Thought--Military

R

Ray-500

Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
1,963
Likes
45
Location
RI
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
What would you do? Suppose you were a member of "Active Army", or any "active Military Branch" or National Guard? You were ordered to disarm the citizens of New Orleans and gather up all weapons. Would you do it?

Would you take part in leaving folks defenseless?

When you were sworn in, you took an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution" of the US. Is not the 2nd Amendment a part of our Constitution?

Would you follow orders "blindly" and round up all weapons? Would you go "house to house, and confiscate" from everyday citizens?

These questions are being asked of current and former military personnel. How would you react? What would you do? Would you be willing to say, "NO", "won't do it? Would you say nothing, and "find no weapons" as a relult of your search?

Only use New Orleans as an example. It did happen. People were left defenseless.

Looking for feedback from current and former military personnel....as to what you would "personally" do. Am curious, and interested, as I think many participants of this area might be.

Thanks in advance for all responses......
 
I think that since current & former military personnel swore their allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America...issuing/following that order would be grounds for a court martial.
 
Ray-500 said:
What would you do? Suppose you were a member of "Active Army", or any "active Military Branch" or National Guard? You were ordered to disarm the citizens of New Orleans and gather up all weapons. Would you do it?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you had. If it's something I'm looking for, consider it gone.

[wink]
 
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Click to expand...

EDIT: it would be a conflict, to say the least
 
jay_chris said:
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm



EDIT: it would be a conflict, to say the least
Click to expand...

As I came up through the ranks, and re-enlisted over the years , took that oath more than once. When I made 'Warrant" in CID took it again...and believed every word of it.

My question is to any and all military personnel....would you be a part of "disarming" the citizenry in general? Would you follow orders? Would you have "compunctions" and what would you do?

Am curious as to responses....trying to get a feel as to how military personnel feel.
 
Ray-500 said:
As I came up through the ranks, and re-enlisted over the years , took that oath more than once. When I made 'Warrant" in CID took it again...and believed every word of it.

My question is to any and all military personnel....would you be a part of "disarming" the citizenry in general? Would you follow orders? Would you have "compunctions" and what would you do?

Am curious as to responses....trying to get a feel as to how military personnel feel.
Click to expand...

some of us can NOT answer that question "straight up" on a public forum for the same reason [wink]
 
We are only suppose to obey 'lawful orders'. Just because our CO orders it, doesn't make it lawful.

Orders like this would have to makes it way through the JAG office first. I would think US Troops working INSIDE the US on a country wide scale would be a big hurdle.

The National Guard are controlled by their respective Governors. I doubt you would see all of them(Governors) supporting such a task. If Active Duty troops were called to those 'non-compliant' states. You would end up with Us Troops against US Troops. You would have a tough time convincing any of us that any action against our brothers and sisters would be 'lawful'
 
Last edited:
jay_chris said:
Off topic question: what's with the "grin" ?

do you mean [grin] [ g r i n ] or is it something else?
Click to expand...

No, just my way of not giving offense to anyone while a discussion is in progress. The "grin", to me, is no different than calling someone "Mister". Its a sign that the post is non-confrontational, and what I'm saying is my opinion, and my opinion only. Grin, at least that's how I interpret it.[wink]
 
I, _____, 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."
Click to expand...

That's the one I took in 1967.

IMHO, the highlighted part takes precedent over the rest.
 
Pilgrim said:
That's the one I took in 1967.

I think the highlighted part takes precedent over the rest.
Click to expand...

[laugh] hence, it would be a conflict.

.........that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic


....... that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me
Click to expand...

I know what it means to us as gun owners, but I am looking at it from the "soldier" point of view.

it's like the PLT LDR telling you to kill an unarmed civilian... what do you do?

-there is a clause in UCMJ about being able to disobey unlawful orders... but I've seen a couple people get burned as well.
 
.........that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic


....... that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a conflict.

In the worst case scenerio, either the President or officers over someone could be "enemies, foreign and domestic" and therefore the first part takes precedent, as I said.
 
Much like any office or position of power you are going to have some jerks who will throw around their authority to get what they want, then on the other side you have some really down to earth people.

So it will depend on which one you get. I know some officers both LEO and Mil, who would show up at your door, tell you they were here for your guns, comment that they didnt see any to report on and leave. I also know a few others that would have you eating your doorstep while they brought in a torch for your safe.

Its a hard question to ask or really get an answer for until it happens, and as always only the bad ones will make the press.
 
Ray-500 said:
You and me both. Did not then, and do not now, take it lightly. That is the reason for the post and the question.
Click to expand...

i do NOT take it lightly either...

i must be looking at it differently that you guys.

it's an oath, non-negotiable to me. this is why i see it as a conflict.

the first half says _____ while the second half says ______. there is no precedence IMO as I see ONE oath.

i'm actually glad you posted this though... my squeeky wheels are turning.
 
jay_chris said:
[laugh] hence, it would be a conflict.



I know what it means to us as gun owners, but I am looking at it from the "soldier" point of view.

it's like the PLT LDR telling you to kill an unarmed civilian... what do you do?

-there is a clause in UCMJ about being able to disobey unlawful orders... but I've seen a couple people get burned as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, you may very well have. But, to cut to the chase, what would you, as an individual do? Would you enter a private civilians home to confiscate weapons? No crimes involved...the individual is simply a gun owner. Would you, as an individual, do it? Looking for feedback.
 
clinotus said:
Much like any office or position of power you are going to have some jerks who will throw around their authority to get what they want, then on the other side you have some really down to earth people.

So it will depend on which one you get. I know some officers both LEO and Mil, who would show up at your door, tell you they were here for your guns, comment that they didnt see any to report on and leave. I also know a few others that would have you eating your doorstep while they brought in a torch for your safe.

Its a hard question to ask or really get an answer for until it happens, and as always only the bad ones will make the press.
Click to expand...

Its really NOT a question of position/power. Simply asked, "What would YOU do?" ..as a member of the military. Comes down to real basics. [wink]
 
Pilgrim said:
I don't think it's a conflict.

In the worst case scenerio, either the President or officers over someone could be "enemies, foreign and domestic" and therefore the first part takes precedent, as I said.
Click to expand...

Well said, Pilgrim. Can only hope that in years to come, there are enough of us to use such common sense.
 
It's been a few years since I served, so I may be answering from my current perspective and not that of a newly trained and naive 18 year old soldier. I would not participate in a military action of any type against the citizens of this country as a U. S. soldier, I would consider to be both an unlawful order and a violation of my oath to serve said citizens. JMHO so take it for what it's worth.
 
Ripach said:
It's been a few years since I served, so I may be answering from my current perspective and not that of a newly trained and naive 18 year old soldier. I would not participate in a military action of any type against the citizens of this country as a U. S. soldier, I would consider to be both an unlawful order and a violation of my oath to serve said citizens. JMHO so take it for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if he got a lot of current members to talk openly about this. Regardless which side they fell on, it isn't something you'd really want to put out there.
 
I would obey the Warning Orders as they were read to me for the mission,and senior ranking personal above me at the scene,i will not go to the brig.
 
x-frog-22 said:
I will not go to the brig.
Click to expand...
I respect your honesty, but can't say I respect the position...

It's an awful (unacceptable) position we place our soldiers in these days, but that doesn't change your duty, oath, etc...

I think we are all praying we don't have to answer this question in real life because the answers on both sides of the door aren't pretty...
 
In the worst case scenerio, either the President or officers over someone could be "enemies, foreign and domestic" and therefore the first part takes precedent, as I said.
Click to expand...

I'm quoting myself as a reference.

There was more than one officer in Vietnam who was 'fragged' for issuing illegal or immoral orders to his troops.

Not by me ! [smile] Even tho I served then, I wasn't lucky enough to be assigned there.

I'm just pointing this out to show that there are, I'm sure, people today who would not follow illegal or immoral orders, just as there were then.
 
I would not take civilians firearms unless a crime was committed and by this terminology I do not mean the fed or state saying that if they ( The citizenry) dont give up their firearms voluntarally they are in violation of a crime as to have committed a crime in my opinion there but be a victim hence no crime committed by said civilian.

BTW the military has asked this question of at least a small segment of its membership, I'm not sure of the results.

I remember seeing the questionnaire passed around at the guns shows when I lived in the Carson City area of Nevada.

DO a simple google search and you will find it.
 

Similar threads

Panty Raid!!! Mexican drug cartels are stealing women's undies in military-style raids
Replies
0
Views
124
Reptile
Reptile
My daughter has an article in Jan-Feb Military Review.
Replies
20
Views
608
Picton
Picton
Alert! Col. Macgregor Warns Dems Plan To Turn Guns On US Citizens Once Military Recruits Illegals
Replies
16
Views
1K
240Geezer
2
20 State Attorneys General Push to Restrict 5.56mm Ammo to Military
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Reptile
Reptile
Breaking: UK Army Chief Says Youth Will Be Called-Up To Military Service If NATO Goes To War With Russia
Replies
22
Views
904
bigben111435
bigben111435
Back
Top Bottom