Defend the Constitution?

[Steel Horse Rider]

James O'Keefe interviewed a Department of Defense employee who seemed to have a bad understanding of how to defend the Constitution, basically saying that if there was any killing to do the government would do it. The tyranny meter is certainly on the rise.

DoD employee tells O'Keefe citizens should be forced to relinquish their firearms

James O’Keefe recently released an undercover video in which Jason Beck, a Department of Defense employee, asserts that firearms owners should have their guns confiscated. By force. By the National Guard. Constitution? What Constitution?...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[Mk-211]

It's not just the politicians that you'll need to defend it against.

 

[Pudge]

It is discouraging when those in authority don't understand that the Bill of Rights is there to protect us from them.

 

[AlexanderA]

Why should we think that some random "Department of Defense employee" speaks with any authority at all? At least I'd like to see some official job title.

 

[hso]

Why should we think that some random "Department of Defense employee" speaks with any authority at all? At least I'd like to see some official job title.

I was thinking the same thing. Does this Jason Beck have any policy role or is he just some random cog in the great wide cadre of nobodies with Anti 2A beliefs?

Jason Beck, a Department of Defense employee, asserts that firearms owners should have their guns confiscated. By force. By the National Guard.

 

[CapnMac]

Well, there's the very real problem of conflation, one of the sad consequences of "credentialism."

If a person mops the floors of the Post Office, does that mean that they represent official USPS policy?

Keeping this more to THR, there are those out there who believe, fervently, that "recoil" only occurs after the bullet leaves the muzzle. Others believe that bullets have "lift" and rise above the bore axis as a result of that lift.

Now, a person can believe what they want to believe. They can believe that as an absolute binary. That's their look out.

Where I'm likely to object, and strenuously so, is if they insist I believe those things as absolutely as they do.

Unlike many of the "Capital 'L' " libertarians out there, I do not believe "your right to swing" ends at the end of my nose, but at least a meter away in all directions.

 

[Old Dog]

It is discouraging when those in authority don't understand that the Bill of Rights is there to protect us from them.

The individual in question is in no way in a position of authority. Low level staffer, who probably just types into his computer drafts of policy notes handed down to him by his supervisors.

Not only is this much ado about nothing, it's difficult to believe that the opinions of this tool are in any way indicative of how DoD policy is being driven.

Now, we do have some notice that there may be some DOJ folks with similar viewpoints, but until the coup or martial law, just not gonna worry about low-level DoD staffers' comments surreptiously recorded on first dates in gay bars.

 

[Elkins45]

Jason Beck, a Department of Defense employee, asserts that firearms owners should have their guns confiscated. By force. By the National Guard.

I wonder if this guy has any idea what percentage of National Guard members own firearms? Does he propose they confiscate their own?

 

[Mk-211]

Politicians have made worse threats. Then wonder why we have a second amendment.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...atened-to-go-nuclear-on-gun-owners-literally/

Then you have a bunch of Karen's and their husband's that are even worse.

https://momsdemandaction.org/

The sad part, they're more organized than gun owners!!!

 

[AlexanderA]

The aspect of the 2nd Amendment that enables civilian "resistance to tyranny" is important for its deterrent effect. If it ever came to civilians actually taking up arms against the government, the country would be in deep doo-doo. This is like nations maintaining nuclear arsenals. They are for deterrence. If a full-scale nuclear exchange took place, it would mean the end of civilization if not a species extinction event. So we should be careful when we toss around such concepts.

 

[Resist Evil]

The man may not be important enough to be in the policy-making chain, but his statements might possibly reflect the DoD's culture which may contain the typical Democrats' casual dismissal of citizen rights.

 

[shafter]

I don't think the armed population is much of a deterrence anymore. The powers that be are well aware that complete control is possible to attain with minimal violence. In fact allowing people to own weapons is probably part of the facade that makes people think they are free when in fact they are not.

 

[.308 Norma]

The powers that be are well aware that complete control is possible to attain with minimal violence.

Shoot, I'll give up my guns when the "powers that be" pry my Social Security, Medicare, VA healthcare, and my wife's state retirement pension from my "cold dead hands."
Oh, that's right - the "powers that be" can already take all of those things from me with just a few strokes of a pen. I guess that's what's meant by the saying, "The pen's mightier than the sword." huh?

 

[Howland937]

part of the facade that makes people think they are free when in fact they are not.

Just enough rope? Never really considered that. I would speculate that those of us who own guns are more free than those who don't. At least in terms of choices we can ultimately make.

I'll go with "so what?", which is standard for anytime someone I've never heard of has an overvalued opinion of themselves and/or their position in this world.

 

[Old Dog]

I don't think the armed population is much of a deterrence anymore.

I'm gonna just go ahead and disagree a little here.

Not long ago, I read an interview with a respected, retired military analyst (can't remember the source, but it wasn't in some obscure, non-credible right-wing site), anyway, the guy's position was that military authority -- in terms of potential martial law -- was an illusion.

One point made:. The military research study done a few years back that projected conservatively, approximately 47% of active military units would likely not only refuse orders for action against citizens, but over 80% of those would most likely actively resist/defend against these types of actions. (Research among law enforcement personnel (not administrators or chiefs of police) reflects a higher percentage of over 65%.

Hundreds of times more small arms in the hands of the citizens than the military, and the military doesn't have near enough for small arms for 10% of its forces.

Oh, and the President has to ask the states to nationalize their national guard troops.

The government clearly has reason to be fearful of the populace which easily explains the continuing push to disarm the law-abiding citizens.

The powers that be are well aware that complete control is possible to attain with minimal violence

Oh, like we attained control, with all our resources, of the population of Afghanistan in 25 years? I've seen, over the years, credible estimates that the federal government might be able to gain "control" over only a handful of cities but probably couldn't maintain that control for long.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

My nephew spent 20 years in the Army Special Forces and as a Delta Operator and has made the same comment as Old Dog did above. Hillbillies using 60 year old weaponry kept the most powerful militaries in the world at bay for around 30 years when you consider Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Given they had some outside assistance on some occasions but a small determined group can cause all types of havoc to a large force.

 

[jstert]

far too many government officials swear an oath to uphold a constitution that they never read on a bible that they never open.

 

[Old Dog]

far too many government officials swear an oath to uphold a constitution that they never read on a bible that they never open.

Just to be fair, unless one is elected or appointed to certain offices, or unless one enlists or is commissioned into the military, just because they are employed by the government -- they swear no oath, to the Constitution or otherwise. Flunkies such as this tool Beck in the OP video doubtless didn't have the Constitution mentioned even once in their history or social studies classes in grade school, middle school or high school.

We have to stop with the expectations that the last three generations in our country received the same education we did while growing up -- they did not.

 

[jstert]

Just to be fair, unless one is elected or appointed to certain offices, or unless one enlists or is commissioned into the military, just because they are employed by the government -- they swear no oath, to the Constitution or otherwise. Flunkies such as this tool Beck in the OP video doubtless didn't have the Constitution mentioned even once in their history or social studies classes in grade school, middle school or high school.

We have to stop with the expectations that the last three generations in our country received the same education we did while growing up -- they did not.

no argument from me about the purposely dismal state of education in the u.s., and maybe no bible involved all the time, but everyone at every level of government certainly swears, at least by signature, an oath of office to uphold the constitution. when i administered such oaths i required the oath-taker to stand, raise his/her right hand and swear/affirm the oath out loud before signing:

the constitution includes the general oath-taking requirement in article 6, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

article 2, section 1, of the constitution prescribes the prescribes the presidential oath, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

5usc3331 prescribes the oath of office for the entirety of the federal executive branch: “An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”

 

[plainsdrifter]

Problem is people take the oath and are brainwashed by the bobble heads on TV, that only they're telling the truth, and therefore the OTHER SIDE is then the enemy. Then they think they are rightfully defending the constitution. Which they are not and have been fed garbage by trolls and bots like the election was rigged. If you say it enough the people will believe it. If you say the election will be rigged before the election and you lose then is it true? It's true only if you want to believe it.
And this is how revolutions have been started around the world since we started speaking in languages.

 

[aaaaa]

There are too many government workers and you know, most of them, when they vote will vote for the party that will keep pumping money at their government agency. You should have to waive your right to vote in federal elections when you sign on as a government employee. I see a big conflict of interest there.

 

[V-fib]

James O'Keefe interviewed a Department of Defense employee who seemed to have a bad understanding of how to defend the Constitution, basically saying that if there was any killing to do the government would do it. The tyranny meter is certainly on the rise.

Communists, such as what we have now in control always kill multitudes of its own citizens . I'm not surprised by this comment, just very saddened by all the useful idiots that refuse to believe it can happen.

 

[shafter]

The bulk of law enforcement will absolutely follow orders, especially when the orders involve keeping their job and there are bills to pay.

Nowadays there are more convenient ways for a government to apply force to a population through the legal system, financial systems, disinformation, surveillance, and control of communications. They don't need to roll tanks down the street.

A rifle won't do much good when you find your assets have been frozen or they grab you on a warrant at your job where you aren't allowed to carry.

 

[JohnKSa]

Just to be fair, unless one is elected or appointed to certain offices, or unless one enlists or is commissioned into the military, just because they are employed by the government -- they swear no oath, to the Constitution or otherwise.

Correct. It's pretty unlikely that Mr. Beck has sworn to defend the Constitution.

 

[Insignificant bill]

It is discouraging when those in authority don't understand that the Bill of Rights is there to protect us from them.

They know it, thats why they are trying to destroy the Constitution.