Military Officers NOT Supporting the Second?

[Titan6]

DirtPig67

Are you sure you are not going to start a militia when you get out?

No seriously though you seem to be reading my mind. If your major had grown a pair he would have realized that he has a duty to disobey an unlawful order, even when he does so at great personal peril. The subsequent US Supreme Court decisions showed the orders were indeed illegal. But how many leaders are willing to put it on the line when it comes down to it, I think too few.

You will not find many junior soldiers on the ground who have thought much about the constitution or their oath or the constitution (read above posts) that is why it comes down to the leadesrship of officers and senior NCOs to make the call of when the orders from the top are unlawful. If we ever faced a Katrina/911 type situation on a larger scale it wil be interesting to see how far the Federal Government is willing to go.

It is shame you are leaving the military. You seem to have a better grasp on how things should be and have a lot of time invested. It would be nice to know that there are more like minded people around.

 

[dirtpig67]

Unfortunately, there are quite a few "yes men" in leadership positions rather than those that would put themselves on the line to do the right thing when it matters most. There have been a number of occasions in which I have been directly subordinate to a obvious "yes man" and this was a major consideration in my decision to leave the miliary. One such superior's "yes man" decision directly resulted in two of the Soldiers in my former platoon being horribly wounded (during an firefight over in Iraq). I never want to be in the position of being subordinate to such a man again.

Following orders is a key part of what makes the military function, because without it there would not be any good order and discipline. But there is a big difference between following orders and blindly following orders, an unfortunately many prescribe to the later of the two.

On another issue, I agree with Lennyjoe in that the majority of military is pro-gun. However, relatively few are staunch supporters of the 2A, understand what it really means and what the framers of the intended for its true purpose. Unfortunately, many people today view the Constitution as more of a set of guidelines, rather than the original unyielding law of the land that is was intended to be.

 

[thumper723]

As a current serving Miltary Officer, I support the 2nd amendment. I feel I am what most would call a staunch supporter.

I want gun laws rolled back to pre-1934. I belive that if you are not a CONVICTED felon you should be able to have any firearm you desire, and carry or store it as you desire. The only "gun law" we need is the 2nd amendment.

In my last squadron, of 45 Junior Officers (O-3 and below) the breakdown was probably close to this:

3-4 staunch 2nd amendment supporters. Mostly the resident libertarians.
10-12 guys who belive in the 2nd (for the most part) but are unsure on CCW Class 3 items, or some other issue. But NRA members, at least.
5 or so that think the 2nd is for hunting rifles and handguns/EBR's are BAAAAD
2 Antis that believe that guns should not be owned outside the military (both USNA grads, go figure)

The rest just did not care 1 way or another.

 

[dirtpig67]

The only "gun law" we need is the 2nd amendment.

That quote hits the nail on the head!!


thumper723 - Those are pretty sad numbers out of 45 O3's and below. Those numbers are about the same with my experiences though.

It looks like there are about 16 of 45 that pretty much support the 2A in your unit. It would be very interesting, or should I say scary, to see what would happen if the order came down to confiscate from civilians.

 

[CDA1776]

Great thread Titan.

In fact during the Katrina Gun Confiscations it was U.S TROOPS doing door to door gun confiscation with the police.

All those morons ranting about "Blue Helmet UN Soldiers" doing door to door gun confiscation look even more stupid after it was all over the news that US Soldiers were "just following orders" confiscating guns.

I'm sure the majority will make good Fascist Thugs for HITLARY Klinton during her Occupation of the District of Criminals.

Watch the video of US Troops confiscating guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BV-6oP4NuE

But hey... I guess the "New" thing is confiscating guns from U.S. Citizens and invading sovereign countries. Will dying in Iran become the new "fad"?

 

[tank mechanic]

Unfortunately, there are quite a few "yes men" in leadership positions rather than those that would put themselves on the line to do the right thing when it matters most.

Our company commander was fiending for his promotion to major and he volunteered the company for every single mission he could get his hands on. It is easy for an officer to be a yes man and not rock the boat, while the joes have to fill the sand bags and do all the dirty work.

 

[The Real Wyatt]

It was Art Eatman who said:
"I've worked with retired majors and colonels. They quite often never recover from the shock of giving an order and nobody pays any attention. These guys work their tails off to get to their rank, and aren't really used to any disagreement from anybody not of higher rank, or from anybody who's younger."

Oh so true. I'm reminded of the time when I was in the USMC and we had a full battalion inspection. I had ben injured in the right elbow and had a light duty chit from the medics. No way I could flex the right elbow. First Sergeant wouldn't excuse me from the insoection though.

So here we are ... hundreds of marines lined up in precise formation, the inspecting officer walking down the ranks and each and every marine smartly snapping to inspection arms and slamming the bolt of his M1 Garand open as the officer passed in front. The officer would stop at about every 50th marine and snatch the weapon away and do a cursory inspection of the weapon.

When he passed by me I stood at rigid attention AND at order arms, weapons butt on the ground rigidly by my side. The inspecting officer was four or five marines past me before he realized that I didn't come to inspection arms.

He stopped. then turned around and came back to where I was standing.
I didn't move. Still rigid at the order arms position.

The inspecting officer looked me in the eye and shouted "Well, arre you or aren't you?"

"No Sir, I'm not" I replied.

He was confused, completely bumfuzzled, didn't know what to do. Something like this had never happend to him before. He just walked away and continued on down the line with his inspection.

Later the First Sergeant yelled at me like I was the lowest mother's child who had ever been born ... but I had my medical chit.

 

[Matt King]

The Military is like anything else, you are going to get a blend of people; each with different opinions about things.

 

[gc70]

It is not the mans loyalty I question, but his character. I may be an odd bird out, but I take oaths VERY seriously, and give them greater weight than a legal contract. 'Specially since that oath apparently calls apons the oath sayers deity as witness.

"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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Source: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

I see nothing there about picking and choosing which part of the Constitution those in the military may support, and which they may not. If the person swearing the oath (what ever that oath may be) cannot follow through, then they have no business making that oath. If they swear that oath, they are honor bound to follow through with it, no matter what their own personal opinion may be.

People in the military "support and defend the Constitution" by obeying the orders of their military superiors, who obey the orders of their civilian superiors. The personal opinions of military personnel are irrelevant to whether they execute their orders to achieve the mission of the military.

The oath does not say that military personnel should hold Constitutional debates whenever they receive orders and the military would cease to function if they did. Civilians may find that concept intellectually distasteful, but anyone who works for a very large organization faces the same type of organizational dynamics.

 

[dirtpig67]

People in the military "support and defend the Constitution" by obeying the orders of their military superiors, who obey the orders of their civilian superiors. The personal opinions of military personnel are irrelevant to whether they execute their orders to achieve the mission of the military.

I completely disagree with this statement.

If the civilian superiors were to give an unconstitutional or illegal order to the military they are obligated NOT to follow them.

About 60 years ago, the whole “I was only following orders” defense did not turn out so well for a number German military personnel who ended up swinging from a rope.

Supporting and defending the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with following orders from a superior. That is why the oath is written the way it is – to prevent the military (in theory) from following un-Constitutional or illegal orders. It is a check that prevents the improper application of our military as we do not swear allegiance to an individual or a position (ie the Congress or President).

 

[Titan6]

You make my case again

Now even more strongly. All Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. It is in the UCMJ. It is never a positive defense of a criminal act to say that you are 'just following orders'.

The big if comes that most of the time these cases of following unlawful orders are not prosecuted unless someone is killed or seriously hurt and then more often than not only if it also hits the media or congressional/ DD IG inquiry.

Believe me I understand that good order and discipline need to be maintained in the military much better than most, but where do you make the call on trampling on the peoples rights (civilans)? Because when you start down that road you are going back into fascism.

 

[gc70]

Yes, people in the military are obligated to refuse illegal orders. But there is a difference between blindly following any possible order and debating every order.

Sindawe's post suggested that military personnel were violating their oath if they were not actively espousing Sindawe's interpretation of the Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that his view of how military personnel should "support and defend the Constitution" would extend to military activism with respect to enforcing the 16th Amendment.

 

[Titan6]

Don't know only Sindawe can answer that. Most people these days seem to object to the 17th but there it is.

You can't pick and choose which ones to follow. Certainly some laws are more important than others and some ammendments have more impact but the 2nd is there as the basis for the average American to defend them all. We lose that and we are done being the USA and become something else.

 

[USAFA06STX]

My Observations

Long time reader, first time poster...

As a military officer I feel I should weigh in on the topic based on my observations as a company grade officer. In my experience the deciding factor on if a military member (both officer and enlisted) supports the 2nd Amendment is the environment they were raised. Those that come from families or areas where it is not uncommon to own a firearm (ex: those from small rural towns in the Midwest and TX) tend to exercise and support the 2nd Amendment much more than those that come from areas that have strict firearm laws (ex: CA & MA) or families that do not own or are opposed to the ownership of firearms. I believe their personal background heavily impacts their comfort level around firearms outside of the military and can lead to the view by some that firearms are a tool for work only, not something that can be enjoyed as a separate hobby. This isn't a scientific study, and does not hold true in all cases, it is just my observations from my time as an officer and as a cadet at the Air Force Academy.

That being said, I have a standing offer to all those that I work with that I will happily take them shooting with me on the weekend (I go every weekend as long as the weather permits) if they are interested - pistols, rifles, whatever they want or are comfortable with. I'll even supply the ammo the first time they go with me (.22lr, .223, 9mm, .308) - all they have to do is pay their own range fee ($6). I consider this a small price for me as an individual to increase someone's interest in firearms and the 2nd Amendment.

Just my two cents.

 

[Waitone]

I don't understand the concern. Military is people too. What you see in the civilian world is reflected in the military.

Another observation. Law school graduate tadpole lawyers by the bucketfull who have no understand of nor respect for the constitution.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Unfortunately, many people today view the Constitution as more of a set of guidelines, rather than the original unyielding law of the land that is was intended to be.

The common American puts up with a lot as long as it doesn't interfere with
their daily routine, but how the Constitution is interpreted and how the law,
especially the spirit of the law, is enforced comes from leadership. Quite frankly,
most people have no clue who makes the guidelines and pulls their strings.
It's not just the military, but a general unquestioning attitude of "this is how
we were told to do this --and I don't want to be the one who gets in trouble
for not doing it that way."

You can thank the more socialist left hand of nanny-gov for grooming that kind
of mass infantilism.

But you can't have a soft-stroking left hand without an iron-fisted right hand.
Carrot or stick, boys and girls.

Our company commander was fiending for his promotion to major and he volunteered the company for every single mission he could get his hands on.

What's worse is a COL working on the first star who doesn't have to leave
the Green Zone.....

 

[Titan6]

Waittone said:

I don't understand the concern. Military is people too. What you see in the civilian world is reflected in the military.

Try to think of it in another way. suppose your town elects a mayor who thinks that smoking crack is no big deal. He takes various actions that make it difficult to prosecute drug dealers. The DA and police chief fight it so they are replaced with those who fall in line. Now slowly his beliefs effect the way that criminals are prosecuted or not prosecuted. Police stop arresting drug dealers because there is no point and they are now derelict in perform their duties. The law never changed but those responsible for enforcing it are no longer doing so. This is called Washington DC under Marion Barry.

My point is that if those responsible for enforcing the law don't believe it is needed than they will be much less likely to back it up. When we lose rule of law we have DC.

 

[xsquidgator]

Illegal orders

Speaking as a former USN officer (1988-95, left as LT), I'm not surprised at the reluctance of the Army/National Guard to question gun confiscation orders. I grew up with firearms, was pretty pro-2A (now I've grown EXTREMELY pro-2A, not just for self-defense but also as a check against government run amok), but back in my 20s as a young officer I was a lot more ambivalent about it. At that time, even though I supported the 2A at least as much as average, had I been ordered to go collect firearms, I have to admit I probably would have done it. I remember being trained on POW stuff and illegal orders, but "illegal orders" were defined then anyway in terms of shooting unarmed prisoners, attacking hospitals or civilians, etc. And then anyway, especially in the Navy, and especially in my community of submarines, all of our deployments were overseas, nothing domestic other than weekend port calls to Ft Lauderdale maybe.

It's much easier for me now, with another 15 years of life experience and maturity, to think of questioning an order like being told to go confiscate the firearms of US citizens post-disaster. (I don't know how exactly, suppose I got called up again or something). If I got called up again, I'd know it was temporary, I'd have no intention at this point in my life of making the military my career, I wouldn't be throwing as much away as a 20-something O-3 who'd have a problem with an order like that. And even then, if I were going to throw the "illegal order" flag and stand on principle, I'd be DAMNED careful doing it. How far would you or should you go, if it came to that? Not obey, but don't interfere with the gun confiscation? Try and arrest your CO for giving an illegal order? Whatever you do, you'd better be right! Right or wrong in refusing or resisting an order like that, I'd fully expect to soon be wearing handcuffs and trying to convince a JAG corps guy of my correct interpretation. That's tough for anyone to face, especially the young guys serving at the platoon and company level.

 

[VMI 1991]

...back at he Pentagon

I have read with interest the posts submitted on this subject. As many people have pointed out, the military is, to a large extent, a slice of american society. Arguments can, and are, made that the military is more "conservative" than the rest of society, but after almost 16 years on active duty, I have seen more than my share of non-conservative members of the armed forces.

It is easy to sit in front of a computer and say that people should do this or that, but is is another matter entirtely for someone who is 22-2X years old to face down a commanding officer, or executive officer, for that matter.

 

[Titan6]

And there lies the issue

And the primary reason for for this posting.

And I ask again where does that leave us?

VMI said:
It is easy to sit in front of a computer and say that people should do this or that, but is is another matter entirtely for someone who is 22-2X years old to face down a commanding officer, or executive officer, for that matter.

But someone else said:
'The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy'

 

[Thin Black Line]

It is easy to sit in front of a computer and say that people should do this or that, but is is another matter entirtely for someone who is 22-2X years old to face down a commanding officer, or executive officer, for that matter.

Or be an O# in your 30s, complain about the right thing to the wrong people
when you're 6400 miles from home, and then go home on the plane lying on
your back.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

In my last squadron, of 45 Junior Officers (O-3 and below) the breakdown was probably close to this:

3-4 staunch 2nd amendment supporters. Mostly the resident libertarians.
10-12 guys who belive in the 2nd (for the most part) but are unsure on CCW Class 3 items, or some other issue. But NRA members, at least.
5 or so that think the 2nd is for hunting rifles and handguns/EBR's are BAAAAD
2 Antis that believe that guns should not be owned outside the military (both USNA grads, go figure)

The rest just did not care 1 way or another.

Interesting how those top three categories seem to reflect (well except for the CCW issue) sentiments here.

Most like their concealed carry and AR-15s, but think full auto is some kind of uncontrollable magical kill stick. A few that even think AR-15s are bad, while a few think full-auto should be title I.

Also interesting to note that over half "did not care". I'll bet in some ways that's a reflection of the populace at large (no matter what the inane, insanely inacurate "polls" say). That most folks don't really care, but the statists antis are loud, and tend to pull the "don't care" crowd in their direction.

 

[VMI 1991]

Titan6 And the primary reason for for this posting.

And I ask again where does that leave us?

VMI said:
It is easy to sit in front of a computer and say that people should do this or that, but is is another matter entirtely for someone who is 22-2X years old to face down a commanding officer, or executive officer, for that matter.

But someone else said:
'The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy'

Thin Black Line Quote:
It is easy to sit in front of a computer and say that people should do this or that, but is is another matter entirtely for someone who is 22-2X years old to face down a commanding officer, or executive officer, for that matter.

Or be an O# in your 30s, complain about the right thing to the wrong people
when you're 6400 miles from home, and then go home on the plane lying on
your back.

Titan 6 and Thin Black Line : Thank you for your posts.

The officers, men, and women I have served with through the years would be more than willing to testify to where I stand in times of trial and adversity.

 

[Titan6]

No Offense Intended

I don't think it is your loyalties that are in question. After all you are here.

The question is 'are there still enough believers out there?' I am thinking that there may not be.

 

[.41Dave]

People in the military "support and defend the Constitution" by obeying the orders of their military superiors, who obey the orders of their civilian superiors. The personal opinions of military personnel are irrelevant to whether they execute their orders to achieve the mission of the military.

The oath does not say that military personnel should hold Constitutional debates whenever they receive orders and the military would cease to function if they did. Civilians may find that concept intellectually distasteful, but anyone who works for a very large organization faces the same type of organizational dynamics.

This statement is true. It also gives some insight into why the Founding Fathers considered a standing army "The Bane of Liberty".