Interesting Convo with Guardsmen.

[dross]

One Ill say that while i let my bad day and distaste for your comments obvious do not take me to be naive as i seem. I will tell you i personally asked nearly everyone in my plt and all said that they would follow no such orders (to either disarm or turn on civilians) Not one said they would and the ones i didnt ask i assure you would not follow such orders either. While having family in the military does bring you closer to it it does not mean you can relate to us my fathers father served my uncle served i have served but that does not mean i would let my father talk as if he knew how we would react in certain specific situations especially as a whole military. As for a real branch i mean one that requires its members to work for them everyday sometimes in combat and of whom a majority of its members didnt join to go to college and get a cool uniform to pick up college chicks. Thats just me though and i am in no way saying that there arent excellent people who serve in guard and reserve units but im just saying generally there is a reason they over react or do stupid sh*t they are under trained poorly maintained and generally relate more to their civilian jobs than the military. If you noticed i didnt say a thing about the FBI or LEOs as i cannot speak for them. The regular military(active duty personnel) would not follow orders to disarm or shoot civilians. As i have said earlier we are people too not mindless drones stop assuming we are. Again i speak from the perspective of active duty Marine infantrymen not office POGs or reservists.

The argument wasn't personal. You decided to take it personally.

History shows that soldiers will follow their orders. It's not an insult to you or anyone you know individually. Maybe you and your buddies would all refuse the order. Good for you. That would make you very unusual, however.

Perhaps you have some examples of large numbers of soldiers refusing to follow orders when they've been ordered to do these kinds of things. There are lots of examples when they did.

 

[CombatRex]

Actually their is a difference in the oath of office. The Enlistment oath, of which NCO takes says they "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."

The Officers Oath only swears to support and defend the Constitution. There is no requirement to obey the President. The Officer core may be the buttress between the President and the Constitution. Which may be exactly whey it was set up this way.

As an officer I would never direct my men against US Civilians.

Just my take.

Lieutenant Colonel..recently retired.

 

[griffin]

Funny never got that survey....must have been in the field.......

Only if you were in Afghanistan when you were three years old. It was in 1995.

 

[FortWayneGunfighter]

Only if you were in Afghanistan when you were three years old. It was in 1995.

Yes lets use and old outdated survey of which a majority of those who participated are out of the service

 

[Booya]

This thread is full of so much I don't even know where to start.... No time to argue all the available points. Sounds to me like the OP talked to a couple of real brainiacs! Please place no weight on anything they said.

Ripper, while I'm sure you're still super moto and proud ( you have every right to be) your assertions of people that "really serve" are way off base so while you think you're defending yourself, stick to that and your own rules of not mentioning that which you know not of. What are you a LCpl maybe Cpl? You're young still so you get a pass, just because your MOS starts with 03 doesn't mean you get bust balls about POG's and reservists. I know both kinds that have probably seen more action then (god willing) you ever will.

I get your point and mostly agree, but calm down. You went off about people speaking about things they don't know about and then you did the same. Just sayin.

 

[Expat]

Funny never got that survey....must have been in the field.......

It found that about 25% of the Marines surveyed said they would fire on US citizens if ordered to do so in a UN gun confiscation.

Twenty-Nine Palms Survey: What Really Motivated Its Author?

 

[FortWayneGunfighter]

This thread is full of so much I don't even know where to start.... No time to argue all the available points. Sounds to me like the OP talked to a couple of real brainiacs! Please place no weight on anything they said.

Ripper, while I'm sure you're still super moto and proud ( you have every right to be) your assertions of people that "really serve" are way off base so while you think you're defending yourself, stick to that and your own rules of not mentioning that which you know not of. What are you a LCpl maybe Cpl? You're young still so you get a pass, just because your MOS starts with 03 doesn't mean you get bust balls about POG's and reservists. I know both kinds that have probably seen more action then (god willing) you ever will.

I get your point and mostly agree, but calm down. You went off about people speaking about things they don't know about and then you did the same. Just sayin.

Hopefully picking up Cpl next month fi MOS is closed out anymore...As for your other points i will never deny that there are both reservists and POGs who have seen more action that i care to in a lifetime. One has to stay motto here or the desert will claim you...i will be sticking to my guns though about how most 03's would handle such orders that the OP talked about "yeah right sir"

 

[Booya]

Hopefully picking up Cpl next month fi MOS is closed out anymore...As for your other points i will never deny that there are both reservists and POGs who have seen more action that i care to in a lifetime. One has to stay motto here or the desert will claim you...i will be sticking to my guns though about how most [STRIKE]03's[/STRIKE] Marines would handle such orders that the OP talked about "yeah right sir"

I hear ya! I never left anything in the stumps I care to go back for!! Refacing OP, I FIFY.

*edit* GL next month!

 

[FortWayneGunfighter]

I hear ya! I never left anything in the stumps I care to go back for!! Refacing OP, I FIFY.

*edit* GL next month!

my SNCO's told me that if it doesnt open up by january im going on a board as long as i do well on rifle qual and this field op im planning/setting up goes well. Well that and none of the Marines in my team mess up...slightly worried about one but i got my eye on him.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Actually their is a difference in the oath of office. The Enlistment oath, of which NCO takes says they "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."

The Officers Oath only swears to support and defend the Constitution. There is no requirement to obey the President. The Officer core may be the buttress between the President and the Constitution. Which may be exactly whey it was set up this way.

As an officer I would never direct my men against US Civilians.

Just my take.

Lieutenant Colonel..recently retired.

Doubtful, officers don't pledge support to president because they are commissioned by him. Your commissioning document states that you are to obey his orders, and that of future presidents.

 

[bart2278]

Isn't any order that contradicts the Constitution an unlawful order? I was in the Infantry four years, and I can say that I have more loyalty to the people of the United States and the Constitution then I do the Army. I do not see how one can go against the Constitution. It was made to protect us from our government and promote Liberty. Who would willingly go against that idea just to play it "safe" on whether or not you would be disobeying an order. Am I just rambling here?

 

[griffin]

Isn't any order that contradicts the Constitution an unlawful order? Who would willingly go against that idea just to play it "safe" on whether or not you would be disobeying an order.

Did the Katrina gun confiscation go against the Constitution?

 

[bart2278]

Did the Katrina gun confiscation go against the Constitution?

yes

 

[rambone]

Did the Katrina gun confiscation go against the Constitution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

 

[griffin]

yes

There's your answer.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Isn't any order that contradicts the Constitution an unlawful order? I was in the Infantry four years, and I can say that I have more loyalty to the people of the United States and the Constitution then I do the Army. I do not see how one can go against the Constitution. It was made to protect us from our government and promote Liberty. Who would willingly go against that idea just to play it "safe" on whether or not you would be disobeying an order. Am I just rambling here?

I would suggest that you pause and consider those around you in the military. There are plenty of people there for the right reasons to do the right things. There are plenty of people there who haven't really stopped to think about things like this and could be swept in the wrong direction by a strong or persuasive commanding officer, and there are plenty of people in the military who would pimp out their own mothers to climb the ladder. If only 20% would go the wrong way for one reason or other we would have a major problem.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard
Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard – Tenth Amendment Center
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/National%20Guard%20Resolution.pdf
The Volokh Conspiracy - Bush v. Federalism (Again) - Expanding Presidential Power Over the National Guard:

Basically they were right. The state really has no control over the guard any longer but still gets to use them if they get permission first.

 

[thebishopp]

Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard
Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard – Tenth Amendment Center
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/National%20Guard%20Resolution.pdf
The Volokh Conspiracy - Bush v. Federalism (Again) - Expanding Presidential Power Over the National Guard:

Basically they were right. The state really has no control over the guard any longer but still gets to use them if they get permission first.

Very interesting. Thanks for the post. I, and probably a lot others, never even heard this gone pushed through.

"Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that "authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."

 

[AF Gunner]

Let me start by saying I'm a local Senior enlisted traditional guardsman in the Air Guard. I spent several years active in another branch before moving over to the guard.

Ripper - everything you say about the Guard / Reserve and Active Duty is BS. Yes, allot join for college money and enlistment bonuses, but lets not forget AD get similar incentives. And it also sounds like you are on your first enlistment. My newer Airman who are on their first enlistment joined, like you, knowing our increased deployment tempo and can expect 2-3 deployments in their first 6 year enlistment. They joined knowing they WILL deploy, just like you. But unlike you, they do not have a steady paycheck of if they do, they / We put it in jeopardy every time we get activated. My guys don't do this for a job, it's a something they love to do. So I suggest next time someone from the guard or reserves replaces you in rotation or provides security while moving in and out of your deployed location, you say thank you for your service and spend your time *****ing about someone else.

History is a ***** - Damn the proof the military will never be used against it's own citizens.

I bring this up with my Airman a few times a year, because I'm one of those oath keeper types. This type of discussion should be mandatory training over all the other BS we get fed. In case you did know know the Army is in charge in cases of martial law. They get to be the HMFIC while all other will fall under them. The Army is the one with all of the instructions on how to set up and run the US detention centers.

It will be the guard and reserve that will be the ones told to do the nasty things that are being talked about here, at least at first. I personally think there will be a split, some will willingly do it. Thinking they are doing something good for their country. Some will begrudging do it, knowing it's not right. Or maybe it's in the gray for them and they don't want to get in trouble like my next group. Then their are the "no way in hell" group. I'm sure most of you hope no majority would be in that group, I do too. But I don't have that much confidence. As soon as they start taking their own people into custody for disobeying an order, lawful or not, people will either quickly step in line or follow their bothers off to confinement. Maybe we would get our day in court, but I would not count on it and if we don't I doubt it will be just.

So if we say no and stand up for what is right, I hope there will be a huge outcry from the rest of citizenship. If not, those that did are going to be truly ****ED along with the rest of the US. With the patriot ACT, NDAA 2012, the link above, and all the other **** that gets signed while the US watches football, reality TV, and news about some General's whore.

NDAA made Posse Comitatus dead and unless every enlisted ,officer, law enforcement person in the nation starts to stand up we are in trouble.

So Back to the "do what's right." The Guard is a much older group of people that active Duty. That gives us a little more chance on some common sense. But if congress and the US passes and signs into law a UN gun ban and with laws changing everyday on what is okay or not, the younger guys are going to have no idea what to do. Hell most of the older guys won't know what to do. I would not know rely on the Soldiers and Sailors to put them selves out there in harms way against their own government to protect the public that is to busy to care. Hell more than half of them fall into the category too. everyone is too busy with life to care anymore. "I have kids, jobs, family, to take care of. I don't have time to pay attention to politics or vote." I here it all the time from people.

In closing I'm sure this has been posted here before, but its good... really good and it wasn't even done by a US citizen. Take 6 min to watch it.

http://youtu.be/FXlMFWmotSU

 

[AF Gunner]

Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard
Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard – Tenth Amendment Center
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/National%20Guard%20Resolution.pdf
The Volokh Conspiracy - Bush v. Federalism (Again) - Expanding Presidential Power Over the National Guard:

In case you didn't want to clink on the link above this is the a few paragraphs.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so. Under that law, the president can declare an insurrection and call in the armed forces. The act has been invoked only a handful of times in the past 50 years, including in 1957 to desegregate schools and in 1992 during riots in south central Los Angeles after the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King.

Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that "authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."