A Message to ANTIFA from an American Infantryman - Salty Language Alert

[CS1983]

So you guys disagree with the portion of the oath which says domestic? How do you understand that, Americans or foreign enemies which have infiltrated the border -- do you have historical backing for your interpretation?

Is it ok for them to want to kill a human being overseas? If so, why?

[Bailey Guns]

So you guys disagree with the portion of the oath which says domestic?

You're the only one that's come to that conclusion. I don't know how considering the context of the discussion and, like Irving said, the level of the threat. Just because these people don't think like you doesn't make them domestic enemies rising to a level of threat to where they need to be killed.

That's a pretty big step to take.

[CS1983]

You're the only one that's come to that conclusion. I don't know how considering the context of the discussion and, like Irving said, the level of the threat. Just because these people don't think like you doesn't make them domestic enemies rising to a level of threat to where they need to be killed.

That's a pretty big step to take.

I didn't write the OP. I didn't write the oath of enlistment. People took issue with the OP, and I pointed out that it is within the bounds of the oath of enlistment to kill domestic enemies.

I'm mainly interested in what allows a person to take umbrage with killing a Socialist who happens to be American but not a Muslim (or whatever flavor of enemy the "government" decides to pine-box good American young men for, in their generation), who happens to not be American. Pursuant to that, I'm wondering what the people taking umbrage with someone wanting to kill a domestic enemy (which is what the OP was addressing in that portion of the essay) have to say about that portion of the oath.

Personally speaking, my own views on "Antifa" et al., and the eradication of such folks, are probably much more nuanced than you might guess.

As I said in the thread about the "women's march", 99% of these people are being used for a global agenda and are useful idiots.

[funkymonkey1111]

I guess it all depends on what is a domestic enemy, and who is defining someone as such

[CS1983]

I guess it all depends on what is a domestic enemy, and who is defining someone as such

Well that's the rub, ain't it?

So what's your answer?

Here's a nitty gritty of the actual "law" behind it: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...-disturbances-

[hollohas]

So you guys disagree with the portion of the oath which says domestic? How do you understand that, Americans or foreign enemies which have infiltrated the border -- do you have historical backing for your interpretation?

Is it ok for them to want to kill a human being overseas? If so, why?

I most certainly don't disagree with it. I really do understand why it's there and am happy it is. I think there are domestic enemies that are far more mainstream and much more dangerous than these antifa douche bags. I don't think it's a bad thing to take pride in killing bad guys. Bad guys need to be gone. Nothing wrong with enjoying your job.

However, it was the "love to" part and the dares specifically that turned me off. Why the hell would anyone LOVE to have a chance to kill American citizens? He didn't say he'd love to fight for the American freedom and restore the individual liberty and constitutional government to it's rightful limited power. He said he and others would love the chance to kill Americans and dared them to take another step to violence so he would have the excuse.
WISHING that people would become domestic ememies is very different than being willing to defend against domestic enemies.

I am willing to defend my house against intruders. I wouldn't even feel bad about killing a bad guy who broke in, threatening my family. But do I go around daring criminals to break in because the idea of killing them gives me a hard-on? Hell no. That's crazy. Why the hell would I want to encourage someone, who may very well be the scum of the earth and have no good place on it, to take the step to threatening my house? No sane person would do that. But that's what this guy did.

[Bailey Guns]

I most certainly don't disagree with it. I really do understand why it's there and am happy it is. I think there are domestic enemies that are far more mainstream and much more dangerous than these antifa douche bags. I don't think it's a bad thing to take pride in killing bad guys. Bad guys need to be gone. Nothing wrong with enjoying your job.

However, it was the "love to" part and the dares specifically that turned me off. Why the hell would anyone LOVE to have a chance to kill American citizens? He didn't say he'd love to fight for the American freedom and restore the individual liberty and constitutional government to it's rightful limited power. He said he and others would love the chance to kill Americans and dared them to take another step to violence so he would have the excuse.
WISHING that people would become domestic ememies is very different than being willing to defend against domestic enemies.

I am willing to defend my house against intruders. I wouldn't even feel bad about killing a bad guy who broke in, threatening my family. But do I go around daring criminals to break in because the idea of killing them gives me a hard-on? Hell no. That's crazy. Why the hell would I want to encourage someone, who may very well be the scum of the earth and have no good place on it, to take the step to threatening my house? No sane person would do that. But that's what this guy did.

Very good explanation. Wishing for something that would likely tear the country apart so you can get a "stateside kill". Anyone who wishes for that is just a douche.

Another thing I'll never understand about people wishing for revolution. They always assume it's going to turn out in their favor...like nothing can ever go wrong.