User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:18:51 AM EDT
[#1]
I can understand people who have never served not knowing this, but lots of vets are posting in favor of enlisted men disobeying an order. With the plethora of gun legislation out there, it would be hard for the average person to know if confiscation was illegal or not. Especially if the order is to enforce an act passed by an anti-gun congress (or state legislature) Its going to be the job of senior officers and our elected officials to stop this from occuring, not the enlisted man with a rifle. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:26:34 AM EDT
[#2]
Why do I keep having images of tanks setting buildings ablaze flash thru my mind.
Buildings full of American Citizen men women and children in Waco. Their senseless deaths were OK because the troops were "just following orders". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:31:25 AM EDT
[#3]
Tards from WW2 are still being found out and deported after just following orders. Orders do not prevent you from receiving punishment later if the orders were found to be unlawful. Therefore, using the "order" to CYA can also backfire. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:33:34 AM EDT
[#4]
WTF is in the water over at lightfighter? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:37:34 AM EDT
[#5]
yes and in every case those orders that were followed involve rape, murder, torture etc.. The legal distinction is would an average person in that situation know the order was wrong. I'd be confused as hell because I don't see how ANY of the modern gun laws could be considered lawful. Any lawyer could argue reasonable doubt for days. What if its a California boy enforcing laws in Texas? Does his view of legal gun legislation based on where he comes from come into play? Confiscating guns, while wrong, doesn't come close to rape, murder, or torture in the minds of anyone with half a fucking brain. I would doubt any enlisted man would be prosecuted for following such an order unless he committed another offense while in the process of confiscation. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:37:36 AM EDT
[#6]
Its every man for himself. No one is going to help you, and no one in the .gov would refuse orders to do *anything* to you (including shooting you, burning your house down, and certainly taking your guns). I would think everyone would understand this by now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:46:33 AM EDT
[#7]
So, Marines take an oath, but don't actually mean it? Marines will do anything they're told  I had much more respect for them before learning this. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:54:20 AM EDT
[#8]
What you are describing is the same mental mindset that the fascists used to burn people in ovens in Germany during the war. The Germans knew it was politically popular and officially sanctioned to kill Jews, so they did it when ordered to do it. They knew refusing to do it because it is wrong would earn them a lot of trouble and that the public at large would be of no help. These soldiers you talked to think the same thing: One must follow an order regardless of it's morality because there will be nobody around to help them if they are persecuted for disobeying it. The same is not true of killing four year old children, so it is politically safe for them to say they'd disobey such an order.
Galland |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:54:55 AM EDT
[#9]
There are still those who say the war in Iraq was illegal according to international and US law. Should the soldiers have refused to go until the courts could sort it out? There is a difference between an order that is legally debatable (an order to wear UN insignia and helmets for instance) and an illegal order (an order to murder children, torture prisoners, etc..) The order to confiscate weapons would only come during an emergency when the .gov has extraordinary powers (ala Katrina) or after firearms have been outlawed. Interpreting legality is not the job of a soldier. The proper response is to raise the question and if necessary go on record as obeying under protest. Unless the order is CLEARLY illegal, it must be obeyed. In effect, the only orders that will be disobeyed are orders to murder, rape, and torture (and as we have seen not even those orders are always disobeyed) |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:57:20 AM EDT
[#10]
If you can't see the difference in the confiscation of a weapon and the killing of a child, then its you who has a problem. Our soldiers confiscate weapons in Iraq every day. Is it immoral for them to disarm those people? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:01:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Obedience is hard wired into Marines, no doubt, but I don't think the guys I served with would have went for this. No way.
Marines ('76-'80). If Carter told us to disarm the population we would have told him to fuck off. This is all just the beginning. The very beginning. Stay in shape and train, look out for your family and teach them some survival skills, stock up on food and try to get your asses out of the cities. And yeah, I am dead serious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:06:46 PM EDT
[#12]
1) He isn't saying that they are equal. He said it was politically popular and officially sanctioned to do that in Germany, so the orders were obeyed. He feels that if all guns were ordered confiscated, the same result would follow, as in it is politcally popular and officially sanctioned. 2) Our soldiers confiscate arms dumps. They do not disarm the civilian population. 1 AK (full auto too) per household. And this, in a combat zone. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:15:06 PM EDT
[#13]
If you can't understand the difference between seizing and destroying an arms cache full of RPG's and C-4, and taking a shotgun from an American civilian, you're a moron. I'm in the military now. I've participated in the former, but I would never do the latter. If I'm ever told to do it, I'll take my BCD and go home. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:15:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Originally posted by Dino
No, you are falling into the "compassion trap". Certainly disarming people doesn't come close to rape or murder or torure. That comes later. I'll give you a real life example. I was in a gun shop talking with a young mother who just had a baby, that she was holding in her arms. She said, "If I was told to turn in our guns, or risk having them take my baby, I'd given them the guns right away. I wouldn't even think about it." So I very calmly said to her, "Okay, I'm a government official. I'm going to ask you to turn over your guns, so that your baby won't be endangered by their presence in your home. You give me the guns." So she says "Ok here's the guns". Then I looked at her with steely eyes and said, "Thank you very much." Then I removed my pistol from its holster and said, "Now give me your baby." She was shocked, and finally realized what owning guns was for. Disarming the public has one purpose, and one purpose only. It makes total control and mass murder of the population less risky for the murderers. Maybe you should as Solzhenitzyn what he thinks about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:20:57 PM EDT
[#15]
The contract between the people and its government is now null and void.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:22:01 PM EDT
[#16]
True but for the fact that if a soldiers kills a resister and the order is later found to be unlawful and unconstitutional he can be, along with his higher ups, charged with murder in the first degree. True, it would be easy to plea down to manslaughter or 2nd but the possibility exists. Remember, being a soldier does not let you off the hook for charges brought by the State in which the offense occured. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:23:05 PM EDT
[#17]
The servicemember is responsible for his actions. If he is convinced that his orders are illegal or violate the Constitution, Yes, he should refuse to follow them.
War is UGLY. The killing of children in war is not, by definition, illegal -- Dresden, Hiroshima, etc.. You used the phrase 'murder children' -- you already categorized it as something illegal.
What would be the legal authority of doing so? Where, outside of a Constitutional amendment doing so, does the Constitution allow for the suspension of the Second Amendment?
So why on earth are soldiers obliged to only follow lawful orders? They are expected to make judgement calls. Your argument suggests that servicemembers take an oath to uphold their own sense of right or wrong, regardless of the actual wording of the oath and its references to the Constitution and enemies foreign and domestic. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:26:41 PM EDT
[#18]
Didn't some German army boys say the something similar to that back in 1945?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:27:40 PM EDT
[#19]
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster
You are extremely naïve if you think the military, para-military and law enforcement organizations will not confiscate your weapons if ordered to do so. They will obey orders. They may question those orders for a moment, but just like Ivory Soap 99 44/100% will follow them. We have failed as a nation to provide the generations following us with the education and moral guidance to make correct decisions. We have failed to teach them the basic responsibilities and obligations of being a citizen of this great country. We have failed to instill them in the proper care and treatment of other human beings. We have continued to elect leaders (from both parties) who show low moral character and are more concerned about their own personal gain and power than protecting the people and Constitution of the United States. Unless we, the citizens, take back the moral high ground and turn this country again to self reliance, self preparedness, self control, individual responsibility, charity and moral decency we will reap exactly what we have sown for the last 40 years. I’m sure if the founding fathers could see us now they would be spinning in their graves like gyroscopes at the way we have allowed the principles that built this nation to be bastardized.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:28:51 PM EDT
[#20]
YES! And for many reasons, this is not the first, though it will be the beginning of a major shift in a way that individual freedoms are treated by the .gov. That is my take on it anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:31:46 PM EDT
[#21]
I know... I am one. LB |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:34:40 PM EDT
[#22]
Just doing my job sir, now give me your guns, or I will shoot you
 The storm is coming |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:44:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Try and find an SF soldier who would do it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:48:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Yeah, like anyone would know if they were violating the 3rd and 4th amendment.  or even the second.I'm pretty sure violating someones civil rights is "clearly illegal" |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:49:33 PM EDT
[#25]
I think it would be a toss up. They strike me as either the "professional soldier" type or the "thinking soldier" type. I can't call it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:53:37 PM EDT
[#26]
thedoctor308, there might be a couple who would do it, but they would be the guys who were kicked off an A-team.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:54:17 PM EDT
[#27]
It makes me sad to think I'll die in gun fight someday. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:59:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Under the principles of Law and Reason, there never was one... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 12:59:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Move them into the "showers!" Javohl, mein herr. I too am quite bothered by this, but I am not surprised. This is the road we've been going down. Decades ago, pretty much every soldier would have already been somewhat of a rifleman, at least in the fact that he was exposed to firearms. No one questioned firearms in the populace. Now, with some of the military I've known or read, there is some kind of air of superiority about firearms - they (soldiers) are trained in their use, do not carry them, except when told, do not load them, except when told, etc. To these soldiers, the idea of someone having a loaded firearm with complete autonomy of action - no authority telling them what to do is beyond their comprehension. We are Americans, but don't let that blind you to the fact that militaries around the world follow many similar training methods and tenets. Issues come up around the world where a military force faces their populace - and they don't hesitate, they follow orders. I don't believe there is any fundamental difference in values between these soldiers around the world - they know right from wrong - but, orders from a superior will more than likely never be questioned, especially in the heat of the situation. This is the worst possible scenario - politicization of the military. It's bad enough that many police forces are already that way, but if the military is used politically within our borders, it'll make the War Between the States look like summer vacation. One line always comes to my mind from The Matrix. "...these very people which we are trying to save are still part of the system. They are hopelessly dependent upon it and will fight to protect it. And that makes them the enemy." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:06:39 PM EDT
[#30]
If the US gov/military "declared" war on American citizens the military would be annihilated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:07:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Then they would die.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:09:10 PM EDT
[#32]
This is WHY I own guns. Not for hunting, not for plinking, not for collecting- though those are certainly fun- but to kill each and every mother fucker who intends to violate my Constitutional rights and those of other Americans.
Now he's a question that may have been asked and answered, but I skipped the last page and a half: If you're military and you refuse this order and get discharged, can't they make it illegal for you to own or purchase firearms as if you were a felon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:17:45 PM EDT
[#33]
WOLVERINES!!!
(The later years) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:19:48 PM EDT
[#34]
I agree and would pull the trigger also. I hope they live long enough to be asked that question when they are 45 or 50 yrs old. They will either be completely ashamed of their answer at 26 or will be guards at a concentration camp. I didn't know the army and marines let people that stupid into their ranks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:40:47 PM EDT
[#35]
and? I bet they also have 10,000 rounds of ammo for 25 rifles. It doesn't really matter. Resistance is futile. [/borg] |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:41:20 PM EDT
[#36]
True. Also a big erosion of principles like character, moral guidance, and ethical decision making, the last one disappearing form this country/society at an alarming rate. Our educational system seems to have decided to turn out dummies w/o common sense or the ability to make a rational decision. There are numerous other factors as well, too numerous to list, but you get the gist of my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:46:08 PM EDT
[#37]
most over here are hopelessly blind to the situation.
there keep being references to germans who killed jews and others or malmedy etc. the fact is the germans lost the war and thus were guilty of whatever we decided they were guilty of.(i'm jewish so dont tell me i'm being anti semitic or dumb) meir kahane advocated an armed jewish populace as a defence against the posibility of such a holocaust happening here. i guess he understood that it might be years before the courts would decide whether anything being doine would be illegal. nazi courts routinely ruled it to be legal to do anything to the enemy of the state(jews etc.) dont fool yourselves that if disaarmament were the order of the day that it wouldnt be fully legal and authorized by the courts and if you resist you will be alone and villified in the the media as a wacko sociopath killer who was killed by our heroic armed forces to make the streets safe to feed the children. all good under the rule of law. at the time they decide to ban private ownership of weapons they will repeal the second the same way prohibition was repealed. on a side note, once our armed forces were brought in to NO to restore order, you diddnt really expect them to decide who was legally allowed to posses firearms and who was not? it became a practiacal matter when being fired on anyone with a weapon that isnt clearly identified as a friend is not. you also diddnt expect better from a mayor and governor who couldnt figure out how to use a police force and a stock of school buses to evacuate the needy before the storm hit. also for those who bring up the point that a soldier can be charged with refusing to obey a unlawful order. civilians who refuse the order to surrender weapons can be arrested and charged if the nra with its deep pockets is so all there its the perfect case to determine whether or not the second is really a civilian right and at what point are rights able to be abrigded |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:48:17 PM EDT
[#38]
I don't know about that. Let's toss around a scenario or two. Martial law is declared, turn in your guns, and your property will be inventoried for possible future redistribution. They take over power distribution centers, food storage facilities, control the water plants, definitely communications. If a given area doesn't cooperate, off goes the power, off goes the water, no food available for purchase, anyone outside of their home or on the roads is shot. How long do you think it'd take before 99.999% of the population cried Uncle and gave up? You might get an occasional resister, or someone who has stocked up on supplies, but let's get real. They want to shut down most areas of the country, they will. Nearly all people nowadays are concerned about are their creature comforts. If they have to give up some essential liberties to have it, they will. They have been, and I don't see that trend reversing itself. Sucks, but there it is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:55:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Hey Tom, You're hanging out with the wrong mil guys and reading the wrong books.  I'm retired mil, and the people I've worked with - including myself - don't have that air of superiority, or lack the comprehension you speak of. I've gotten a liittle rusty with age, but I'm still damn good with a weapon. You may have mistaken their attitudes of confidence for superiority. A civilian with complete autonomy? So what? Look at the other thread where the two mil guys were asked if they'd confiscate firearms - they said, "Yes." It's possible the autonomy of the civilians in this country may be the only thing that saves it. This is a sign of the problem: Some folks associate a firearm with a need for .Gov control over that same firearm. A civilian may be just as well, if not moreso, disciplined than a mil guy. The firearm is not the problem. It's the shooter. Have you served in the mil? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:55:45 PM EDT
[#40]
all id have to say to our men and women of the armed forces if it came to that is "sorry it had to come to this but its nothing personal."
sad, very sad. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:01:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Marines are not Soldiers...
The Army has Soldiers The Marines are Marines.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:05:25 PM EDT
[#42]
OK, OK, my bad. Can you tell I never served?  I'll fix the title. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:07:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Don't we have both US troops and police taking guns from citizens in New Orleans? Sadly, it appears none of them have a problem doing it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:12:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Here is a cynical point: Your an evil, bent-on-world-domination leader. Would you want you army to question your orders? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:14:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Won't happen. Sure a very might try it. But seeing US soldiers and marines shooting US civilians or kicking in doors would turn the stomachs of a bunch.
When I was active, the question was kicked around and it went a pretty solid 95% against consfication. Sorry, don't see it happening. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:16:06 PM EDT
[#46]
What? Hand over your guns? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:17:58 PM EDT
[#47]
When the time comes that domestic enemies knock on our front doors and demand our weapons, many of us will refuse, no doubt, and some of us will die defending what is right. They will have a name for us.
Main Entry: 1in·sur·gent Pronunciation: -j&nt Function: noun Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE 1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent 2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:21:39 PM EDT
[#48]
I doubt it. I think when the time comes, 99% of us won't recognize it for what it is, and will comply. I think all the "come and get my guns out of my cold dead hands" is all internet bravado. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:36:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Hey Backstop - I don't hang out with those .mil guys (the wrong ones). I'm middle aged and the ones who I've found that think how I mentioned are younger than me. They don't have the same way about them as the older .mil guys I know (Vietnam Vets and older). For the older crowd, a firearm is a tool in the toolbox. I am familiar with the confidence (in place of superiority) as I come from a military family. I did not serve (came real close, long story), but my Grandfather flew as part of a B-17 crew in WWII and later piloted B-36s after being in the occupation forces in Japan. My Uncle served in the Navy during Vietnam flying A-7s and Skyraiders in close air support roles. I don't think it's the military causing the problem as far as the thinking goes. I believe it's a way of thinking by today's youth that is carried with them into the military. As much of the nation's way of thinking is to fear civilians with guns, so that attitude is carried into today's military personnel. Sort of "as goes the nation, so goes the military." I've always had the greatest respect for our soldiers and I don't fear anything from the old-timers. But the youngsters won't have the same history and experience to fall back on, so it pays to keep an eye on them at least. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:46:01 PM EDT
[#50]
That's interesting, Tom. Although I have no experience to comment about your POV. And I doubt there is some kind of mil poll that was done. I'd really be interested in reading how today's mil folks feel about the Constitution, 2nd Ammendment, etc. May have to search a bit... |
|
|
|
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.
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.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
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.
