!!

Just one riot with all the riotor's slabbed, see how many more riots will happen, maybe one.

Now I mean rioters not protestors, they have a right to protest.

The demonrats are allowing them to take Trump down and put their agenda in place.

Throw the remains in an incinerator along with the rest of the trash.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Exactly.
> Obama let them get away with it over, and over, and over.
> And that is why we are where we are.
> 
> ...


What about that "loving thy neighbor" stuff? :devil::devil::devil::devil:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Robie said:


> What about that "loving thy neighbor" stuff? :devil::devil::devil::devil:


Them ain't his neighbors!


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Denton said:


> Them ain't his neighbors!


Got it...selective love.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Robie said:


> Got it...selective love.


Tough love?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Robie said:


> Got it...selective love.


Nope.
The bible is quite clear about self defense. In a number of places. We have the absolute right to protect ourselves, and a duty to protect our loved ones.

Somewhere I have the list of scripture I made regarding war, killing, and other things I was wrestling with when I was dealing with my PTSD.
Dwight probably could shed light on it, too.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

When I am questioned about self defense . . . concealed carry . . . willingness to use deadly force, these are the two scriptures I like to use.

The first is an actual command from Jesus, Himself, on the night He was arrested. He told the disciples to have weaponry with them . . . knowing what was about to happen. Later that night, ol' Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of Malcus, the high priest's servant . . . an act which demostrated to the mob that they could have a fight if they wanted it . . . and the mob declined. Instead, they were content to take Jesus and leave the disciples alone. Nothing is said of the second sword they had . . . I'v always assumed it was at least brandished enough to let someone know he could lose an ear as well :sad2:.

_*Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. *_

But swords / ears / healings / etc . . . is all secondary to the point that Jesus, Himself, commanded them to be armed . . . making it at least permissible for me to do the same.

In the other verse, . . . Paul is instructing a young minister he has "brought up" in the faith . . . and he is instructing him on how to handle and work with a church and Christian folk. He makes several statements . . . this one is especially aimed at the head of the household . . . the husband in most cases . . . and demands that he "provide" for his own.

*1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 
*

I won't bore you with the litany of Old Testament verses which traffic in the duties of the husband and father . . . sufficient to say he was commanded to "provide" food, clothing, housing, love, teaching, correction, and last but certainly not least . . . protection.

That protection in one verse deals especially with a home invasion: _*Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 
*_

And . . . it can easily be spread over a business invasion or destruction such as we are seeing nowdays.

Personally . . . as a pastor and one who loves the Lord . . . I have no qualms whatsoever telling folks to protect themselves . . . their family . . . and their living if it comes to that. Looters are nothing more than home grown terrorists . . . and shooting them grave yard dead will cure them of their desire to continue their looting ways.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Thank you, Dwight.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

1skrewsloose said:


> Kill em all, let God sort them out, Joking! Sorry bad humor. These are serious times.


Serious times calls for sick humor. It gets us through.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Robie said:


> What about that "loving thy neighbor" stuff? :devil::devil::devil::devil:


In all seriousness, there's times when it's a mercy to get rid of them so they don't offend God anymore.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

******* said:


> The point of this discussion is when the president sends in the troops when not requested. That is what is different here. Where in the Constitution does it state the president has such authority over a state or city?
> 
> It is not unusual for local government to request federal help. What has never happened before is where the president states he is the judge and will determine if he sends in the US military to take over law enforcement... when not requested.


It has happened before. The civil war saw federal troops deployed to states without their request or consent. But the authority the president has to do it is in Title 10. 
https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

OK, so I'm not alone in my beliefs.

*Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Wednesday he opposes using the U.S. military to quiet domestic unrest in a break with President Donald Trump who threatened to deploy federal troops to "dominate the streets."

"I say this not only as secretary of defense, but also as a former soldier, and a former member of the National Guard: The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now," Esper said. "I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act." *


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Did Trump actually deploy troops?

Or...........................................................................did he threaten to to get the mayors and governors off their asses?

He's been known to use slight of hand.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

******* said:


> OK, so I'm not alone in my beliefs.
> 
> *Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Wednesday he opposes using the U.S. military to quiet domestic unrest in a break with President Donald Trump who threatened to deploy federal troops to "dominate the streets."
> 
> "I say this not only as secretary of defense, but also as a former soldier, and a former member of the National Guard: The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now," Esper said. "I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act." *


Figure he will be the former Sec Def within a week.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

******* said:


> OK, so I'm not alone in my beliefs.
> 
> *Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Wednesday he opposes using the U.S. military to quiet domestic unrest in a break with President Donald Trump who threatened to deploy federal troops to "dominate the streets."
> 
> "I say this not only as secretary of defense, but also as a former soldier, and a former member of the National Guard: The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now," Esper said. "I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act." *


He met with Trump today and walked it back.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Robie said:


> Did Trump actually deploy troops?
> 
> Or...........................................................................did he threaten to to get the mayors and governors off their asses?
> 
> He's been known to use slight of hand.


Marines from Pendleton were in LA two nights ago; <--might not be accurate.

fed troops still in DC.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

MountainGirl said:


> Marines from Pendleton were in LA two nights ago; fed troops still in DC.


On the ground...locked and loaded...or waiting?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> Marines from Pendleton were in LA two nights ago; fed troops still in DC.


DC comes under federal control.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Robie said:


> On the ground...locked and loaded...or waiting?


Let me find the link to confirm. What I recall is on the ground in LA, unknown which in DC.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I believe I saw on one of the military news sites I follow that it is battalion of Military Police that is in DC.

I'm not sure how many MP's are in a battalion, a battalion of infantry is about 800 men.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

MountainGirl said:


> Let me find the link to confirm. What I recall is on the ground in LA, unknown which in DC.


yup...just wondering if they have been dispersed into the neighborhoods or are on standby....for looks.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Robie said:


> yup...just wondering if they have been dispersed into the neighborhoods or are on standby....for looks.


What I heard on news radio two mornings ago (that the marines were helping to guard parts of LA) I can't now confirm with a link or find now - so, my answer to your question is "I dont know."

(and, I edited the post that prompted your question, thank you.)


----------



## User Name (Dec 18, 2015)

OMG!


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

******* said:


> Can you imagine if any Democratic president had said those words? I just can't imagine our troops being used inside the USA when not requested. Normally, that is illegal. Somehow I think most conservatives, once again, are gonna stay silent.


Pres Bush (Jr) signed into law a new security law that effectively ended posse cumitatis and allows the U.S. Military to be used when an emergency is declared, to enforce laws in the U.S. I ws against it then...still am...but it is a law that was signed and passed, so its the law of the land now.

At this point I don't really care. having the liberal left get bitch slapped by the law or the military suits my needs just fine....when it starts affecting me...then I will get involve....until then....if anybody sees my oldest son out holding a white silence is violence sign.....kick his ass so very bad for me....and if your black i'll throw in some snoop dogg CD's....if you stomp his ass for me.


----------

