Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Oh... maybe avitars of Wes Studi onna bad hair day... among other things.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Unintended Consequences, illegal orders
- Thread starter SouthernBoy
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Carnivore wrote:
"My fellow Americans. Change is the one constant in life. The one constant in history. The time has come for the next change in the history of man. We canno longer afford petty nationalism. America must stepup and take the lead in this era of globalization.
Myfellow Americans, it is time for the North American Union."
Carnivore wrote:
"My fellow Americans. Change is the one constant in life. The one constant in history. The time has come for the next change in the history of man. We canno longer afford petty nationalism. America must stepup and take the lead in this era of globalization.
Myfellow Americans, it is time for the North American Union."
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
My ancestors fought the Union once... 'Guess it's a'comer again.
My ancestors fought the Union once... 'Guess it's a'comer again.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
The fact that the order would be illegal both in its issuance and its execution is not my opinion.. it is fact and was so echoed by the military man with whom I discussed this yesterday. It is fact because of this;
"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."
Notice that the first and foremost and therefore most significant and important, is deference to the binding articles of the Constitution and therefore, the Bill of Rights. All else is subordinate to this. And this includes the commander in chief. His hands are bound by the chains of both the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus act. So any order the president issues which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution et al, is not only illegal, both carries no obligation for its execution. Secondly, were the military to carry out such an order, it (they) would also be in violation of same.
And once again, the military man of whom I asked this question pointed out on his own that not only the Constitution and Posse Comitatus would be violated but a bunch of other laws as well. He did not elaborate on this one.
Lastly, my intent was not to start any arguments or heated discussions with this but rather to get the take from members and to see if they might want to try the same thing and see what transpires.
Just had to set that one straight, gentlemen. If we did not have these protections, we would be nothing more than a military dictatorship.
PT111 wrote:
While I was not of a mind to respond to any posts on this thread, I felt I had to with this one.
The fact that the order would be illegal both in its issuance and its execution is not my opinion.. it is fact and was so echoed by the military man with whom I discussed this yesterday. It is fact because of this;
"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."
Notice that the first and foremost and therefore most significant and important, is deference to the binding articles of the Constitution and therefore, the Bill of Rights. All else is subordinate to this. And this includes the commander in chief. His hands are bound by the chains of both the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus act. So any order the president issues which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution et al, is not only illegal, both carries no obligation for its execution. Secondly, were the military to carry out such an order, it (they) would also be in violation of same.
And once again, the military man of whom I asked this question pointed out on his own that not only the Constitution and Posse Comitatus would be violated but a bunch of other laws as well. He did not elaborate on this one.
Lastly, my intent was not to start any arguments or heated discussions with this but rather to get the take from members and to see if they might want to try the same thing and see what transpires.
Just had to set that one straight, gentlemen. If we did not have these protections, we would be nothing more than a military dictatorship.
Giustiniani
Regular Member
imported post
Thank you Southernboy.
I was, in fact, of the same mindset as you. I felt I needed to reply. And you got it all down.
One point I would like to add is that during the Nuremburg trials, the Nazi leaders that claimed they were 'just following orders' did not get off the hook. They were also responsible for the crimes committed whether or not they took part in them because they had full knowledge of what they were doing.
I hold steadfastly to military members questioning an order as invalid as this first, passing that up their chain of command, and risking punishment for directly disobeying last.
I surely hope that our military members haven't been so indoctrinated to unthinkingly obeying such an order.
Thank you Southernboy.
I was, in fact, of the same mindset as you. I felt I needed to reply. And you got it all down.
One point I would like to add is that during the Nuremburg trials, the Nazi leaders that claimed they were 'just following orders' did not get off the hook. They were also responsible for the crimes committed whether or not they took part in them because they had full knowledge of what they were doing.
I hold steadfastly to military members questioning an order as invalid as this first, passing that up their chain of command, and risking punishment for directly disobeying last.
I surely hope that our military members haven't been so indoctrinated to unthinkingly obeying such an order.
DHCruiser
Campaign Veteran
imported post
We'll all meet up at Southernboy's house and hold them off together.
We'll all meet up at Southernboy's house and hold them off together.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
SouthernBoy wrote:
You have pointed out three things that need to be addressed. First is that it is an illegal order which may or may not be fact. What if 2A were repealed and although highly unlikely is possible. A more likely possibility is that the courts rule that it is not illegal which could be argued over for years before being decided but could be a possibility. Right now which I assume that you mean it could definitely be considered an illegal order but are you ready to fight it for the rest of your life? You sound like you are and that is wonderful.
The oath to defend the constitution and then to obey the orders seem to conflict in this case. The outlet is that of the uniform code of military justice will determine if you did in fact disobey a direct order. Here we will get into problems that military courts are usually not subject to the same rights and laws of the civilian courts. You will then be subjected to a military court where their main concern will be did you disobey a direct order rather than an illegal order.
Remember that the Nuremburg trials were a civilian/kangaroo court that applied a different standard that was in effect during the crimes. This is not to say they were not guilty but trials such as these are usually based on two different sets of laws. Just as the slave owners of the South are routinely condemned as criminals today there is little mention of the slave owners of the North or that the first legal slave in the US was owned by a black man in Mass. Although the Nazis were doing what they thought was correct and legal they were wrong.
Your intent was honorable but to go around asking a soldierif he would disobey a direct order places him in a awkward situation much like asking someone if they still beat their wife. There is no correct answer. Would you ask the same question of him if he were in front of his commanding officer. If soldiers are allowed to question every order given on the basis of illegality then there is no need to have an army. The reason that we have a SCOTUS is that there must be a final answer that all must follow whether or not we agree on. So far I don't think they have really ruled on the confiscation of guns from private citizens so until they do it is not a fact that the order would be illegal or not. They have ruled around it and against the confiscation in limited cases but you question is still opinion in some cases.
If the military does not have to follow the constitution then yes it would be a military dictatorship but also if every member of the military is allowed to make his own decisions of what orders to follow then we have chaos and no military either dictatorship or other. It is correct to disobey an illegal order but you better be sure it is illegal before you disobey it. If we all believe that the confiscation of guns is totally illegal and that so many will disobey it then why are there so many posts on what will you do when they come to get your gun.
SouthernBoy wrote:
You have pointed out three things that need to be addressed. First is that it is an illegal order which may or may not be fact. What if 2A were repealed and although highly unlikely is possible. A more likely possibility is that the courts rule that it is not illegal which could be argued over for years before being decided but could be a possibility. Right now which I assume that you mean it could definitely be considered an illegal order but are you ready to fight it for the rest of your life? You sound like you are and that is wonderful.
The oath to defend the constitution and then to obey the orders seem to conflict in this case. The outlet is that of the uniform code of military justice will determine if you did in fact disobey a direct order. Here we will get into problems that military courts are usually not subject to the same rights and laws of the civilian courts. You will then be subjected to a military court where their main concern will be did you disobey a direct order rather than an illegal order.
Remember that the Nuremburg trials were a civilian/kangaroo court that applied a different standard that was in effect during the crimes. This is not to say they were not guilty but trials such as these are usually based on two different sets of laws. Just as the slave owners of the South are routinely condemned as criminals today there is little mention of the slave owners of the North or that the first legal slave in the US was owned by a black man in Mass. Although the Nazis were doing what they thought was correct and legal they were wrong.
Your intent was honorable but to go around asking a soldierif he would disobey a direct order places him in a awkward situation much like asking someone if they still beat their wife. There is no correct answer. Would you ask the same question of him if he were in front of his commanding officer. If soldiers are allowed to question every order given on the basis of illegality then there is no need to have an army. The reason that we have a SCOTUS is that there must be a final answer that all must follow whether or not we agree on. So far I don't think they have really ruled on the confiscation of guns from private citizens so until they do it is not a fact that the order would be illegal or not. They have ruled around it and against the confiscation in limited cases but you question is still opinion in some cases.
If the military does not have to follow the constitution then yes it would be a military dictatorship but also if every member of the military is allowed to make his own decisions of what orders to follow then we have chaos and no military either dictatorship or other. It is correct to disobey an illegal order but you better be sure it is illegal before you disobey it. If we all believe that the confiscation of guns is totally illegal and that so many will disobey it then why are there so many posts on what will you do when they come to get your gun.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
Repeal of the Second Amendment is not an issue because it is not subject to repeal.. according to several of our Founders. They believed that the first ten amendments were so fundamental to a free people that they were cast in stone and not subject to repeal or alteration. And they never have been. Does this mean it could not happen? Of course not. The same nutcases today who find all manner of things that are not in the Bill of Rights while disregarding those that are, would be the same nutcases who would like nothing better that to remove the Second Amendment. And with several generations brought up without a solid knowledge of civics, this could certainly be accomplished.
You highlighting of "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" .. well I knew that would be brought up. But remember, the president and all subordinate personnel also took an oath to the Constitution so anything they do which is outside of its boundries is not legal and therefore, not enforceable. Would they do it? Could they do it? Yes again. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. Does that give the people a reason to resist with force if needed? Once again, absolutely.
Orders are always subject to consideration and review when there is cause for concern about their legality. You're certainly correct that if you disobey an order, you had better be sure of what you are doing and why. Confiscating private arms which could easily lead to shooting at American citizens would be questionable in most everybody's mind and I would bet might turn a number of anti's in the process.
What we saw take place after Katrina was tantamount to a national travesty. I would have loved to see a boatload of good old boys grouped together when the troops arrived and telling them, "We don't think you're gonna take our guns today, tomorrow, or ever. Now leave". One would have to wonder what would then happen.
Anyway, you do present your argument with lucidity and presence and I would bet we are not really far off in our basic assessment here. I see you're from South Carolina. As you know, we Southerners have a certain independence streak that some might say borders on orneriness. I prefer to believe that it borders on a fierce love and respect for the original intent of our Founding documents.
Enjoy!
PT111 wrote:
Oh God, I really didn't want to get into this sort of discussion, but what the hey.
Repeal of the Second Amendment is not an issue because it is not subject to repeal.. according to several of our Founders. They believed that the first ten amendments were so fundamental to a free people that they were cast in stone and not subject to repeal or alteration. And they never have been. Does this mean it could not happen? Of course not. The same nutcases today who find all manner of things that are not in the Bill of Rights while disregarding those that are, would be the same nutcases who would like nothing better that to remove the Second Amendment. And with several generations brought up without a solid knowledge of civics, this could certainly be accomplished.
You highlighting of "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" .. well I knew that would be brought up. But remember, the president and all subordinate personnel also took an oath to the Constitution so anything they do which is outside of its boundries is not legal and therefore, not enforceable. Would they do it? Could they do it? Yes again. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. Does that give the people a reason to resist with force if needed? Once again, absolutely.
Orders are always subject to consideration and review when there is cause for concern about their legality. You're certainly correct that if you disobey an order, you had better be sure of what you are doing and why. Confiscating private arms which could easily lead to shooting at American citizens would be questionable in most everybody's mind and I would bet might turn a number of anti's in the process.
What we saw take place after Katrina was tantamount to a national travesty. I would have loved to see a boatload of good old boys grouped together when the troops arrived and telling them, "We don't think you're gonna take our guns today, tomorrow, or ever. Now leave". One would have to wonder what would then happen.
Anyway, you do present your argument with lucidity and presence and I would bet we are not really far off in our basic assessment here. I see you're from South Carolina. As you know, we Southerners have a certain independence streak that some might say borders on orneriness. I prefer to believe that it borders on a fierce love and respect for the original intent of our Founding documents.
Enjoy!
Gordie
Regular Member
imported post
During basic training we were told that to follow an illegal order, we would be guilty of whatever crime was being committed. "I was just following orders.", would not be accepted as an excuse.
During basic training we were told that to follow an illegal order, we would be guilty of whatever crime was being committed. "I was just following orders.", would not be accepted as an excuse.
BlueStreek
Regular Member
imported post
This topic does keep coming around and I have commented several time that although some people say the military wouldn't I felt New Orleans proves that they would. I can only hope that the events in N.O. was enough to wake these people up and make them aware of the real law of the land. The Constitution. And that guns in the hands of the citizens is the strongest defense that we have.
It's too bad that too many public servants still think that us common people shouldn't have what the Constitution is suppose to protect.
This topic does keep coming around and I have commented several time that although some people say the military wouldn't I felt New Orleans proves that they would. I can only hope that the events in N.O. was enough to wake these people up and make them aware of the real law of the land. The Constitution. And that guns in the hands of the citizens is the strongest defense that we have.
It's too bad that too many public servants still think that us common people shouldn't have what the Constitution is suppose to protect.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Gordie wrote:
I think that was demonstrated during the Viet Nam conflict several times and has and is during the present Gulf War. As I mentioned before that the oath of service does seem to conflict that point in some ways and it is left to the individual to make the decision on the legality of the order.
The point that the confiscation of guns from civilians is from most people's standpoint is that it would be a violation of 2A but under what circumstances. The orders given during Katrina were felt by those giving them to be legal and necessary under the circumstances at the time. It was ruled later that those orders were no legal but a blanket ruling of it always being illegal was not made hense the bills passed by several states.
We do have to remember that the Bill of Rights may be set in stone but that stone including the entire Constitution can be broken and modified. Yes it is unlikely but possible. However the Constitution als places the interpretation of the BOR including the Constitution in the hands of the SCOTUS and there is where all possibilities lie. There is nothing to prohibit the SCOTUS from interpreting 2A to only mean a militia and the militia as being the military. If they should interpret it that way then it would not be an illegal order to confiscate all arms from citizens.
We all want the laws to mean what we want them to but sometimes they don't. Ignorance of the law is no excuse but how is the average person suppose to know the law when the highest court of the land decides a case on a 5-4 vote on what the law means. Congress has passed many laws against pornography, arrests have been made based on those laws yet the courts have ruled on a split vote that the law is unconstitutional. Gun laws have been challenged the same way.
The famous quote "I can't tell you what pronography is but I know it when I see it" applies to all laws. The confiscation of gun from private citizens may be illegal but not everyone agrees with it. You better hope that at least 5 members of theSCOTUS agree with you.
Gordie wrote:
I think that was demonstrated during the Viet Nam conflict several times and has and is during the present Gulf War. As I mentioned before that the oath of service does seem to conflict that point in some ways and it is left to the individual to make the decision on the legality of the order.
The point that the confiscation of guns from civilians is from most people's standpoint is that it would be a violation of 2A but under what circumstances. The orders given during Katrina were felt by those giving them to be legal and necessary under the circumstances at the time. It was ruled later that those orders were no legal but a blanket ruling of it always being illegal was not made hense the bills passed by several states.
We do have to remember that the Bill of Rights may be set in stone but that stone including the entire Constitution can be broken and modified. Yes it is unlikely but possible. However the Constitution als places the interpretation of the BOR including the Constitution in the hands of the SCOTUS and there is where all possibilities lie. There is nothing to prohibit the SCOTUS from interpreting 2A to only mean a militia and the militia as being the military. If they should interpret it that way then it would not be an illegal order to confiscate all arms from citizens.
We all want the laws to mean what we want them to but sometimes they don't. Ignorance of the law is no excuse but how is the average person suppose to know the law when the highest court of the land decides a case on a 5-4 vote on what the law means. Congress has passed many laws against pornography, arrests have been made based on those laws yet the courts have ruled on a split vote that the law is unconstitutional. Gun laws have been challenged the same way.
The famous quote "I can't tell you what pronography is but I know it when I see it" applies to all laws. The confiscation of gun from private citizens may be illegal but not everyone agrees with it. You better hope that at least 5 members of theSCOTUS agree with you.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
Unfortunately, SCOTUS, congress, the executive branch, the media, academia, and probably most Americans believe that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are malleable. That they can be bent and squeezed and shaped to mean a lot of things which when read in context with other writings of the Founders, are far from their original intent. This is how SCOTUS found something in the First Amendment called "separation of church and state" and in the Fifth Amendment an extension of the takings clause (the infamous recent case in New London I believe).
An ignorance and outright refusable to adhere to the Founders' vision continues to pull this nation closer to its demise. Such shameful and reckless adventure can only lead to dissolution.
Of course there is one bright side to all of this. 'BamaBiden has been the best thing to happen to the firearms industry in years. Sales are up close to 50% across the board the last time I looked, with some items much higher than that (like AR's and ammo). Wonder if they saw that one coming?
PT111 wrote:
Yep, and here's one of the main areas where the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights has been so perverted and bastardized over the past 100+ years, especially the last 70+. SCOTUS was never meant to interpret these documents but rather to rule on cases which fall under their purview. Yes, I am fully aware of arguments of interpretation and the concept of the "living Constitution", but neither of these concepts were in the design of the Founders. And this is from where the perversion of the original intent, our rights, and the limitations of government grew.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS, congress, the executive branch, the media, academia, and probably most Americans believe that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are malleable. That they can be bent and squeezed and shaped to mean a lot of things which when read in context with other writings of the Founders, are far from their original intent. This is how SCOTUS found something in the First Amendment called "separation of church and state" and in the Fifth Amendment an extension of the takings clause (the infamous recent case in New London I believe).
An ignorance and outright refusable to adhere to the Founders' vision continues to pull this nation closer to its demise. Such shameful and reckless adventure can only lead to dissolution.
Of course there is one bright side to all of this. 'BamaBiden has been the best thing to happen to the firearms industry in years. Sales are up close to 50% across the board the last time I looked, with some items much higher than that (like AR's and ammo). Wonder if they saw that one coming?
codename_47
Regular Member
imported post
First of all who is to say that it is an illegal order.
The people who are responding to the order get to say that it is an illegal order. I know of it happening in cases that were made public and others that were not.
The huge difference between the cops doing something stupid and "obeying orders" and a SOLDIER doing something stupid and "obeying orders" is cops have their unions, unlimited public funds to pay judgments and legal bills, qualified immunity, sympathetic judges/juries etc...
A soldier has none of the above. They get a jag lawyer and a jury of military officers. If this is a big screwup like My lai or abu Grahib, you WILL be convicted and you WILL be going to jail. See, the people who gave you the orders will likely be your judge as well, and again although it is unlawful command influence, ummm well if you piss off your commander, you can expect to get slammed. Commanders aren't SUPPOSED to say "I want this guy convicted and I think 2 years would be good", but that happens.
Finally, it is just a different mindset. Soldiers join to protect the country, not to abuse the citizens we protect. If such an order were issued, I'd see a lot of "Gee, we didn't find anything..." or people just flatly refusing to do so. What are you going to do in a civil emergency? Just get a new CPT or platoon or LT or whatever?
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders_2.htm
"An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."
First of all who is to say that it is an illegal order.
The people who are responding to the order get to say that it is an illegal order. I know of it happening in cases that were made public and others that were not.
The huge difference between the cops doing something stupid and "obeying orders" and a SOLDIER doing something stupid and "obeying orders" is cops have their unions, unlimited public funds to pay judgments and legal bills, qualified immunity, sympathetic judges/juries etc...
A soldier has none of the above. They get a jag lawyer and a jury of military officers. If this is a big screwup like My lai or abu Grahib, you WILL be convicted and you WILL be going to jail. See, the people who gave you the orders will likely be your judge as well, and again although it is unlawful command influence, ummm well if you piss off your commander, you can expect to get slammed. Commanders aren't SUPPOSED to say "I want this guy convicted and I think 2 years would be good", but that happens.
Finally, it is just a different mindset. Soldiers join to protect the country, not to abuse the citizens we protect. If such an order were issued, I'd see a lot of "Gee, we didn't find anything..." or people just flatly refusing to do so. What are you going to do in a civil emergency? Just get a new CPT or platoon or LT or whatever?
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders_2.htm
"An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits US military to exercise police powers under 10 USC (Federal Presidential Orders). National Guard however... when under 18 USC (State GovernmentOrders) have no such restrictions. However... it's doubtful that NG's would follow such orders as residents of the State. Police... I would worry about. Particularly in some areas where the 2A is weak. The situation in New Orleans was a soup sandwich to begin with. 'Didn't see any of that in Mississippi. Major difference in the quality of leadership.
That said... I've taken that Oath five times. It was well understood our first allegiance was to the Constitution and the United States... not the temporary political occupant of the White House. We'd kick that 'what if' around now 'n then. What if the PotUS gave some order(s)as CinC contrary to the Constitution against US citizens in CONUS? What would we do? Simply put... we would not do anything. OK... so say some Admiral ordered such 'n such done? 'Same thing. If that's mutiny... then we'd all go before the long green table before we'dobey somethin' 'criminally' illegal.Regardless of these scenarios played out in the movies... there's no 'blind obedience' goin' on. We did not swear that oath to a particular person or political party. The US military is , if anything, apolitical. They're not robots either.
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits US military to exercise police powers under 10 USC (Federal Presidential Orders). National Guard however... when under 18 USC (State GovernmentOrders) have no such restrictions. However... it's doubtful that NG's would follow such orders as residents of the State. Police... I would worry about. Particularly in some areas where the 2A is weak. The situation in New Orleans was a soup sandwich to begin with. 'Didn't see any of that in Mississippi. Major difference in the quality of leadership.
That said... I've taken that Oath five times. It was well understood our first allegiance was to the Constitution and the United States... not the temporary political occupant of the White House. We'd kick that 'what if' around now 'n then. What if the PotUS gave some order(s)as CinC contrary to the Constitution against US citizens in CONUS? What would we do? Simply put... we would not do anything. OK... so say some Admiral ordered such 'n such done? 'Same thing. If that's mutiny... then we'd all go before the long green table before we'dobey somethin' 'criminally' illegal.Regardless of these scenarios played out in the movies... there's no 'blind obedience' goin' on. We did not swear that oath to a particular person or political party. The US military is , if anything, apolitical. They're not robots either.
Armed
Regular Member
imported post
Carnivore wrote:
Let's take a look at a few numbers here.
As of 2004 (most current data I could find) there are 836,787 law enforcement officers serving throughout the local, state, and federal governments, according to theU.S. Dept. of Justice.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/lawenf.htm
As of July 31, 2008 about 1,436,642 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 848,056 people in the reserves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States
In addition, there are approximately 456,800 (FY 2004) serving in the Guard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard
This brings a theoretical total of 3,578,285 (or approx. 3.5 million) "troops" that could be brought to bear, assuming we ignore for the moment, the Possee Commitatus Act, and the fact that not all serving in the military are armed combat troops.
Depending on whose statistics you want to believe, there are approximately 260 million firearms in thehands of between 65 and 80 million private citizens.
Keep in mind this is the same government that told us they didn't have the resources to track down and deport an estimated 25 million illegal aliens. At the low end of the spectrum, we gun owners outnumber all LE and military by a margin slightly better than 18:1.
To give you some perspective on these numbers, the entire U.S. population is a little more than 305 million.
In short, I do not see the total confiscation of firearms as being a practical task, at least by force anyway. They would have to do it in such a fashion that we willingly surrender our arms.
Carnivore wrote:
Let's take a look at a few numbers here.
As of 2004 (most current data I could find) there are 836,787 law enforcement officers serving throughout the local, state, and federal governments, according to theU.S. Dept. of Justice.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/lawenf.htm
As of July 31, 2008 about 1,436,642 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 848,056 people in the reserves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States
In addition, there are approximately 456,800 (FY 2004) serving in the Guard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard
This brings a theoretical total of 3,578,285 (or approx. 3.5 million) "troops" that could be brought to bear, assuming we ignore for the moment, the Possee Commitatus Act, and the fact that not all serving in the military are armed combat troops.
Depending on whose statistics you want to believe, there are approximately 260 million firearms in thehands of between 65 and 80 million private citizens.
Keep in mind this is the same government that told us they didn't have the resources to track down and deport an estimated 25 million illegal aliens. At the low end of the spectrum, we gun owners outnumber all LE and military by a margin slightly better than 18:1.
To give you some perspective on these numbers, the entire U.S. population is a little more than 305 million.
In short, I do not see the total confiscation of firearms as being a practical task, at least by force anyway. They would have to do it in such a fashion that we willingly surrender our arms.
XD-GEM
Campaign Veteran
imported post
r6-rider wrote:
If you mean in New Orleans during Katrina, then none. Two officers were shot by looters, and two officers ate their own guns. The people who were confronted by confiscating LEOs were mostly too stunned to resist or were in a defensive position that precluded the LEOs from actually getting to them.
For a great read about it, see Gordon Hutchinson's "Great New Orleans Gun Grab."
r6-rider wrote:
If you mean in New Orleans during Katrina, then none. Two officers were shot by looters, and two officers ate their own guns. The people who were confronted by confiscating LEOs were mostly too stunned to resist or were in a defensive position that precluded the LEOs from actually getting to them.
For a great read about it, see Gordon Hutchinson's "Great New Orleans Gun Grab."
redlegagent
Regular Member
imported post
SouthernBoy wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Odds are, he is right. That being said, you'll probably never see the military kicking down doors to seize weapons. What you willsee is the military securing the area while local and federal law enforcement - who have less qualms about such things - do the actual kicking in doors and grabbing your stuff. If the order ever was given, unless it is blatently against the laws governing conflicts, you obey the order first - then protest it up channels later. If you refuse, even if you are right - you'll probably be courts martialed.
Carnivore
Regular Member
imported post
I don't see a courts martial, or muchof any other type of reprimand scaring the law enforcement folks I know in St. Francois county Missouri into turning against the citizens here who are life long friends and family.. I just don't see it happening from door to door.. Buy back wouldn't go over too well here either, too many of us gun nuts around to let an add stay in the paper for over three days without any gun getting bought up..:lol:
I don't see a courts martial, or muchof any other type of reprimand scaring the law enforcement folks I know in St. Francois county Missouri into turning against the citizens here who are life long friends and family.. I just don't see it happening from door to door.. Buy back wouldn't go over too well here either, too many of us gun nuts around to let an add stay in the paper for over three days without any gun getting bought up..:lol:
Dom
Regular Member
imported post
I don't believe the military en masse would refuse an order...history just doesn't support that. When has a U.S. military unit (say even platoon size) refused an order?
The examples in US history include the Bonus Army, Kent State, Hurricane Katrina, the tornado in Greensberg KS, and I'm sure there's more.
Look at what the soldier says at the end of this Katrina video....he doesn't want to have to shoot an American but he will if he has to:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-368034430006732400&hl=en
Also earlier in that video is a commander essentially admitting a violation of the 3rd Amendment.
The question is, how many individuals are going to risk a court martial for treason (punishable by death) to defend the Constitution by disobeying an order? A lot of these guys are 18-20 year old kids. God bless them but part of their job is doing what they're told.
Posse Comitatus, if it even exists anymore, is a Congressional act. All it takes is Congressional exemption or repeal for it to vanish.
I don't believe the military en masse would refuse an order...history just doesn't support that. When has a U.S. military unit (say even platoon size) refused an order?
The examples in US history include the Bonus Army, Kent State, Hurricane Katrina, the tornado in Greensberg KS, and I'm sure there's more.
Look at what the soldier says at the end of this Katrina video....he doesn't want to have to shoot an American but he will if he has to:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-368034430006732400&hl=en
Also earlier in that video is a commander essentially admitting a violation of the 3rd Amendment.
The question is, how many individuals are going to risk a court martial for treason (punishable by death) to defend the Constitution by disobeying an order? A lot of these guys are 18-20 year old kids. God bless them but part of their job is doing what they're told.
Posse Comitatus, if it even exists anymore, is a Congressional act. All it takes is Congressional exemption or repeal for it to vanish.
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm
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.
Soldiers are required to obey orders and have no standing to refuse. There is no exception written in the oath that says "If I feel like it" or "as long as they are legal or justified"
Soldiers are and have been ordered into combat where the known outcome would be their death to accomplish a greater goal.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm
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.
Soldiers are required to obey orders and have no standing to refuse. There is no exception written in the oath that says "If I feel like it" or "as long as they are legal or justified"
Soldiers are and have been ordered into combat where the known outcome would be their death to accomplish a greater goal.