Recent Assaults Against Freedom of Speech and the Press

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-26-2017, 01:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Remember, all this is moot. If the 1st amendment is not being upheld, as in the case in Montana, then the constitution is moot. The 2nd amendment does not protect your right to bear arms, in that case.

If we must secede from a nation that is trending fascist, then we may need to make sure that CA has the wherewithal to turn back an invasion by the fascists. That will require much more than armed citizens.

I vaguely recall tales of an old incident.  A bunch of angry citizens were marching on a palace, where a line of military guys paid for by the royalty stood waiting.  As a king, it is very very bad, first if the infantry refuses to fire on their own people, and second if the infantry breaks their formation and joins the mob.

When should armed professional military and police refuse improper orders given by a government gone bad?  That question would become important before it falls into the hands of the militia.

Governor George Wallace, back in the awakening, called up the Alabama National Guard to protect the state colleges from being segregated.  The federals federalized the Guard, called it up for national service.  The US pays the bills.  Thus, the Guard general gets court marshaled if he doesn't give loyalty to the feds.  The feds won that time.

There were a few military guys concerned towards the climax of Watergate.  At the time, the Marines were the dominant force in the Washington DC area.  They traditionally had a tight loyalty to the executive branch.  While most everyone else was focusing attention on Nixon, Congress, courts and the press, a few people in the Pentagon were concerned about what mid-Atlantic area military units were apt to remain loyal to who.  As it turned out, even Nixon wasn't ready to take the nation over that cliff.

As a private individual, all one can really do is have a small private arsenal ready just in case the pros don't answer the above questions well.  Hopefully, we won't have to see how many generals are patriots.  However, the question of how many generals are patriots will be very important before the militia decides whether to mobilize, and which side to take.

I will note that when Teddy Roosevelt cut off all funds for training the militia, when he created the National Guard under the regulations for a federal standing army, his new select militia became more federal than state.  The proper militia (all adult males) has officers appointed by the state.

Or it would, except no one has appointed lower level militia officers for a century plus.  In many states, the low level officers were elected by the men who served.

The other question?  If the generals are true patriots, will they have fully inflated balls?