Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel
fightlite
springfield
palmetto
primaryArms
SDS
delton
Hit
laRue
GS
RS
VP
jt
vortex
skd
bravocompany
brownells
silencerShop
magpul
JRH
troy
midwest
geissele
aim
CA

geissele
primaryArms
CA
LAPG
silencerShop
dsa
Faxxon
cmmg
THBRD
RS
jt
ar15com
bravocompany
SAS
gray
fightlite
Pro2A
palmetto
springfield
brownells
blackhills
LAPG
JRH
bravocompany
cmmg
tnvc
trijicon
bravocompany
Users Online1931 Online
bravocompany missing Hydra
Page General » General Discussion
Site Notices
Sponsor News TNVC Partners With Envision Technology - MARS Rangefinder Family, MARS-Lc!
Archived [ARCHIVED THREAD] - Would Marines fire on U.S. civilians who refused to turn in their guns? (Page 1 of 7)
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Next Page Arrow Left
Posted: 10/26/2007 12:46:59 PM EDT
I am, of course, referring to the "Combat Arms Survey" given to U.S. Marines at 29 Palms in 1994. This survey was administered as a research tool for a Master's thesis by Ernest Cunningham. The title of the thesis is "Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control. A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion."

Well, it is now available online. Lots of good raw data to sift through. Although it is a bit old, and a relatively small sample size, it's interesting nonetheless.

The download is something like 208 pages/6 megs.

stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA293790
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:47:21 PM EDT
[#1]
If they are Marines, then yes.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:48:23 PM EDT
[#2]
28 Weeks Later

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:48:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Any branch would, and many would be all too happy to.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:48:58 PM EDT
[#4]
I highly doubt any ROE will include shooting civilians.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:49:07 PM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:49:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Some would, most wouldn't.  Just MHO.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:50:01 PM EDT
[#7]
99.9% would.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:50:14 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.


M uscles
A re
R equired
I ntelligence
N ot
E ssential

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:50:19 PM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:50:23 PM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:
Any branch would, and many would be all too happy to.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:50:26 PM EDT
[#11]

Quoted:
Any branch would, and many would be all too happy to.

I believe you are wrong sir.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:51:04 PM EDT
[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?


Lawful orders?
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:51:13 PM EDT
[#13]

Quoted:
Any branch would, and many would be all too happy to.


Happy?

Umm no
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:51:34 PM EDT
[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow illegal or immoral orders?
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:51:37 PM EDT
[#15]
This is bullshit. You guys think US Marines are going to line up American gun owners and shoot them by firing squad? Or do you think gun owners that are shooting at them, they will return fire. The question is inflammatory and stupid as it doesn't explain any scenario.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:51:38 PM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:
I highly doubt any ROE will include shooting civilians.


Not by US forces.  The UN will send troops from other nations.



5sub
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:51:46 PM EDT
[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?


Lawful orders?


If it becomes the law, then what?
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:51:47 PM EDT
[#18]

Quoted:
99.9% would.



Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:52:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Like anything else, some will but not all. In that instance, they will quickly start shooting at each other.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:52:48 PM EDT
[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?


Lawful orders?


If it becomes the law, then what?


Are you familiar with the laws of land warfare? Because those haven't changed in over 100 years.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:53:04 PM EDT
[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?


Lawful orders?


If it becomes the law, then what?


There is a difference between a law, and a lawful military order.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:53:25 PM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?



IMO that would be an unlawful and unconstitutional order, not a Marine so no idea what the rules would be in that particular situation, personally I think some would, majority probably wouldn't.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:53:54 PM EDT
[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?



IMO that would be an unlawful and unconstitutional order, not a Marine so no idea what the rules would be in that particular situation, personally I think some would, majority probably wouldn't.


What situation? It isn't defined.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:54:02 PM EDT
[#24]
Again (IMHO) will not be US Forces shooting US civilians.

Even the Dims are not that stupid.




5sub
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:54:45 PM EDT
[#25]
I believe that 90% of local, state and federal agencies would confiscate guns illegally and willfully or shoot you if necessary

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:55:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Maybe to quell a localized riot, but not for general policy. They would bring in foreign "Peace Keepers" to disarm us...Russia, China, etc. It is far more difficult to kill someone who is a 'homey' versus someone from a different culture and mindset. After all, I'd venture to say most Marines are pro-RKBA.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:55:40 PM EDT
[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?



IMO that would be an unlawful and unconstitutional order, not a Marine so no idea what the rules would be in that particular situation, personally I think some would, majority probably wouldn't.


What situation? It isn't defined.


It was to me...... at least the way I read the OP. Guns are ordered to be turned in, you refuse and dig in. What is the Military or whoever responds going to do next, maybe I read into it to much I dunno.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:55:43 PM EDT
[#28]
BAH! To many double taps lately.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:56:53 PM EDT
[#29]

Quoted:

Even the Dims are not that stupid.

5sub


Read what you wrote above out load.  Now, think about what you wrote.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:57:13 PM EDT
[#30]
The knowledge they (troops of any kind) would was the reason for the Second Amendment. The combination of the Second Amendment and the military oath should be enough to protect us...

Little did the Founders know the Second Amendment would be treated as unclear and vague by the a-hole politicians and judges of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Support and defend the Constitution? Don't count on it.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:57:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Crazy threads here lately.  What kind of question is this?

-MEI

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:57:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Every government eventually becomes corrupted.  Name a country or society that has not?


Link Posted: 10/26/2007 12:58:53 PM EDT
[#33]
I, (NAME), 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.

That is the oath that all enlisted swear to up hold. We would not fire on civilians to give up their arms. That would be against our oath if a President were to give that order they would fall under enemies domestic. Most of the people I’ve met in 23 years of service trust the government less than your average arfcomer. I will certainly not follow an illegal order as to disarm American Civilians.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:14:29 PM EDT
[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is bullshit. You guys think US Marines are going to line up American gun owners and shoot them by firing squad? Or do you think gun owners that are shooting at them, they will return fire. The question is inflammatory and stupid as it doesn't explain any scenario.


Welcome to ARF. The cop's go through this bullshit every few days.


Even on the days where you guys aren't killing innocent dogs .

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:14:31 PM EDT
[#35]
I think there are some sadly naive folks on this website
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:15:05 PM EDT
[#36]

Quoted:
Marines (or any other service) would not fire unless they were fired upon.  

As far as confiscating weapons, some would and some wouldn't.  I personally wouldn't.

Funny seeing as the first shot fired at Ruby Ridge was into a 14 year old's back as he ran away in the woods clearly unarmed.

How about the lady who was standing in a hallway with her baby in her arms when an FBI agent shot her in the face?

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:15:09 PM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Any branch would, and many would be all too happy to.


Happy?

Umm no


yes sir, happy. I know many military people, in many branches. My bro is a former marine, I've very much into the community and know a lot of people. Many people don't care who they shoot, they are happy to pull the trigger. I'm not demeaning our military, or saying that  everyone of them are blood thirsty. How many is "many" to you, or "a lot"? to me the people I've talked to in my life time, is many, is 1% many?, is 10%?, it is to me. To address the "any branch would", well they follow their orders like they are expected to do; they have done it before.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:15:15 PM EDT
[#38]
The Feds dont have any problem shooting up civilians.


The military? Depends on the situation, but more than likely yes but not all of them would.


Just look at RR, Waco, and NOLA as examples- a person refusing to give up guns = ok to shoot them.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:15:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Yes, the military would open fire on U.S. civilians who refused to abide by an unConstitutional gun confiscation. Some would refuse, a few would even go AWOL, but the majority would be 'just following orders'. Some would do it gleefully.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:15:52 PM EDT
[#40]
If guns are banned, and US soldiers are used to enforce that ban, then yes, any civilian who refused to comply would face arrest.  Any resistance would be dealt with the same way as it is in Iraq or Afghanistan... overwhelming firepower.

But if we reach the point of the military being used to enforce civil law, then we'll have already passed the point of no return.  See The Siege for an excellent example.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:16:30 PM EDT
[#41]
who do you think are the gun owners of america?  A good portion of them ARE the military, and in the case of the Marines, nearly all are weapon enthusists.  Getting back to my EBRs (I was stationed in Cali) was a big factor in why I did not reenlist.  

I have been shot at many a times in Iraq, and quite regularly given AK-47s BACK to non combatant Iraqis.  We dont just shoot everyone up there, so what would make anyone believe Marines would want so badly to shoot an american?

Some of your opinions about the .mil are shocking.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:17:35 PM EDT
[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Molon Labe is for the internet

100% spot on. Most ArfCom members say that, but if it came down to it they'd turn them over and ask for a confiscating job themselves.


Anyone ever notice " I'm gonna bury my guns" posts?

When the time has come to bury them it's time to use them.


Roughly 20,000,000 gun owners will commit acts of civil disobedience such as burying guns.

Roughly 700,000 will actually fight.




5sub
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:18:22 PM EDT
[#43]
god i love these threads.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:18:36 PM EDT
[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I, (NAME), 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.

That is the oath that all enlisted swear to up hold. We would not fire on civilians to give up their arms. That would be against our oath if a President were to give that order they would fall under enemies domestic. Most of the people I’ve met in 23 years of service trust the government less than your average arfcomer. I will certainly not follow an illegal order as to disarm American Civilians.


What happens when the Supreme Court says there is no private or individual right to the ownership of firearms and the President says "Mr and Mrs American, turn your weapons in!".  Are you going to debate the finer points of Constitutional law with your CO when the Command in Chief, backed by a SCOTUS ruling, is telling you it's ok to shoot that civilian terrorist who is refusing a lawful order to disarm and is in a state of unlawful insurrection?



If this ever happened, the word above in red is how I think that the .gov would justify violence against Americans.    Because after all, you're not shooting Americans, you're shooting Terrorists, i.e. domestic enemies.  In other words, +1 Drakich.

In reality, I think (hope) that most military personnel would realize it for what it is, bullshit, and refuse the order.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:19:18 PM EDT
[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are Marines, then yes.




How many Marines do you know that don't follow orders?


Lawful orders?


Yeah, but the government defines what is lawful and unlawful.

President : "We just outlawed guns, you Marines need to go get them."

Marines : "Yes Ma'am."

Remember NOLA! NG Units and police confiscating guns from law abiding citizens. Why? Because they were told to.
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:20:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Once tried talking to a Marine fresh out of boot about refusing unlawful orders.

He started laughing and thought it was ridiculous how the Navy trained people on how to NOT follow orders.

I learned much from this.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:20:44 PM EDT
[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I, (NAME), 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.

That is the oath that all enlisted swear to up hold. We would not fire on civilians to give up their arms. That would be against our oath if a President were to give that order they would fall under enemies domestic. Most of the people I’ve met in 23 years of service trust the government less than your average arfcomer. I will certainly not follow an illegal order as to disarm American Civilians.


What happens when the Supreme Court says there is no private or individual right to the ownership of firearms and the President says "Mr and Mrs American, turn your weapons in!".  Are you going to debate the finer points of Constitutional law with your CO when the Command in Chief, backed by a SCOTUS ruling, is telling you it's ok to shoot that civilian terrorist who is refusing a lawful order to disarm and is in a state of unlawful insurrection?



If this ever happened, the word above in red is how I think that the .gov would justify violence against Americans.  Because after all, you're not shooting Americans, you're shooting Terrorists.


Advertising* is important !!





5sub



*propaganda
Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:20:54 PM EDT
[#48]
May 4, 1970  Kent State University

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:20:58 PM EDT
[#49]
I think that there are a lot of people in the Military who understand the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and would not fire on civilians or confiscate weapons. If things were bad enough I think they would rebel with the rest of us. But there are some in the Military who don't understand the Constitution or could care less about it and they would do whatever they were ordered to. Hopefully the good guys outnumber the bad guys. It does kind of concern me though that the Military seems to be lowering there standards on recruiting. From what I have read they let more people in with criminal records. Also they let in people who are not citizens. Maybe it is just a crazy conspiracy theory, but I sometimes wonder if the reason for this is to have people in the Military who would not question unconstitutional or immoral orders.

Link Posted: 10/26/2007 1:21:47 PM EDT
[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Marines (or any other service) would not fire unless they were fired upon.  

As far as confiscating weapons, some would and some wouldn't.  I personally wouldn't.

Funny seeing as the first shot fired at Ruby Ridge was into a 14 year old's back as he ran away in the woods clearly unarmed.

How about the lady who was standing in a hallway with her baby in her arms when an FBI agent shot her in the face?


Sorry, let me rephrase that.  Marines (or any other service) would not fire unless they believed their lives were in immediate danger.

I don't know what happened in those situations, I wasn't there.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Next Page Arrow Left
Archived [ARCHIVED THREAD] - Would Marines fire on U.S. civilians who refused to turn in their guns? (Page 1 of 7)
Page General » General Discussion
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
LAPG
THBRD
jt
dsa
geissele
primaryArms
cmmg
CA
gray
LAPG
silencerShop
Pro2A
JRH
palmetto
springfield
brownells
SAS
blackhills
bravocompany
fightlite
Faxxon
ar15com
RS
missing
AR-15 AK-47 Handgun Precision Rifles Armory Training Competitive Shooting General Outdoors Archery Hometown Industry

About AR15.COM

Become an AR15.COM Team Member

AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.

From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.

Stay Connected

AR15.COM Facebook AR15.COM Twitter AR15.COM YouTube AR15.COM Instagram
Pepperjam Verification

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.

Contact Us

Advertising
[email protected]
General
[email protected]

Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.

AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.

Advertising Memberships ARFCOM Shop Gear Deals Virtual Weapon Build Discussion Forums Help Privacy DMCA About Your Privacy Choices California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Opt-Out Icon   Goat Signal
** When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network and Amazon.
Top Top