Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Military Firing on Civilians

  1. #1
    The Anti-Terrorist Abukai08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,657
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Military Firing on Civilians

    So recently there have been discussions regarding the ordering of troops to turn their guns on the people of the United States. So I wrote this is the Poll Thread and decided to repost here just to get my opinion about it here as to not clog up the other thread if there are comments or questions.

    My opinion and how I got to it.

    While I know there will be some who are willing to do it (even in the military turds fall through the cracks it isn't just the federal government) I think the majority would not.

    With many of us being veterans the last thing we want is to turn our muzzles in the other direction. I do, however, see changes in the mentality in the military regarding those of us who have served overseas. It is becoming harder and harder for us to stay in. That being said though I do not feel the Majority of service members would have a warm and fuzzy of such an order. Yes there are mindless drones in the Military, but I do not think they would be willing to carry out such an act on say... their own families or hometowns, nor would they stand by while another unit did so.

    Another point to make is doing so would be a violation of nearly every amendment in the Bill of Rights which is part of the Constitution we swore to uphold and defend. Any order to violate our oath would be, by definition, an unlawful order which does not fall in our duty to undertake as according to the Uniform Code of Military justice which must be abided by when giving an order. (Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code)(also covers the Oath of Commission)

    As enlisted your oath is a little different as it includes a statute to only follow lawful orders and it is your duty and right to deny following orders which are unlawful or go against the Constitution of the United States of America

    Uniform Code of Military Justice 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order".

    In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

    So in order to dawn the uniform in service to the United States you are duty bound to not comply with any orders which run contrary to the Human Rights defined in writing in the Constitution. Doing so would be a violation of law and your oath of enlistment/commision (i.e. high treason) punishable by... you guessed it.

    trea·son
    /ˈtrēzən/Noun
    1.The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
    2.The action of betraying someone or something.

    In the case of the United States the Government is the PEOPLE.


    So in short... No Way they would follow such an order.
    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" -Thomas Jefferson-


    "Our rights come from our humanity and may not be legislated away -- not by a vote of Congress, not by the consensus of our neighbors, not even by agreement of all Americans but one." Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

  2. #2
    Gunco Regular dcholl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    558
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Yes for the most part this is true, with the exceptions of major civil unrest and where an american citizan has actually denounced his US Citizanship. and is fighting with or gives aid and comfort to the Enemy. and the is Also the good ole fashioned The Right to Use Deadly Force against another if you are protecting Yourself or another from great bodily harm and you must prove that you are in fear, of your life to excersice the right to use deadly force. As far as obeting a lawfull order in the military to fire upon a citizan, yes I can see the moral delema, But all Military Personal took an Oath to Prtect against all Enemies forgin and Domestic. If the Goverment labels the citizan a Domestic terroists, then one woukld have no choice, and im sure whom ever pulled that trigger, would have some great soul searching to do. But remember the One whom gave the Order will be the one to stand and be judged espically if the order was wrong and un warrented . And I sure as hell wouldnt want to be in that guys shoe's. I made a remark on here earlier about how things can get set up. like obamas shooting a gun,,, First it was mentioned, then a challenge, than wham a picture, all in the time frame that this tighter firearm laws are being called for, and the banning of weaponms and mags, see what I mean no today in the news There are order in place to shoot american citizans with drones if they are forgin soil. well it dosntr take a genius to figure out that enimeys of the state are everwhere. its called CYA in case they hit a remote place here in the US, and a citizan is killed they could easily lable him as as enemy combatiant and poof! and the same goes with militaias if they really wanted to get nasty,,JMHO...Doc

  3. #3
    Gunco Addicted for life j427x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,330
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Default

    technically this is correct and follows the UCMJ.

    the problem is white house is in the habit of breaking its own laws.

    the white house only cares what is technically correct and legal when it is some citizen their trying to hang on a technical violation of the law.

    when it serves the administrations purpose they have shown no regard for the laws, constitution or the citizens rights.

    the armed forces will follow the legal orders.

    obama and crew may well attempt to muddy the water on what is legal and what is not, just like they do on everything else in order to make an illegal order look legal.

    in the confusion some illegal orders may well be carried out against us citizens.

    some service members may well follow orders they know damn well violate the constitution and the UMCJ. i do not think this is the majority.

    if it comes down to an armed conflict the armed services will have to decide who is the untied states --the government or the citizens?

  4. #4
    Gunco Regular sovblocgunfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    515
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Reading this with great interest. Again, thank you for your service.

    I hope most in the armed services understand the critical thinking that is required for decisions like this, such as you do, and that most understand just how easily those in positions of authority can manipulate their direct reports for desired results.

  5. #5
    The Anti-Terrorist Abukai08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,657
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Yes it is pretty techinical, but some may be assuming the majority of Service members are going to turn their back on their oath, and in doing so, the Constitution, and because the Constitution is voicing the rights of the PEOPLE then turning their backs on them as well.

    In doing so they would not only be betraying their oath, but their own rights and the rights of their loved ones as well. Now I don't think the Fed would wave a wand making gun owners, or conservatives domestic terrorists. That is essentially 80 Million people... Which is more than the 5 largest armies in the world COMBINED.

    The military just wouldn't go for it. As I stated when talking about lawful orders, if the Miitary leaders or the government give such an order, then obligation of the troops would be to refuse. Simply becasue by giving an unlawful order you have surrendered your oath wich means my oath is no longer bound to you or your orders.

    Bottom line is our Constitution does not only exeist in a glass box in the Rotunda, it exists in every single one of us especially if you have sworn life and limb to protect it.
    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" -Thomas Jefferson-


    "Our rights come from our humanity and may not be legislated away -- not by a vote of Congress, not by the consensus of our neighbors, not even by agreement of all Americans but one." Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

  6. #6
    GuncoHolic Sprat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,581
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Default

    sorry

    but they will do as told, they will fire on civilains, Kent state?????????? is a old example but it happened, as did the national guard firing on civilians during the late 60's unrest. or the Bonus riots of the 30's another, where douglas MacArthur made his bones. vietnam troops fragging officiers

    I don't trust any of them sorry, that goes for law enforcement

    this is not meant to say many have not served there country with distinction and/or the public with with community policing but things are turned around
    Sprat and sprat1 are one and the same.

  7. #7
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,520
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    HMMMM WELL IT WILL ONY TAKE ONE SHOT FROM EITHER SIDE AN BOTH SIDES WOULD BE SHOOTING . IF YOUR A SOLDIER YOUR NOT GOING TO STAND THERE AN BE SHOT AT IMO .

    ALSO THE GOVERMENT WILL JUSTIFY ANY ORDERS WITH WHAT EVER THEY FEEL.

    DO I THINK A GROUP OF SOLDIERS IS GOINGTO OPEN UP ON UNARMED AMERICANS EVEN IF ORDERED HMMMMM NOT SURE.

    CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG BUT WERE NOT TROOPS SENT SOUT DURING KATRINA????

    IF SO IM SURE THEY HAD GUNS . IF THERE NOT ALOWED TO SHOOT WHAT ARE THE GUNS FOR ??????????? ITS OBIOUS IF THEY WERE FIRED ON THERE GOING TO BE SHOOTING BACK AT AMERICANS . HMMMMMM

  8. #8
    Gunco Regular Buick Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    450
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Civilians wouldn't feel real warm and fuzzy about shooting at our soldiers. Shooting at politicians tho...
    If the left can make a cowardly mass muderer like che guevara a hero, I can make PinoCHEt mine.
    (That is not my Buick in the photo)


  9. #9
    TRX
    TRX is online now
    Gunco Irregular TRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,636
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sprat View Post
    sorry Kent state?
    Some rioting criminal tries to smash my face in with a brick, and I'm holding a loaded rifle, I'd probably shoot too.

    The Guard were trained as soldiers, not as policemen. When put under stress, they did what they'd been trained to do.

  10. #10
    Gunco Veteran hunter_02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Mr. Sprat. The troops in Viet Nam that may have fragged officers WERE NOT FOLLOWING ORDERS.
    But the rest of your post is correct.
    1BigGun. The 'troops' sent to NOLA following were Katrina weren't regulars. They were National Guard and was a proper deployment
    Hunter

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •