Would our Marines fire on us?

Status
Not open for further replies.

eotp

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
75
Location
MS
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. Or Stanley Milgram's study Obedience to Authority. 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.
 
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.
 
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-
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
You have to remember.....

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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:
 
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.
 
To George

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top