U.S. soldiers tell Natural News they will not enforce gun confiscation orders

Exclusive: Cops, detectives, FBI agents, U.S. soldiers tell Natural News they will not enforce gun confiscation orders



(NaturalNews) In the wake of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, I reached
out to my contacts in law enforcement, military and (retired) FBI over
the last three days, asking three simple questions:

#1) Do you think Obama will use executive orders to demand nationwide gun confiscation?

#2) If such an order is given, will you or fellow members of your organization enforce it against the citizens? (And if so, how?)

#3) What is the solution to stopping future mass shootings?

I
posed these questions to one ex-FBI agent, one retired Sheriff's
deputy, two active duty city police detectives, one retired former
police captain of a major U.S. city, two U.S. Army veterans and one USMC
veteran, discharged several years ago after two tours in Afghanistan
during which he sustained a severe personal injury. For obvious reasons,
none of them wish to be identified by name, but their answers below
speak to their credibility and authenticity.

Here are their answers.

#1) Will Obama use Executive Order to call for gun confiscation?

The
majority of those answering this question told me they did not believe
Obama would call for outright gun confiscation. One detective told me,
"Obama will probably try to roll out an incremental restriction similar
to the '94 Clinton assault weapons ban." He would then wait for another
mass shooting and use that event to ratchet up the restrictions, I was
told.

Only two of the eight people I questioned thought that
Obama would call for outright gun confiscation, and one of those
believed it would only be a restriction on so-called "assault rifles"
but not shotguns or handguns.

Everyone believed that Obama would
at minimum call for restrictions on weapon magazine capacity, most
likely seeking to limit that to ten rounds per magazine (which is also
the current limit in California). I was also told that Obama might
attempt to federalize mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases, which
already exist in some states but not all.

#2) Will you enforce gun confiscation against the citizens?

On this issue, the answer was resounding and unanimous: NO!

The
retired police captain told me that, "Door-to-door confiscation by men
and women in blue [i.e. city cops] would be a suicide mission." If
ordered to conduct such gun confiscation actions, many would simply resign on the spot
rather than risk their lives in firefights with determined gun owners,
he explained. "Our officers are not generally willing to assume the
increased risk of such a police action."

He also explained, importantly, that most police officers have not even been trained
to conduct sweeping, community-level weapons confiscation programs.
"This goes against all our community outreach efforts where we try to
earn the trust of the community." If cops suddenly became gun
confiscation enforcers, trust would break down and policing would become
extremely difficult, he explained.

The USMC veteran told me that
some of the younger soldiers would go along with gun confiscation if
ordered, but that nearly all the older military personnel would likely
refuse such orders, even at risk of a court martial. "Some of the guys
actually talked about this on deployment. The E-1's might follow those
orders but most of us who managed to stay alive through a couple of
tours are too smart for that. You'd have AWOL out the ass. We didn't
sign up to engage Americans as enemy combatants. The answer would be
F*%K NO all the way up the chain of command."

One of the police
detectives explained another reason for saying no: "There is no love for
gun confiscation in law enforcement. We're all gun owners and most of
us grew up with guns, hunting, target shooting or just collecting. Most
of us have gun collections when we're off duty, and Obama himself isn't
well liked across law enforcement. There's no way police officers are
going to put their lives on the line to go along with an order from a
President who really doesn't have moral authority among cops."

When
I asked what if Bush had called for gun confiscation, and would cops be
more likely to comply if the order was given by a Republican, the reply
was, "For some guys, yes, because they will listen to a Republican more
than a Democrat, but still for rank-and-file officers who are just here
collecting a paycheck for a risky job, they're no way they're going to
engage in what is basically a war action just to keep that job. You
can't pay them enough to pull that kind of duty, gun confiscation."

I
was told by more than one person in this group that any effort by Obama
to invoke gun confiscation could lead America to civil war if any real
effort were made to enforce it.

#3) What is the solution to stopping mass shootings?

The
former police captain explained that the real problem with shootings in
his city was, "dirt-cheap handguns" also called "Saturday Night
Specials." As he explained, "People that spend $500 on a nice handgun
are almost never the problem when it comes to violent crime. It's the
ones who pick up a junk gun for $50 on the street."

When I asked
him about a practical solution to reduce shootings, he said that in his
opinion, "Levying new taxes on all handguns like the tax stamps on class
three weapons" would likely prevent new guns from being purchased by
most violent criminals, but it wouldn't take guns out of the hands of
criminals who already have them. "These people will break into your car
to steal the coins out of your vehicle console. They have no morals, no
limits. There's almost nothing they won't do to get what they want,
which is usually drugs."

As background, the BATF currently levies
a $200 tax stamp for the transfer of any suppressor (silencer),
short-barreled rifle, or full-auto weapon, all of which are VERY
expensive to acquire and require extensive background checks to legally
own.

"Most of the gun violence in our city is drug addicts
raiding the homes of other drug addicts. The statistics might appear to
show a lot of armed robberies and shootings, but it's really just a
small subset of homes or apartments getting raided over and over again
by the same people, the drug dealers." When I asked what the real drug
problem was, he answered without hesitation. "Meth." Not pot, not
marijuana, not even heroin. Meth is the drug that drives violent crime
in America's cities.

The retired Sheriff's deputy told me that
the solution was to, "Arm the teachers. Tear down the 'gun free zone'
signs and put weapons in the hands of school personnel."

This
opinion was seconded by one of the active-duty police detectives, who
said he had actually worked several shootings, but never a mass
shooting. "A mass shooting takes time, often several minutes," he
explained. "That's too fast for the police to arrive on scene, but it's
plenty of time for someone already on location to pursue and engage the
active shooter."

He went on to explain that in the training they
have been receiving over the last five years, they have been taught that
ANY engagement of an active shooter -- even shots that don't hit the
shooter -- are now believed among law enforcement to disrupt the
shooter and force him to seek cover, during which his massacre is
interrupted and delayed. Where police have traditionally been trained to
"confirm your sight picture" of weapon sights on the target before
pulling the trigger, that training is being modified in some cities
where, in the context of a mass shooter firing off a large number of
rounds, even returning so-called "suppressing fire" is now considered
tactically acceptable until additional backup arrives. The idea now is
to go in and engage the shooter, even if you're just one officer on the
scene.

This is contradictory to previous training, and it goes
against most cops' safety rules which include, "always know what is
BEYOND your target." But tacticians in law enforcement are apparently
now figuring out that the opportunity cost of NOT shooting back is much
greater than the relatively small risk of hitting an innocent victim
when laying down suppressing fire.

It is therefore believed, I
was told, that even concealed carry principals or other school staff can
effectively lay down that "suppressing fire" even if they are not
nailing the active shooter. Obviously, this does not mean firing blindly
into a crowd, for example. Each tactical situation is unique and
requires rapid assessment before pulling the trigger in any direction.

There is an excellent article on all this at PoliceOne.com, covering a hard-hitting presentation by Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman. Here's a particularly compelling excerpt from the article:

The
challenge for law enforcement agencies and officers, then, is to
overcome not only the attacks taking place in schools, but to first
overcome the denial in the minds of mayors, city councils, school
administrators, and parents. Grossman said that agencies and officers,
although facing an uphill slog against the denial of the general public,
must diligently work toward increasing understanding among the sheep
that the wolves are coming for their children. Police officers must
train and drill with teachers, not only so responding officers are
intimately familiar with the facilities, but so that teachers know what
they can do in the event of an attack.

"Come with me to the
library at Columbine High School," Grossman said. "The teacher in the
library at Columbine High School spent her professional lifetime
preparing for a fire, and we can all agree if there had been a fire in
that library, that teacher would have instinctively, reflexively known
what to do.

"But the thing most likely to kill her kids -- the
thing hundreds of times more likely to kill her kids, the teacher didn't
have a clue what to do. She should have put those kids in the
librarian's office but she didn't know that. So she did the worst thing
possible -- she tried to secure her kids in an un-securable location.
She told the kids to hide in the library -- a library that has plate
glass windows for walls. It's an aquarium, it's a fish bowl. She told
the kids to hide in a fishbowl. What did those killers see? They saw
targets. They saw fish in a fish bowl."

Grossman said that if the
school administrators at Columbine had spent a fraction of the money
they'd spent preparing for fire doing lockdown drills and talking with
local law enforcers about the violent dangers they face, the outcome
that day may have been different.

Rhetorically he asked the
assembled cops, "If somebody had spent five minutes telling that
teacher what to do, do you think lives would have been saved at
Columbine?"

Conclusion: Civil War?

All my contact in
law enforcement are in Southern U.S. states. Opinions may be very
different in Northern or Eastern cities such as Chicago, New York or New
Jersey.

Nevertheless, even if opinions are different in other cities and states, it is clear to me that law enforcement in Southern states will NOT comply with gun confiscation directives issued by Obama.
Obama simply does not have the moral authority -- nor the law
enforcement support -- to pull off such an action. While his political
supporters claim he has a "mandate" across America, that's far from the
truth. Obama is widely despised across states like Texas, Florida,
Arizona and nearly all of rural America. He only enjoys support in the
cities, and primarily in the inner cities.

Also, throughout law enforcement it is widely known that Obama staged Operation Fast & Furious and then got caught. The fact that at least one murder of a U.S. border patrol agent was caused by one of these weapons has made U.S. law enforcement officers realize that the Obama administration is, in many ways, actively working against their interests and even compromising their safety.

The
question was raised to me: If Obama is against gun violence, why did he
allow thousands of guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug gangs,
knowing they would be turned against U.S. law enforcement officers?
(Don't hold your breath waiting for Obama to shed a tear for Brian
Terry...)

Conclusion? If Obama were to announce a nationwide gun
confiscation order, it might set off a civil war, pitting armed gun
owners, cops, veterans and preppers against the completely disarmed,
trendy, undisciplined anti-gun inner-city liberals. Gee, I wonder who
would win that war?

Is this all a ploy to open the door for UN troops on the streets in America?

Finally, it's worth considering that civil war may be exactly what Obama wants to cause.
It would rip America apart, making way for United Nations troops to
invade and seize control, claiming "humanitarian" justification. This
could be precisely the action needed to unleash blue helmets across
America and push for nationwide disarmament and military occupation.

In recognizing this, I'm about to re-read Patriots by James Wesley Rawles. You should too. And check out his website while you're at it: www.SurvivalBlog.com

For the record, Natural News supports cops, veterans and Sheriffs
in the fight to defend the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and
real freedom in America. We will not stand idly by and let a group of
political thugs and bullies take away our sacred right to self defense. www.InfoWars.com

Source:-
http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html