Why do civilian gun people love the military?

[siglite]

Posse Comitatus is useless. If ordered to fire on civilian "terrorists" (and you can bet any domestic target of the military will bear that label) the military will do so. There will be no significant revolt within the ranks. They will do what they're told, and they will do it ruthlessly and efficiently, if those are their orders.

The military will not simply invade/occupy some section of our own country. THAT would cause soldiers and marines to drop out of the ranks instantly.

But a "domestic terrorism threat," oh yeah. They'll do that in a heartbeat. It's all a matter of presentation and propaganda. When you consider the might of our military, one would be wise to fear the organization as a whole. While "enemies foreign and domestic" applies to the constitution in the oath, it applies to the central government in reality.

I for one support the military, and especially the individual soldier, sailor, airman or marine. But I'm also aware of the terrible power wielded there. And to not fear its use domestically (at least in theory) is folly. This is one of the reasons why careful selection of a CIC at the polls is ALWAYS important.

 

[plexreticle]

It's amazing to me that people would think the military would not do what it's told against their own civilian population. The military is no different then the police, the ATF, the FBI or any other federal agency made up of US citizens.

Look at history and there are countless example of the military oppressing it's own citizens. Why would the US military be different?

(plexreticle, US Army retired)

 

[blackcash88]

This applies in a lot of other jobs:
Aircraft Carrier.
Fighter Pilots.
Special Forces.

Job as an aircraft carrier? Guess you gotta be pretty strong for that one...

 

[Titan6]

If you morally and ideologically oppose the mission of our military, how can you support the soldier's decision to follow those orders?

"We support the troops, just not the mission."
That's a bunch of cop-out cowardice. If you oppose the mission, you can not agree with the soldiers' decision to follow those orders and you do not support the troops.

I guess.

Of course if they don't follow orders they are breaking the law and will go to prison. Sounds different when you say it like that does it not?
Since we don't advocate breaking the law here at THR what are you trying to say?

Did they take part in the door-to-door searches and gun confiscations?

Not that I can tell.

Also, was it Natl. Guard in NOLA? If so I would assume they were working under the control of the governor.

That is correct.

 

[Cosmoline]

The military has had nothing to do with controlling the population or centralizing the government in the past 60 years or so. If you think otherwise provide an example of such that is supported and I will look at it.

The federalized Guard was used extensively to impose federal civil rights laws on various states and localities. Whatever the merits of the action, the fact that the troops were willing to be used in this manner puts the lie to the notion that they would revolt.

They were also used extensively during the unrest of the late 60's and early 70's. Not to mention the disasters of our own decade. I remember seeing armed federalized troops standing guard at all the airports back in 2002.

 

[Cosmoline]

We only had an Army of farmers and clerks for a short period of time. An Army of soldiers and clerks simply can not compete with a professional Army in the field. The more professional and highly trained one side is the more lopsided the victory will be.

What do you mean "short period of time"? That system was in place in one form or another from 1776 to 1946. We did not rely on a professional elite as we do today. The current paradigm of a large all-volunteer professional military is completely different from the way it was done in the past. It is much closer to the systems of old Europe which relied on a "nobility of the sword" or warrior caste to safeguard the sovereign.

 

[MMCSRET]

DO I detect a shallow slide into politics with this thread?

 

[Titan6]

Quote:
An Army of soldiers and clerks simply can not compete with a professional Army in the field.

In the field, no. That is why there is such a concept as assymetric warfare, and it is something that history has shown that large, standing, professional armies have a real tough time with.

Well sure... but do you really want to rely on assymetric warfare to protect the country? If you have ever been to a country where such a thing is occuring you will likely disagree.

Posse Comitatus is useless. If ordered to fire on civilian "terrorists" (and you can bet any domestic target of the military will bear that label) the military will do so. There will be no significant revolt within the ranks. They will do what they're told, and they will do it ruthlessly and efficiently, if those are their orders.

If that is what you think of me than so be it. If your mind is closed on this issue...

 

[Deanimator]

I'm a liberal, ex-military gun owner.

While I chose not to pursue the military as a career, I recognize that without the military, I'd likely neither be able to be a gun owner OR a liberal, since I'd either be dead, a slave, or the equivalent of a slave, disarmed and subservient to some assinine dictatorship run by malicious simpletons of the extreme left or right who not only demand obedience, but outright shows of adulation.

I don't want to be ruled over by Putin, Kim Jong-Il, or Osama bin Laden, and I'm perfectly happy with the use of military force to prevent that.

 

[Cosmoline]

The military will not simply invade/occupy some section of our own country. THAT would cause soldiers and marines to drop out of the ranks instantly.

Tell that to the folks who faced Sherman's horde or Sheridan's sweep through the Shenandoah Valley.

I recognize that without the military, I'd likely neither be able to be a gun owner OR a liberal, since I'd either be dead, a slave, or the equivalent of a slave, disarmed and subservient to some assinine dictatorship run by malicious simpletons of the extreme left or right who not only demand obedience, but outright shows of adulation.

See, this is what I find disturbing. It wasn't the MILITARY that kept us free--IT WAS US. WE KEPT OURSELVES FREE. We filled the ranks of the Army when war came, then tossed that same Army on the back burner for a slow simmer until needed again. We USED THE MILITARY, it did not use us. Until recently, that is. Now we look to and idolize a small elite of warriors and bow to them in thanks for protecting our broad backsides. It's a very, very dangerous business and it WILL destroy the Republic.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Well sure... but do you really want to rely on assymetric warfare to protect the country? If you have ever been to a country where such a thing is occuring you will likely disagree.

Exactly. It does work but the assymetric side tends to soak up massive numbers of casualties. Insurgent death in Iraq far exceed US deaths. Also asymmetric warfare all but guarantees massive escalation of civilian deaths. Is that the country you want? The risk to your family, your kids?

Human wave tactics also worked for North Korea. I am not sure I want to volunteer for that.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Thie started out barely gun related and has gone downhill since.