Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 9/10/2005 9:39:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2005 2:09:06 PM EDT by SubnetMask]
Yesterday, I had an interesting face to face conversation with two enlisted men. One served in Afghanistan in the Army, one served in Iraq in the Marines. Both were active duty and are now reserve. I was discussing the recent events in NOLA with them, and the subject of civilian disarmament came up.

I asked them: "If given the order to forcefully disarm civilians, would you comply?" They both answered "yes" without batting an eye. I pressed further. "If the day comes when civilians are no longer allowed to own firearms - EVER - and you are ordered to confiscate them PERMANANTLY, would you do it?" They again answered "yes" with no hesitation.

Both of these guys are Republican. Both listen to conservative talk radio daily. Both would walk barefoot over broken glass to vote for a Republican. Both are as conservative as they come, by anyone's standard. Yet, they will not refuse an order, for fear of a court martial.

The Marine said "It's not my job as an enlisted man to interpret the consitution. I do what I'm told. Alan, you don't know what it's like unless you've served." The soldier said "If we're ordered to slit the throat of a 4 year old girl in a villiage, of course we'll refuse. But this isn't the same thing. It's like those guys who refused to get the antrax vaccine. They were court martialed, even though they were sure they were right."

I said "Are you not sworn to uphold the Constitution?" The Marine replied "Yes, but it's not our job to interpret it." I pressed further. "The second ammendment reads 'A well regulated militia, being neessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged'. Do you not understand what this means? Don't you feel that disarming the people is an infringement?" He replied "Yes, but the Constitution has exceptions. It's not cut and dry". I then asked "If you can show me an exception to the 2nd that provides for permanent civilian disarmament, I'll concede." He could not, obviously.

Both stated that a soldier who disobeyed a direct order to go house to house disarming Americans would be seen as a "tough guy" and a "lone wolf", but would be tried and found guilty nonetheless. Neither were willing to take the risk. Finally, I asked the Marine (who is a dear friend of mine) "If you were ordered to confiscate my guns, would you come to my house and do it?"

He replied "I'd get somebody else to do it. I know what you'd do." Wise decision.

To say I'm saddened over this is a gross understatement.

EDIT: Defined Marine as "Marine" and enlisted Army as "Soldier" to appease the critics.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:44:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:45:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:46:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BravoCompanyUSA:
How old were they?



Both 26, same as me.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:49:59 AM EDT
Did you REALLY think otherwise? Not a flame or jab, just that deep inside I've never thought for a second they wouldn't. There might be a few but on the whole, I've always believed they would.

Doesn't make it any less sad.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:50:20 AM EDT
Always known it was true.
These militia kooks, with their pipe dreams of LEO and Military joining with them in a glorious patriot revolution...

It's a job to them.
They joined to kick ass and take names.
Most aren't like us - "the holdouts"
We and those like us are the last bastion of the Spirit of '76.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:50:51 AM EDT
Two soldiers, one Marine and one one Army, would confiscate your firearms if ordered....

...and I would pull the trigger on them in a heartbeat if I ever need to.



They are domestic enemies and obviously forgot the part about their oath to uphold and preserve the Constitution. They also don't understand the concept of an unlawful order.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:51:25 AM EDT
Marines aren't soldiers.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:54:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:
Marines aren't soldiers.



what are they then?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:55:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rebel_Marine:
Two soldiers, one Marine and one one Army, would confiscate your firearms if ordered....

...and I would pull the trigger on them in a heartbeat if I ever need to.



They are domestic enemies and obviously forgot the part about their oath to uphold and preserve the Constitution. They also don't understand the concept of an unlawful order.



+1
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:55:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:
Marines aren't soldiers.



If they trample the Constitution they are not U.S. Marines in my book...

they are targets.


LB
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:56:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:
Marines aren't soldiers.



Regardless. Neither of them have honor or respect our COTUS and RTKBA. Fuck 'em.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:59:31 AM EDT
Someone needs to have them read the constitution, they also need to understand the concept of an unlawfull order. I had read it and understood it when I was in, everyone should.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:00:03 AM EDT
So would they also violate the 3rd and 4th amendment if ordered to?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:02:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:02:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2005 10:03:48 AM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By repub18:
So would they also violate the 3rd and 4th amendment if ordered to?



Freedom does not matter - only safety.
They themselves said, they will obey all orders given them.
Not their job to inerpret the Constitution, you CIVILIAN
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:04:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Currahee:
Someone needs to have them read the constitution, they also need to understand the concept of an unlawfull order. I had read it and understood it when I was in, everyone should.



This seems like a nice approach. Even though it's only two of them, I want them to see things differently. What resources are available to me in defining an unlawful order? I'm afraid I'm incapable of defending my position on this, since I've never served.

I'm begging those of you who have served to help me out, and give me some perspective.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:04:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:07:22 AM EDT
They both need to swing.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:12:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Currahee:
Someone needs to have them read the constitution, they also need to understand the concept of an unlawfull order. I had read it and understood it when I was in, everyone should.



Who determines if its a lawful order? It will be years before the Supreme Court makes a ruling and in the meantime the majority of soldiers will obey an order unless doing so violates their morals. (Like killing a 4 year old)

A lot of people on this board view disarming the US population as a moral issue. The vast majority of Americans (including our soldiers) do not.

If the choice is disobeying an order which may or may not be lawful or confiscating weapons and waiting for the courts to make a final decision, I think most will confiscate weapons.

There was a thread a few months ago on what would happen if the police knocked politely on your door and asked to come inside and speak with you. Once inside, they ask for your weapons and will give you a receipt and you can go through the court system to get them returned. Will you fire on honest police officer doing their job?

I would have a hard time doing so.

Its a different matter if they kick in the front door or surround the house or behave in a hostile manner.

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:13:27 AM EDT
I guess the Nuremberg Trials were an exception to the rule.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:15:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
I'm begging those of you who have served to help me out, and give me some perspective.


This will give you a starting point.

www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html

Yeah, I served.

Would I obey an order that was in direct opposition to the Constitutuon?

No.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:16:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2005 10:24:32 AM EDT by Currahee]

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By Currahee:
Someone needs to have them read the constitution, they also need to understand the concept of an unlawfull order. I had read it and understood it when I was in, everyone should.



This seems like a nice approach. Even though it's only two of them, I want them to see things differently. What resources are available to me in defining an unlawful order? I'm afraid I'm incapable of defending my position on this, since I've never served.

I'm begging those of you who have served to help me out, and give me some perspective.



Any order that would be considered a crime (ie killing unarmed civilians,) violating the rules of land warfare, and anything that violates the constitution is an unlawful order.

Oaths of enlistment
note the part about the constitution

ETA this is why the US Military is not supposed to police the people of the United States

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:21:13 AM EDT
The days of "The Thinking Soldier" are long gone....Political Administrations have antiquated such through attrition and finally gotr what they've always wanted.....armed robots who when ordered to do so will fire upon their own people...sans any thought or emotion...brainwashed warriors.

But it's not the "TRAINED Soldier" who is to blame...it's the administrations insatiable hunger for ultimate power and absolute control over all things military AND civilian.

BTW...I don't care for any politician...and even though Bush has been a real disappointment?...Klinton is the one who ordered a study/survey in which one of the questions was...

"If ordered to fire upon american citizens would you do so?"

Klinton was appauled to discover that many seasoned vets answered "NO"....and his answer to that was...get rid of the seasoned vets and get us some "New Hires".....and you say your friends are 26 years old eh?....that's about right....if ya believe in wrong.

L8R, Bill.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:22:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By Currahee:
Someone needs to have them read the constitution, they also need to understand the concept of an unlawfull order. I had read it and understood it when I was in, everyone should.



This seems like a nice approach. Even though it's only two of them, I want them to see things differently. What resources are available to me in defining an unlawful order? I'm afraid I'm incapable of defending my position on this, since I've never served.

I'm begging those of you who have served to help me out, and give me some perspective.


As long as it doesn't violate the UCMJ its a lawful order.

The problem is you don't get to decide if its a lawful order or not. When your brought up on charges of disobeying a lawful order, the court martial (made up of your superior officers) will decide if it was a lawful order or not.

For every case where someone is prosecuted for obeying an illegal order, there are hundreds where someone disobeys a legal order and is sent to a court martial.

Unless you are 100% sure that the order is unlawful (slitting the throat of a 4 year old, torturing prisoners, or rape) then your best bet is to obey. Most of the time your officer will be charged for the crime, not you.

sad, but true



Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:25:22 AM EDT
Did you ever think otherwise?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:25:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Currahee:

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By Currahee:
Someone needs to have them read the constitution, they also need to understand the concept of an unlawfull order. I had read it and understood it when I was in, everyone should.



This seems like a nice approach. Even though it's only two of them, I want them to see things differently. What resources are available to me in defining an unlawful order? I'm afraid I'm incapable of defending my position on this, since I've never served.

I'm begging those of you who have served to help me out, and give me some perspective.



Any order that would be considered a crime (ie killing unarmed civilians,) violating the rules of land warfare, and anything that violates the constitution is an unlawful order.

Oaths of enlistment
note the part about the constitution




Sorry, but an an E-2 holding a rifle isn't going to be prosecuted over points of constitutional law. We are happy when they can remember not to murder, rape, and loot.

Here's a case where a soldier did what he thought was right:

In 1995, Spec-4 Michael New was serving with the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army at Schweinfurt, Germany. When assigned as part of a multi-national peacekeeping mission about to be deployed to Macedonia, Spec-4 New and the other soldiers in his unit were ordered to wear United Nations (U.N.) Helmets and arm bands. New refused the order, contending that it was an illegal order. New's superiors disagreed. Ultimately, so did the court-martial panel. New was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, as did the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.

He got screwed.

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:26:27 AM EDT
I wouldn't count on gov't agencies to refuse to enforce gun confiscations. Look at NO. Sure it is a much smaller scale, but nobody even blinked when they started taking guns. They think it is justified to take them when people need self defense most.

If you want to depend on LEO's and the military to not take your weapons, I think you will be VERY disappointed. I'm not saying that every LEO and soldier would agree with it or do it, but there is little doubt in my mind that someone would come knocking on my door should that day come.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:29:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jblachly:
Did you ever think otherwise?



Actually, yes I did. I'm really depressed over this.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:31:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USMC_LB:

Originally Posted By FredM:
Marines aren't soldiers.



If they trample the Constitution they are not U.S. Marines in my book...

they are targets.


LB

+1
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:35:47 AM EDT
I was in and I would have never followed that order were it to be given. I'd also take my lumps if I refused an order I thought unlawful.

As for what would happen if they did? Only the wife know, and she'd be right there.

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:35:58 AM EDT
Typical result of the modern education system.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:36:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Sorry, but an an E-2 holding a rifle isn't going to be prosecuted over points of constitutional law. We are happy when they can remember not to murder, rape, and loot.



Having spent my time as an E2 holding a rifle I would agree. I personaly new my duties and rights under the UCMJ but I was an exception not the rule. In this situation I would have refused, I probably would have goten booted out with a general discharge but doubt I would have done time.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:38:37 AM EDT
And here most of you thought it would only be the JBT's.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:39:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Currahee:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Sorry, but an an E-2 holding a rifle isn't going to be prosecuted over points of constitutional law. We are happy when they can remember not to murder, rape, and loot.



Having spent my time as an E2 holding a rifle I would agree. I personaly new my duties and rights under the UCMJ but I was an exception not the rule. In this situation I would have refused, I probably would have goten booted out with a general discharge but doubt I would have done time.



I agree. Much like the guy who didn't want to wear UN insignia and helmet.

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:41:10 AM EDT
NO was a test to see if they(government as a whole) could get away with confiscation. Now that they know they can, they can do it anytime they want, and will.

Meanwhile the government keeps steamrolling right along.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:41:56 AM EDT

Posted by 105MMRedleg (Lightfighter thread)

"From this point forward, I am against the private ownership of firearms by civilians in America. If you want to own guns, you should be a member of the military or in law enforcement."



Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:43:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2005 10:43:45 AM EDT by FredM]

Originally Posted By themadhatter:

Originally Posted By USMC_LB:

Originally Posted By FredM:
Marines aren't soldiers.



If they trample the Constitution they are not U.S. Marines in my book...

they are targets.


LB

+1




Good luck. Marines have war and killing down to a science.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:43:58 AM EDT
No surprise there.


They are right - they shouldn't have to interpret the constitution - we have lawyers, judges and the people for that.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:50:40 AM EDT
Might as well do away with the "oath" if it isn't understood and the troops have no intention of honoring it.

What you are left with is nothing but a mercenary force, which is what politicians want anyway.

I took the oath, and I understood what it ment. My future/career was not more important than the Constitution, and I believe I am still bound by that oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

This land does not belong to anyone, the current citizens are only preserving it for future generations. It is documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that define our country.

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:51:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By Currahee:
Someone needs to have them read the constitution, they also need to understand the concept of an unlawfull order. I had read it and understood it when I was in, everyone should.



This seems like a nice approach. Even though it's only two of them, I want them to see things differently. What resources are available to me in defining an unlawful order? I'm afraid I'm incapable of defending my position on this, since I've never served.

I'm begging those of you who have served to help me out, and give me some perspective.


As long as it doesn't violate the UCMJ its a lawful order.

The problem is you don't get to decide if its a lawful order or not. When your brought up on charges of disobeying a lawful order, the court martial (made up of your superior officers) will decide if it was a lawful order or not.

For every case where someone is prosecuted for obeying an illegal order, there are hundreds where someone disobeys a legal order and is sent to a court martial.

Unless you are 100% sure that the order is unlawful (slitting the throat of a 4 year old, torturing prisoners, or rape) then your best bet is to obey. Most of the time your officer will be charged for the crime, not you.

sad, but true




I'd rather spend time in jail and be dishonorably discharged than take guns from defenseless people. Some things ARE worth the consequences, even if that's unfashionable in today's world. When did doing things on principle become so bad?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:53:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Currahee:
ETA this is why the US Military is not supposed to police the people of the United States



BINGO!

And they are already talking about amending the insurrection act and posse comittus (or whatever) to make it EASIER for the military to take control in disaster situations. I heard Trent Lott on Fox News yesterday saying that this was going to be his first priority, and the "conservative" talking heads were saying how badly this needs to be done.

We'll all be singing the Armalite song shortly.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:56:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:

Originally Posted By themadhatter:

Originally Posted By USMC_LB:

Originally Posted By FredM:
Marines aren't soldiers.



If they trample the Constitution they are not U.S. Marines in my book...

they are targets.


LB

+1




Good luck. Marines have war and killing down to a science.



Oh, jeez, going door to door means getting out of your fargin bradley or whatever, sure, the person would be killed inside the house but I doubt that marines are some God like being capable of deflecting rounds. Besides, once it started getting ugly and uncle fred, cousin mike and the like was unloaded on, a lot of the sheep would wake up to the fact they are dumb SOBs. And marines have families, probably a lot of them own guns also. Would you like to think a fellow soldier or marine was putting 20 into the chest of your daddy? Would you stay in after you found that out?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:56:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:

Originally Posted By themadhatter:

Originally Posted By USMC_LB:

Originally Posted By FredM:
Marines aren't soldiers.



If they trample the Constitution they are not U.S. Marines in my book...

they are targets.


LB

+1




Good luck. Marines have war and killing down to a science.



There are alot of former Marines and Soldiers on this board. Alot of them are combat vets too.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:58:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By Currahee:
Someone needs to have them read the constitution, they also need to understand the concept of an unlawfull order. I had read it and understood it when I was in, everyone should.



This seems like a nice approach. Even though it's only two of them, I want them to see things differently. What resources are available to me in defining an unlawful order? I'm afraid I'm incapable of defending my position on this, since I've never served.

I'm begging those of you who have served to help me out, and give me some perspective.


As long as it doesn't violate the UCMJ its a lawful order.

The problem is you don't get to decide if its a lawful order or not. When your brought up on charges of disobeying a lawful order, the court martial (made up of your superior officers) will decide if it was a lawful order or not.

For every case where someone is prosecuted for obeying an illegal order, there are hundreds where someone disobeys a legal order and is sent to a court martial.

Unless you are 100% sure that the order is unlawful (slitting the throat of a 4 year old, torturing prisoners, or rape) then your best bet is to obey. Most of the time your officer will be charged for the crime, not you.

sad, but true



I'd rather spend time in jail and be dishonorably discharged than take guns from defenseless people. Some things ARE worth the consequences, even if that's unfashionable in today's world. When did doing things on principle become so bad?



Good for you, but how many Marines and soldiers will agree with you? Especially ones who have just come home from Iraq and have become used to enforcing law on a civilian populace?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 10:59:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glimmerman68:
NO was a test to see if they(government as a whole) could get away with confiscation. Now that they know they can, they can do it anytime they want, and will.

Meanwhile the government keeps steamrolling right along.




They can only do it in a few states without the confusion of a disaster. Anyways, the whole situation in NO doesnt surprise me. Youve got people running around with stolen guns firing at rescuers. Why is everyone shocked they want the guns out of the city so they can go in and restore law and order and then rebuild?

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 11:07:56 AM EDT
"I was just following orders "

IS NOT AN EXCUSE.


As mentioned earlier here ,refer to the Nurenburg trials.

I was once in the Army ,and I took that oath as well.

I don't remember the exact words,but I do remember
the important part.

I will defend the US Constitution and the United
States Of America from any threat,foreign or
DOMESTIC .

Most in the armed forces today aren't there to serve their country.

They could care less.
They either wanted money for school or they
just couldn't get a decent job elsewhere.

Go ahead,flame me for saying it.

It's true.

That's the #1 reason why I left the US Army when my time was up.

I still consider that oath VERY valid.

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 11:09:00 AM EDT
A foriegn police officer once asked me why americans are so "Gun Crazed"...questioning why americans have such the strong love affair with their firearms...I told him...

"I can understand how YOU wouldn't understand because...it's not that americans are "gun crazed" or in love with their firearms....it's that they are "FREEDOM CRAZED" and in love with their freedom...and firearms played a critical role in attaining and retaining that freedom which they love, cherish and value so much.....therefore?...firearms are both symbolic and synonymous of their freedom annnnd...retaining such..and if you've never tasted chocolate?...LOL!!!"

Sorta left him quite dumbfounded and lost for words.....as expected!!! LOL!!!

L8R, Bill.

Link Posted: 9/10/2005 11:14:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

The Marine said "It's not my job as an enlisted man to interpret the consitution. I do what I'm told. Alan, you don't know what it's like unless you've served."





Very true. In combat, a summary execution could be carried out were he not to follow orders. Following orders is what enlisted Marines do, BTW.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 11:16:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By repub18:
So would they also violate the 3rd and 4th amendment if ordered to?




Yes. Court Martial those who gave the order later on, but Marines don't debate the PC version of orders.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 11:17:41 AM EDT
Not a surprise. To defend against foreign enemies, we're creating our domestic ones.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top