Biden Says The Military Can Obliterate The Second Amendment

[toddnjoyce]

For sure.

But it’s unusual for an incoming president to demand it from troops already on the payroll…no?

Considering nobody (to include my active duty IN company commander son) has confirmed this was a thing, I think there’s a whole lot of a) context missing from that post or b) horseshît in it. I’m guessing the missing context is around the JCS extemism memo that came out in 2021.

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/JCS%20Message%20to%20the%20Joint%20Force%20JAN%2012%2021.pdf

You can read it and decide for yourself if that is what the OP is alluding to.

You can also try searching the twitosphere to find that tweet….good luck, I can’t.

 

[popsgarland]

They want everyone in every branch of the military to retake their oath of duty which in part says.....against foreign and domestic terrorist....Then everyone will be a domestic terrorist except the democrats and their supporters..

 

[toddnjoyce]

They want everyone in every branch of the military to retake their oath of duty which in part says.....against foreign and domestic terrorist....Then everyone will be a domestic terrorist except the democrats and their supporters..

Neither oath of enlistment nor oath of office includes the word terrorist. Both oaths are codified in the US Code. The last change to the oath of enlistment was in 1962, the oath of office in 1966.

 

[popsgarland]

Neither oath of enlistment nor oath of office includes the word terrorist. Both oaths are codified in the US Code. The last change to the oath of enlistment was in 1962, the oath of office in 1966.

I'll take your word for this.

It was September of 1967 when I took the oath and I can't remember much of what I agreed on.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I'll take your word for this.

It was September of 1967 when I took the oath and I can't remember much of what I agreed on.

10 USC 502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.-Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Prior to 1962, the oath had slightly different wording. See the link for the historical version.

https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=70A&page=17

 

[popsgarland]

10 USC 502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.-Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Prior to 1962, the oath had slightly different wording. See the link for the historical version.

https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=70A&page=17

Yep. That's it. I guess I've been hearing the word "TERRORIST" so many times, that's what stuck in my head.

So, I'll rephrase my comment. We will be called domestic enemies.

 

[DougC]

Two recent comments on this topic from the Warrior Poet channel and Wyoming Law Review.

The debate around what types of “arms” the Second Amendment protects has been revitalized in the wake of Bruen’s renewed focus on our historical tradition as the determinative factor in Second Amendment cases. Thus far, several district courts have upheld state “assault weapon” bans in part by ruling that the Second Amendment applies only to firearms most useful for self-defense, whereas the firearms covered by such bans are more suited to combat. Thus, these courts conclude, firearms that fall under assault weapon ban laws are not protected "arms" under the Second Amendment....

Today, the idea that the Second Amendment exists in part as a “doomsday provision” to repel a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant is treated as a joke. From the President to legal scholars, many deride it as an insurrectionary notion without any true historical pedigree that was concocted by pro-gun activists in the last half-century.

 

[DoubleDuty]

Well that interpretation is totally false because the founders specifically stated no infringements on arms. We have to make sure these state bans are overturned as they most definitely are unconstitutional.

 

[ST5MF]

biden and other liberals would like to trample the Constitution and several Amendments, beginning with the 2nd.

They actually started with the 1A and have been very successful on many levels; they have even used our own tax dollars to silence us on contemporary and relevant platforms. That, and they have imprisoned so called “dissidents” as a means to strike fear in those who may not submit.

 

[ST5MF]

If it came to our military fighting for an out of control administration overthrowing the Constitution, 1/3. Would fight for the G, 1/3 would just sit it out and 1/3 would fight for the Constitution.

The military is not that large. The US Army can’t even maintain half a million soldiers…and not many are beating down recruiters doors. For good reason.

 

[majormadmax]

The military is not that large. The US Army can’t even maintain half a million soldiers…and not many are beating down recruiters doors. For good reason.

The US Army currently stands at just under a million uniformed personnel: 452,689 active duty, 324,019 Army National Guard personnel, and 176,968 Army Reserve personnel...

The US Air Force has 491,325 total uniformed personnel, the Navy 344,022 and Marine Corps 174,484.

If you can do that much math, you'll find that equates to nearly two million Americans serving in uniform.

But I don't think the US military factors into anyone's plan to disarm law-abiding citizens for several reason. First, the Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law. This 143-year-old law embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty.

Secondly, any attempt by the current administration to even invoke such a plan would not only lack support by the majority of those currently serving, it could possibly incur a very serious backlash against those trying to do so.

It would be very tough to convince servicemembers that law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights were a domestic enemy per their oath of office.

 

[V-Tach]

 

[Eastexasrick]

Atrophic epidermis

 

[candcallen]

I was alluding to the active duty pax in the U.S.Army. My math is fine mother fucker and I served 22+ years active duty 1997- 2019. I didn’t sling hash at a DFAC or hand out towels at the base gym either.

Got a little butthurt there? Serious question.

 

[paknheat]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Moonpie]

FJB

 

[paknheat]

FJB

Yeah, FJB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Axxe55]

Yeah, FJB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

thing is biden is phucking all americanevery day he's in office and he ain't using any vaseline doing it!

 

[Whistler]

Ain't that special

 

[Wiliamr]

Biden Says The Military Can Obliterate The Second Amendment

Biden Says The Military Can Obliterate The Second Amendment

Biden said

dailycaller.com

A little over a year old story.