[eotp]

Charley Reese's column in our local paper today had this paragraph:


One man took a survey of Marines in California, and, if I remember correctly, 27 percent answered "yes" to the question "Would you fire on American civilians who refused a government order to give up their firearms?"



Do you believe that our Marines would fire on us in this circumstance? A friend of mine saw this statement above and he thought that the percentage of Marines that would do so is probably closer to 87 percent. What do you think?

Would you give up your firearms with this knowledge and a government order to do so?

[TallPine]

No, somebody has got to stand up for the last vestige of American liberty, even if it is in vain.

"Is life so dear ....?"

Remember when your hands are cold and dead, that you will be dead also.

Honestly, I believe there will be mass insubordination among the military in that event, but the ones who don't disobey orders may just be the ones shooting at you or me.

At least I wouldn't be spending my last miserable years in a nursing home.

[Ian]

The marines, or any other branch of the armed forces, would almost certainy fire on civilians if ordered to do so. Of course, they'd be told that their targets were domestic terrorists or dangerous extremists or some such thing. Doesn't change my views, though.

[Art Eatman]

I remember reading about this at the time of the study. Face it: There will always be that percentage who will obey whaever order comes down from above. Always.

I doubt there would be many who would actively try to follow such orders. Too many guys in the services who have some personal relationship to guns as sport or hunting; if not they, themselves, then their relatives. Such an order would not make sense to them if it were directed against the citizenry at large.

Another datum is that some in high position in the military either do not believe in the private ownership of firearms, or are ambivalent at best--ala Colin Powell, from some of his comments in the past.

Me? Gee, Sarge, I don't have any guns to give up!

:D, Art

[UnknownSailor]

IIRC, the person who conducted this was a Navy Lt. Commander doc, who was at 29 Palms. This also was a good while ago, on the order of 5 years or more.

[George Dickel]

Ian, on what information or experience do you base your conclusion that our armed forces would fire on american civilians if ordered to do so? I served with many fine people during my 20+ years in the Army and there were damned few that would follow such an order. Your inference that military personnel are mindless dolts blindly following orders is way out of date. That was the crap I heard back in the 60's and 70's.

[DeltaElite]

A few would probably follow such orders, but their life expectancies would be short if they did.
The soldiers would take care of their own internal problems. ;)

[Ian]

This sort of situation wouldn't be anywhere near as simple as I think a lot of people envision it. If troops are used to enforce the laws, it will very likely be in response to a major catastophe, like another major terrorist attack. People will be concerned with protecting the nation, safegaurding the Union, and so on - the few citizens who dare to be uncooperative will be branded as traitors, terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, whackos, etc. There will only be a few of them, as the vast majority of people will comply with the Feds, at least in the beginning. A proper briefing would make the citizens in question into perfectly legit targets from the troopers' point of view.

Look at the civil war, and see how much bloody hatred can be roused from political differences. Or read Christopher Browning's book Ordinary Men (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060995068/qid=1049996781/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-0715406-0395127). Or Stanley Milgram's study Obedience to Authority (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006131983X/qid=1049997050/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-0715406-0395127). Taken as individuals, I'm sure that everyone in the military is a rational, intelligent, and thinking person. But between orders, group psychology, and highly skewed information on the situation, they will probably be quite willing to do what is asked of them.

[Smiley]

of the half dozen or so friends I have in the various branches, I asked them all the same question back when it looked like Gore was going to the White house. They all resoundlingly said that all of their fellow troops wouldn't hesitate in firing on civilians with firearms. whether they were being confiscated or in an uprising.

Scared the begeezes out of me cause most of these guys own and support RKBA. I guess their fellow troops do not.

[dev_null]

Of course they believe in RKBA. That's not the issue. But I presume that most Marines will follow a direct order unless they have a reason to believe it is not a "lawful" order.

If a confiscation law was passed and for some reason -- given your hypothetical scenario -- the Marines were ordered to go house to house to enforce it, they would be following a lawful order. They aren't the SCOTUS, and it's not for them to weigh the legal intricacies of whether a state law can legally preempt an Amendment. I presume that *some* troops might, if they had been given enough info on the issue, refuse the order. I also presume that they would be in the minority.

-0-

[George Dickel]

I get it now, only you can think in a rational manner and those in the military are incapable of individual thought. That same rationale can be used to describe gun owners also. Let see Columbine comes to mind, the shooter in California that shot some kids at a school with an AK, the two shooters in the Maryland/Virginia area and on and on. Anybody who ownes a gun is a potential killer if he is provoked in the right manner.

[Blain]

Is this a trick question?

[George Dickel]

Smiley, I'm not calling you a liar but maybe your friends in the military are exagerating a bit. In all my years in the Army I don't remember one time we sat around discussing shooting civilians. We did have a lot of discussions on women, cars, women, booze, women, and some more on women. :D

[Baba Louie]

Same question posed to the instructor of our CCW class here in Las Vegas. Said instructor had 25 years in the USMC and retired to teach at Quantico, etc.

Here's what he said...

"When a Marine Sargeant tells his 19 year old private to take out that machine gun, he does it. He's a motivated young individual who will take out that machine gun or die trying. It works."

"If ordered to kick in your door and take your weapons, that same 19 year old private, will, kick in your door and take your weapons. If you present a threat to his mission, he will eliminate that threat or die trying. Period."

"So", according to the Gunney, "the key is not the 19 year old private, nor is it his Sargeant, but rather his legal orders to commit such an act. Remember, he has sworn to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Who is issuing his orders? That's the key man. There's your threat to individual gun-
owners. "

"Politicians and those Bureaucrats who make laws and pass them down to those who are placed in harms way to see that those orders are carried out."

Note the current War on Drugs, the no-knock raids, the once in awhile wrong address, the innocent homeowner with gun in hand, the later deemed "Justifiable Homicide" on the part of the LEO who was only doing his job.

But remember, he's only doing his job.

So do yours.

Get out and vote.

Write letters.

Stay organized.

Adios

[ball3006]

there are only about 2 million GI's and 80 million gun owners and I bet at least one third of the GIs are gun owners.....chris3

[Smiley]

I never alluded to whether they would be right or not in firing on civilians that had firearms in any capacity. I was only conveying my personal experience to those that believe that there would be a mass defiance of orders should a day come to go round up those guns.

I understand that they "are just following orders." Heck I use that line all the time at work. I do not claim to hold any moral high ground. Only that if it comes to my way or the other guy's way, and I believe in my way to the extent that I believe in RKBA then It won't matter who is following orders and who is thinking rationally. It will only matter whose POV prevails.

At that point wouldn't everyone involved be morally right sine they would be defending themselves from harm?

George, I doubt that anyone of my friends or the people they talked to about this question sat around thinking about it. Only that their response was an affirmitive on the firing.

[Ebbtide]

George,

I don't know what you have been reading, but I don't see anyone saying that military folks don't have a mind of your own.

But then again, when was the last time you did not follow a direct order :D

Simple fact; troops follow orders.

As to the original question, Is it even legal to have U.S. troops carrying out missions on U.S. land agaist citizens? I thought this action would need a change in the Constitution before the Marines could be ordered to do this.

[AmericanFreeBird]

Yes I believe that most Marines (51% or more) would do as ordered and shoot whomever they were told to shoot.

No, I would not surrender my firearms even if it meant facing the US Marines.

[George Dickel]

Ehenz, read Ian's first post. If he isn't implying that military people are easy to dupe and will blindly follow orders then what is he saying?

In answer to your question of the legality of the order. The military is prohibited from enforcing civil law by the Posse Comitatus Act.

Have any of you been following the war in Iraq? To comply with the rules of engagment under which they are forced to operate takes a lot of intelligence and judgement to put into practical application. Young soldiers are having to make snap judgements on who and when to shoot often at the risk of their lives and possible punishment by the military if they are wrong. I think they are quite capable of determining if an order is legal or not. To fire on american citizens would be an illegal order.

One of the big reasons the communist govenments fell in eastern europe during the early 80's is because the army would not fire on the citizens of their own country. The old East German army refused to fire on their citizens. When there was trouble in one of the territories the old USSR controled, they would send in troops from a neighboring territory to put down dissent. Usually it was from a group that had an old feud with those people and they would not hesitate to shoot. The USSR couldn't trust soldiers from that country to fire on their own people. Are you guys saying our soldiers are even more willing to follow orders than those of the former Warsaw Pact countries?

[cratz2]

More importantly than the 27% that answered 'Yes' are the 63% that answered something other than 'Yes'. Also in the survey, it was asked if they would follow such an order from a non-American NATO Commander and the percentage was lower.

I'd also imagine that the actual 'real world' number would be lower. If just one Marine didn't think his answers were confidential, he may have falsely said yes. If just one Marine was deployed to a familiar area and wouldn't shoot someone he knew, the percentage would be lower.

[Gnull]

One of the big reasons the communist govenments fell in eastern europe during the early 80's is because the army would not fire on the citizens of their own country. The old East German army refused to fire on their citizens.

Same with the Chinese at Tienanmen.. they had to move in troops from other provinces to commit the massacre... the local troops didn't want to fire on people they knew...

[mercedesrules]

1) Yes, they would fire. :(

2) What guns? :confused: :p

[carp killer]

the few citizens who dare to be uncooperative will be branded as traitors, terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, whackos, etc.

Sounds like the description our future President, H. R. Clinton, will use when issuing the order to the Marines. :what:

[Navy joe]

My thoughts on same from GT GnG forum:

I can believe that such an order would be given, I can believe that some would follow it, especially how any large grab would be preceded by a large media push about how gun owners were terrorists threatening the peace of the world. I still believe that a good number of Marines would find it in their heart to not only ignore the order, but detain or shoot the idiot that gave it. The original numbers came from a small group that were surveyed as part of a Naval Officer's post-grad thesis, don't remember his overall subject, it wasn't gun control. The respondents were overwhelmingly young new Marines, still pumped with the boot camp spirit. I don't think you'd get the same from senior NCO's who had some life experience and were also family men. At a certain point you have to understand there are orders that shouldn't be given, and ones that shouldn't be followed, not just a blind Hurrah to whatever somebody with one more stripe wants done.

I see they didn't ask sailors, they sometimes have trouble with orders like "tie your boots" If you told them to take guns away from Americans, I don't care if it was the CNO giving the order, the reply would contain "you want the guns stuck where?"


__________________

Ian has some valid points, in that the gun owners who did not like confiscation would be demonized in the media and official briefings. A us vs. them mentality would be pushed by the higher ups. Some NCO's would be heard to use the classic cop out "Boys, I don't like this, but division said to get this done" (Leadership rule: Give every order as if it were your own). I still think that some fine upstanding servicemember would handle business and shoot the SOB giving the order. If I got the order to give the order I would desert if possible, shoot the SOB if possible, and tell my superiors I was going to do both before I did. Somebody mentioned civil war, they're not far off. It would be ugly.

In the end, I believe in the individual servicemember, we are still Americans, we love our country, we volunteered, and we want to be able to go home to a town as good or better than when we left. We also swore to uphold the Constitution in that same oath, before the foreign and domestic part. The one I first took said "lawful order" that has been changed to "all orders of the President of the U.S. and all officers appointed over me" It is still taught in lessons on Code of Conduct that it is understood that you only obey lawful orders.
"Just following orders" ala;

"the key is not the 19 year old private, nor is it his Sargeant, but rather his legal orders to commit such an act. Remember, he has sworn to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Who is issuing his orders? That's the key man. There's your threat to individual gun-

didn't work at Nuremburg, won't work now. I'm sure there are many in the military who would use that cop out, I'm not one of them.

Give a little credit to the military, they do have working brains. The younger generation will most certainly question orders given that make no sense. Adopting a screaming DI "Do it now because I said so" approach may work with infantry draftees, but it doesn't work well anywhere in our military.(Except bootcamp and in the XO's office) Sure, petty tyrants use these approaches, but they are usually undermined, re-assigned, ignored as much as possible, etc. A smart leader will understand that a troop questioning an order is not saying that they won't do it, but rather that the order giver failed to personalize his message to the target audience and their personal level of motivation, understanding what have you. I have never had a problem wwith time critical orders either, at worst, do it now and I will explain later has to be used, not often. In non-critical situations it is always "would you please" or "I need you to do this now". 98% understand that I am "asking" to be personable and treat them as a human being. Point is, most military folks aren't going to take well an order to "defend yourselves if fired upon" ..."But, sir, aren't these Americans?" Just do it soldier" It ain't gonna work well. You're gonna have to give that troop a weapon and ammo, and he knows whether or not the ordergiver is wearing Kevlar.

[beckrodgers]

Military shooting civilians,Waco ,US Marine Shot a Latin on the border 2-3 yrs back guy was 13 to 16 yrs old,Oh The Bonus army slaughter,How bout the shooting at Kent State Was that Nasty guard? On & On. Yes the Military Will when the times comes, what about marine snipers on the ready during the L A riots. ? I Better Stop . Thanks

[PlayTheAces]

Would our military fire on U.S. citizens?

Anybody here remember Kent State?

[Sir Galahad]

Yeah, they could issue the order and also have the same problems the Czar did in the October Revolution with wholesale defections of entire military units, officers and all, and taking their weapons right along with them to the people. If 27% said they'd shoot Americans, I bet there would be at least 27% that would defect. Throw a defection of an entire armored division with its own SAM batteries into the equation and that spells problems for the government. That is why such an order would be suicide.

[George Dickel]

Check under the bed and in the closet tonight before you go to bed, they are waiting until you go to sleep.

[DeltaElite]

It is indeed a rare moment when I am surrounded by people even more paranoid than I am. ;)
I don't believe many would fire on us, but then I believe in the Easter Beagle also. :D

[AnklePocket]

The answer is No. The very nature of our country is we make our choices from within, not from any external source. We can choose good or we can choose evil from our own free will. Given this condition, the overwhelming majority choose "good".
While in my initial Marine Corps training there were about 250 of us. We counted on one hand those who would probably blindly follow these kinds of orders (as we discussed similar scenarios). Those who would are the types who wouldn't be lasting very long in combat.

[ahadams]

Hmm, well let's get the historical hysteria out of the way first:
the shootings at kent state were done by National Guard troops who had had no riot control training yet were deployed to (in effect) stop a riot from happening. There was no order to fire given, it was merely something agreed upon by a group of guardsmen who had started to fall back and felt they were about to be overrun. This was a case of poor training, poor leadership at all levels and poor judgement for deploying that particular unit in the first place, since they had never been trained, nor had they had practice at dealing with civil unrest situations.

Secondly, the questionaire in question was constructed and administered by a Naval officer attending the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey CA (across the bay from the Defense Language Institute/Presidio of Monterey) in 1992 or 93, I disremember which. The officer in question threw in the question in question just as a snide comment (some Naval and many Air Force officers tend toward liberalism - examples include one current Democratic contender for next year's presidential primary who used to be a Naval officer) on the Brady Bill et al. The survey was adminstered to Naval and Marine Corps personnel, and was specifically done so he'd have something original on which to base his master's thesis. He ended up being completely blindsided by the reaction when word leaked out of what he'd done. Hmm, I guess that also points to the fact he was a left of center sort - they're always surprised by that sort of thing, aren't they? What surprised him even more was that two thirds of the personnel polled stated they would NOT obey an order to fire on American citizens.

Now to go out on a limb (who me?)

My best observation in dealing with a wide variety of military personnel, both as one of them, then as a GS type civilian, and now as a disabled veteran is that the constitutional reliability (i.e. knowledge of and intent to defend the constitutional rights of American citizens) varies from service to service. If I had to list them in order of reliability, I'd do it this way going from most reliable to least reliable:

Marines: High level of esprit and both their Officers and NCOs are very aware of being defenders of the Constitution. Also probably the highest per capita of gun owners of any of the services. Or to quote a Marine I know, who when accused of "glorifying gunviolence" responded with " and the bigger the gun, the more satisfying the level of violence!" :D

Army: (and remember I was Army) - varies by type of unit and rank. What I mean is that most of the NCOs and enlisted folks are fine other than a few in support units who don't think they'll ever have to fight ("stayin' in the rear with the gear"). Slightly lower level of firearms ownership among enlisted personnel and significantly lower levels of firearms ownership among non-combat arms officers. This may change following the destruction of the maintenance company by ambush, but it will take time for these changes to percolate down through the system. I would expect sporadic small groups of Army personnel to attempt to carry out orders contrary to the Constitution, but I would expect the vast majority to, well, vote with their seat - in other words simply refuse to do *anything* in response to contra-constutional orders. By the way, the Commisioned Officer equivalent of 'mutiny' is known as barretry. While historically mutineers have lived to stand trial, I have yet to find an instance where a true case of barretry ever made it to trial in the US Army - suspects always died trying to escape. In other words a 'sit down' type mutiny could provide for a whole host of new legal situations if led by officers...but I digress.

Navy: varies by Rank - CPOs, POs, and other enlisted ratings would probably only act against US citizens if they felt their ship or facillity was directly threatened. Although it varies, many enlisted personnel are firearms owners, though many officers are not. Otherwise I'd expect them to continue to function as though they hadn't received any contra-constitutional orders. Officers reactions will vary widely and will be hard to predict by those outside of Navy circles.

Air Force: varies by job specialty - there are a tremendous number of folks in the AF who do not ever handle firearms and do not ever wish to do so. Indeed some see themselves as being 'above all that' and to the extent those folks feel that way they might well be swayed in extra-constituional directions, so I guess it's a good thing they don't know much about small arms. I would expect the Security Forces (i.e. the SPs, et al) to concentrate primarily on defending their bases and facillities. Most of them are gun owners and I doubt they'd be willing to shoot at anyone who wasn't posing a direct threat to their facillity.

In all services I would expect the vast majority of spec ops folks to simply evaporate if called upon to attack American citizens, since if they decided to become hard to get themselves, who in their right mind would even try to stop them? Do a web search on the term Special Forces Underground, and see what you find.

just my 2 cents' worth on that one,

[Ian]

I think I should point out that I would really, REALLY would like to see military units engage in mass disobedience if ordered to uphold any number of hypothetical laws in the US. However, given the most likely conditions under which such actions might happen, I'm not going to be optimistic about it. In cases where the military might refuse to act, the Feds will probably be smart enough to use civvie police units instead. The way things are going, the Feds nearly have military units in some of their agencies anyway...

BTW, who enforced the eviction of the Nisei from their homes during WWII? Seriously, I don't know, and I'm curious...

[jmbg29]

Would our Marines fire on us?(over RKBA issues)Some would. they would be few. members of the United States Marine Corps are some of the finest human beings that ever walked the planet. It is nearly impossible to find people that are more AMERICAN than they are.

For those of you that don't trust them, I ask only one small favor. If a Marine ever offers to risk his/her life to save yours, please be consistant and decline their offer. They are after all, untrustworthy in your eyes, yes? :fire: :fire: :fire:

Where is the Ptui! smiley? :fire: I guess :barf: will just have to do. :fire:

[Telperion]

Ian, IIRC the Japanese were evicted by the Wartime Civil Control Administration, with help from the FBI.

[JoeSF]

I Better Stop . Thanks
Please do.
You are speaking for yourself.

[dev_null]

Once again, we're seeing more heat than light in this discussion.

The question, as I interpreted it, was not whether the Marines would willingly round up US civilians en masse and start shooting them, it was whether they would defend themselves from civilians resisting, by force of their own arms, a lawful (as in, a law passed by a state legislature in disregard of the Bill of Rights) order to go around and confiscate guns. If my reading of the question was correct, then I stand by my assumption that whether or not individual members of the USMC are paragons of virtue (I know many I would trust with my life, any time, and a few -- very few -- that I wouldn't turn my back on), the majority of troops would defend themselves by whatever means necessary.

Simply put, if Harry Homeowner pops off a round from Ol' Betsy, they WILL take him out. Just that simple.

If, OTOH, the question is not "Would our Marines fire on us?" but rather, "Would our Marines follow a lawful order to begin confiscation?" then that's another discussion altogether, though still one that would be better debated with less emotion and fingerpointing.

-0-

[Dave R]

I am truly sad to say that I do believe the Marines would fire on citiziens. There is plenty of historical precedent that suggests our Military and LEO's WILL obey orders:

-Bonus March (clearly the biggest)
-Waco & the Koresh clan
-Lon at Ruby Ridge

If it were very large groups of people, then there might be pause. But for smaller groups, carefully demonized, I don't think there would be much hesitancy.

[jmbg29]

If, OTOH, the question is not "Would our Marines fire on us?" but rather, "Would our Marines follow a lawful order to begin confiscation?" then that's another discussion altogether, though still one that would be better debated with less emotion and fingerpointing.The title of this thread is "Would our Marines fire on us?". Like all threads of this sort, the title was fleshed out in the first post to pose the "Would our Marines follow a lawful order to begin confiscation?" question.

But feel free to make believe you didn't understand that. BTW it's a free country because of :cuss:ed up people like Marines. Just so you know.

I answered it the question based on my real world knowledge, both in and out of the military. Again, my only hope is that given the opprtunity, people would remain consistant in their paranoia (or lack of it) vis-a-vis their attitude toward those in military service in general, and marines in particular, should they ever need any help.

:fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire:

[jmbg29]

One other general question to the doom and gloom crowd. Why do you even bother getting up in the morning? What is the point? You are either going to get mowed down by a S.W.A.T. Team, A Marine platoon, a JBT, etc...:barf:

[Ian]

Why bother with living? Because we can change the system and prevent this hypothetical scenario from ever happening.

[jmbg29]

:barf:

[dev_null]

When emotional posts regurgitating the same straw man and ad hominem attacks over and over start appearing, sounds like it's time to lock the thread. I won't even bother to dignify your response with a line-item rebuttal -- the posts speak for themselves. If it makes you feel self-righteous to put words in others' mouths and then attack them, all I can say is "whatever."

-0-

[Kruzr]

IMO, the question of if they would open fire or not would be dependent upon the circumstances leading up to the confrontation, the situation of the confrontation, and the "mindset" of whoever is in charge of the military force.

What I do find interesting is that the staff on another forum didn't believe the members of that forum could discuss this topic in a civil or interesting way. Thanks to THR staff for having more confidence in their member's maturity than others out there. Lets not prove them wrong!

[Frohickey]

Here are a few links, one is where it all started from...

Navy Questionaire: Will You Fire on U.S. Citizens? (http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/2114)

NEW WORLD ORDER COMBAT ARMS SURVEY/ I WOULD FIRE UPON U.S. CITIZENS... (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a441714.htm)

[2nd Amendment]

I believe there is a certain time sensitivity to this question.

1) When does this hypothetical confiscation order come down the pike? A few decades ago and it would have resulted in dead officers, period. Today there are likely a certain percentage who would indeed follow such an order without question. These are youth who have grown up without firearms exposure, inculcated in the media speil of "Evul Guns" and educated in the Government school system where the Constitution and BoR and the history of our founding are given short shift if they are mentioned at all. Ten years from now? When the military is composed top to bottom of Globalist indoctrinated ignoramuses taught only carefully managed history and from an ever increasing urbanized enviroment, yes, we'll be in deep crap.

2) At what stage of such an order? Initially a larger number will engage in the confiscation and shooting than later on. After the results are seen, after service men and women see people they know cut down, or people who are no different than people they know, the number willing to engage in this sort of act will decrease. The end result would be a collapse or at least severe crisis in the military, even at that 10 or 15 year in the future date.

This is why I don't believe our troops will be doing it. I think such an order will come, in a time of crisis, but our troops will be protected from dealing with it and UN forces will be employed to do that dirty work while ours are utilized in crisis management or dealing with the real enemy.

Just my .02, YMMV.

[Waitone]

IIRC all service members receive instruction on "illegal orders" which was a direct result of Mi Lai during Vietnam.

At one time one of the selling points of the ROTC program was an officer corps predominantly pulled from the population it defends will have a reduced likelihood of enforcing illegal orders.

That said, humans are humans. Any group of humans can be manipulated and talked into doing things against its own collective moral standards. I think the Waco fiasco is a classic example where situations can spin out of control resulting in people doing things they would ordinarily not do. The tragic legacy of Waco is people can do bad things to those they are supposed to served and protect AND THEN GET REWARDED FOR SAID BAD BEHAVIOR. So instead of having a sterling example of what not do do and social reinforcement that action was unacceptable, we see the exact opposite.

[Peetmoss]

Some would some wouldn't. I think if it was just a town sure they would atleast most. If it was a millions of people I would say about 50/50. And then we have Civil War#2. I sure hope it never comes to that. I would hate to have to stare down the barrel of a fellow american over political loyalties and beliefs.

[Safety First]

A long time ago, I remember hearing a discussion on this subject. The shocking answer was that the overwhelming majority of Military would indeed fire on American citizens if they were ordered to do so in regards to not surrendering weapons if the law of the land were indeed changed..Kind of gives the hee-be-jeebes, does'nt it??:(

[Sir Galahad]

Again, were such an order given, there would be lots of defections from the military. In classic Soviet propaganda posters in the era 1927-1945, sailors holding aloft Mosin-Nagant rifles are prominant figures. This is because during the October Revolution, a great part of the Czarist Russian Navy defected to the Reds. Almost the whole base at Kronstadt went over to the Reds. Whole ships were left crewless as the sailors raided their armories and took the Mosins and Maxims over to the Reds. In a large part, due to the fact that they did not want to be part of what they obviously felt was a tryannical government that was going to order them to shoot their fellow citizens. (Of course, they didn't know how the communists were going to turn out but, hey, they figured it was worth a try.) The lesson here is that soldiers are drawn from the people. Now in the case of mercenaries or foreign legions (as the Romans used late in their history), that is not the case. But in general, a good way to cause mass defections is to order the military to enagage in actions against their own families and countrymen. Yes, some soldiers will fire on their own countrymen. But this is not unique to the United States, nor is it unprecedented. I worked with some former El Salvadoran soldiers who used to tell me how they'd catch their countrymen in a Catch 22 situation where they could wangle justification to shoot the person. They'd giggle about it, too. You have people like that all over the world throughout history. It's not a "smoking gun" that proves the U.S. military to be bad. It just proves people are human beings. You won't find an army anywhere that's perfect. The difference is that for the federal forces to act in such a police capacity en masse will take a change in law and that takes Congress. I can hear the cynics now, but, again, nothing is perfect. If such a thing happens (and I can state that there is a 95% chance that it will NEVER happen in your lifetime and a 80% it will never happen in the life of the U.S. as a nation) you can fight then. Until then, don't worry about it. Might as well worry about getting struck by a meteorite, too.

Another thing is, you could do a poll among certain demographic groups and find that 90% of American skinheads and neo-nazis favor genocide for all blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Indians. Does that mean we should start worrying about the upcoming American Final Solution to the Melting Pot Queston? If you poll soldiers and ask if they would follow a given order, yes, some are going to answer accordingly affirmative. But that isn't a "smoking gun". It represents the opinions of a given number of people within a certain demographic group. A number of people polled will also think stealing should be legal, heroin given away free from the government, and all city bus drivers should wear clown suits. What does that prove? Nothing. And that's what this poll proves.

[jmbg29]

Look at it this way, if they will fire on you, you won't have to worry about it very long. You wouldn't stand a chance against them.

[Frohickey]

Look at it this way, if they will fire on you, you won't have to worry about it very long. You wouldn't stand a chance against them.

Actually, if they will fire on civilians, I'm not worried about them or the civilians still alive. I'm more worried about the guillible media not reporting it, and the corrupt government covering it up.

There are more of us that there are of them. According to Pentagon (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2000/b04052000_bt166-00.html) there are 1,369,022 active duty, and 65,000 reserve/NG. That comes out to be 1.6 million. From a country of 280 million, say 90% are sheeple. Thats still 28 million.

[mercedesrules]

Peetmoss said:And then we have Civil War#2. I sure hope it never comes to that. I would hate to have to stare down the barrel of a fellow american over political loyalties and beliefs.

Me, too, but anyone who comes to get my gun or otherwise enslave me is not my fellow-anything. He is an aggressor. Any soldier that answered "yes" on the questionaire is already not my "fellow american".

That's not to contradict jmbg29 who says that I don't stand a chance alone. I know that. I'm talking principles, not tactics or strategies.

MR

[Sir Galahad]

Anyone who would stay in their homes to play "Custer's Last Stand would be a fool. Who said troops going door-to-door would (or should) find anyone home? Folks who know how to hunt and know a bolete from a death cap don't need to sit in their homes awaiting certain death. I'd take my chances in the mountains. Yeah, I might die there, too, but I'd die a free man. And give my heart to the hawks.

[jmbg29]

The point is not how many of them there are. The point is that the society as a whole would have to completely crumble to dust before United States Marines would fire on us in meaningful numbers for the purpose of confiscating our firearms.

The Marine Corps is dead last in terms of being the source of that kind of societal decay. Dead last.

Want to change "the system"? Look in the seat next to you in your next college class. Take a hard look at the :cuss:-wipe you voted into fed/state/local government. Talk to the local high school kids and find out how many of them even know there is a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. See how many of them can figure out that "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments and those inferred in the 3rd, 5th, and 6th amendments are the same "people" mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

That is the source of your worry. Worrying about the Marine Corps is just nonsense. Declaring that they "would almost certainy fire on civilians if ordered to do so." Simply ignores the fact that Marines are trained to follow lawful orders. There are no current conditions that would make the order to fire on civilians lawful.

[444]

Yes

[twoblink]

I seem to remember a trial after WWII where people said "oh, throwing women and children into the showers... but we were just following orders!" So yes, they will fire... the thing is, will you be firing back??

If they shoot at you with 223's.. Shoot back with 308's!! :D

[jmbg29]

Let me make sure I read you right twoblink. You are saying that U.S. Marines are the same as Nazi soldiers, right?

[jsalcedo]

My best friend growing up came back from boot camp stating he

was taught that all civilians were Pinko Commie F*gs and while

they were away at boot camp, training, manuvers that "jodie"

was at home making boom boom with thier wives and girlfriends.

Is this the way the military brainwashes woung recruits into

making their fellow countrymen a potential enemy?

I have no doubt that our military would kill innocent civilians if

ordered to do so.

The FBI, ATF, DEA and many other federal agencies have no

problem doing it.

[Thumper]

I have no doubt that our military would kill innocent civilians

I love it when people randomly throw around the word "innocent."

Speaking as a Veteran (and I think most of the Vets here are in agreement), I can assure you that you're wrong.

Our troops aren't ignorant victims of brainwash, as you seem to believe.

[twoblink]

I am not saying Marines = Nazis. While I might make the bold statement that Mausers are better than M16's, I would never equate the Marines to Nazis.

BUT, what I am saying is, there are people who are trained to obey, regardless the stupidity or horror of the order(s) given. One example of the "soldier" mentality is the Nazis. They committed acts that I don't otherwise believe they would have committed if there wasn't an uniformed person shouting "Snell Snell!! Vita!" at them.

While I have a LOT more faith in our men and women; I also know, there is always one bad seed in the lot, and it only takes one to ruin the reputation of the many.

But I am not (at the same time) silly enough to think that if someone told the Marines that "there's a lot of terrorists gathered at Oleg's house, because if they weren't terrorists, what are they doing with so many guns??? And all that anti-government, government is inefficient talk! THEY MUST BE TERRORISTS!!" I think the Marines would move in and try to clean house without asking further questions.

If we had a little pow-wow at Oleg's and we all got killed, and that was found out later... I am more than positive that someone on TV would be quoted as saying "I didn't know, INTEL told us they were terrorists... we were just following orders.."

[mercedesrules]

Sir G said:Anyone who would stay in their homes to play "Custer's Last Stand would be a fool. Who said troops going door-to-door would (or should) find anyone home? Folks who know how to hunt and know a bolete from a death cap don't need to sit in their homes awaiting certain death. I'd take my chances in the mountains. Yeah, I might die there, too, but I'd die a free man. And give my heart to the hawks.

Great post! It inspired and informed me. Also, I looked up those two words:) I plan to get a small book on edible flora. If I see you later in the wild, we could do some barter!

MR

[jmbg29]

But I am not (at the same time) silly enough to think that if someone told the Marines that "there's a lot of terrorists gathered at Oleg's house, because if they weren't terrorists, what are they doing with so many guns??? And all that anti-government, government is inefficient talk! THEY MUST BE TERRORISTS!!" I think the Marines would move in and try to clean house without asking further questions.Then you are ignorant of the law, and ignorant of the Marine Corps and how it operates.

[SemperFi83]

Gee, I must have dozed off during the brainwashing class. After 13 weeks of boot camp and 6 years of service in the Marines, I can still tell the difference between lawful and unlawful orders. Furthermore, even if this type of order were somehow construed to be lawful, it would still be immoral and I have no obligation to follow immoral orders or immoral laws. I am however, prepared to accept the consequences of that decision.

[NIGHTWATCH]

I heard, dont know if its true, in response to 9/11, Bush was ready to send in the military to take control of Montana? Thinking that this was an act by "hostile militia". Shame on you Mr. President if that was true (can anybody confirm?). :rolleyes:


I dont think the order to disarm will be carried out to completion. I think that there would be a mass division in our armed forces, lead by a sufficient number of generals and public officials who take defending the constitution and the people as their purpose in life.

How does disarming americans preserve the union? Nah, it would be the begining of another civil war. Too many troops have family members who own guns, have gun loving cultural backgrounds, how do you kill your own family?

Even worse, it would be the begining of sacrifices that we are not familiar with in protecting the RKBA. American suicide bombers? Mass assassinations? What else? The list of options on the part of the people to fight this battle are pretty long. To play to win that is. :fire:


We would win, but the cost would make the death toll of the civil war look small. Make no mistake, most of us here will die in that effort should it come to pass. Either that or live (if lucky) with our cowardice. Just my 2.

P.S.- I would love to see this question polled on the FOXNEWS network.

[jmbg29]

I heard, dont know if its true, in response to 9/11, Bush was ready to send in the military to take control of Montana? Thinking that this was an act by "hostile militia". Shame on you Mr. President if that was true (can anybody confirm?). I think you mean Rhode Island, and it was because it was rumored that disgruntled postal workers were massing on the Connecticut border. The memo was very specific in leaving SemperFi83 out of the action though. Something about him not paying enough attention in brainwashing class. LOL

One man took a survey of Marines in California, and, if I remember correctly, 27 percent answered "yes" to the question "Would you fire on American civilians who refused a government order to give up their firearms?"I guess that thanks to the new math, and the hate America(ns) first training that everyone gets these days, that nobody could figure out that 27% of the Marines that answered the question might find themselves engaged in a conflict with the other 73% percent of the Marines.:scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[Thumper]

Again...I find it telling that most of you who are crying "Sure they would" have never served.

jmbg29 is correct.

[twoblink]

Thumper, I cry "I don't think they would, but then again, there might be 1 stupid one in the lot"..

As inspirational as I found the movie "Tears of the Sun"..

A lot of soldiers answer with the drone of "Those are our orders!".

The Marines I know in TX.. of course..
if they were ordered to take out some congress critters.... Well... that's a whole different story!! :D

[dev_null]

Thumper, I think you do have a point (and you have a less obnoxious way of getting your point across than jmbg29). Many of us have never served, and don't know firsthand. We can only go by what we've absorbed, whether from news, "A Few Good Men" (j/k), servicemen and women we've known, and/or online discussions like this one.

(I would point out that rude, abrasive, sarcastic, ad hominem, straw man, and other logically lacking posts do more harm than good to any given position... let him who hath ears, listen.)

I can imagine it's probably a tough position to be in, to have to say "I hear what you're saying you've read, but listen to me: I've been there and I *know* what I'm talking about." And you're right, it IS telling that nobody's said, "well, I wouldn't but I know some in my platoon/squad/etc. that would."

So, in short: point taken. I sit corrected.

-0-

[jmbg29]

And you're right, it IS telling that nobody's said, "well, I wouldn't but I know some in my platoon/squad/etc. that would. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Would our Marines fire on us?(over RKBA issues)------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some would, they would be few. Must have had your ***Twit filter engaged*** so as not to be "rude, abrasive, sarcastic," etc.



Another example: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18492