Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Are you serving in the Armed Forces or Law Enforcement?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post


    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    ..

  4. #4
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    richlub wrote:
    SFCRetired wrote:
    Sorry, but that boy does not sound like he is playing with a full deck.

    I have enough faith in the current crop of American servicemen and women to fully believe that none of them will obey an order to proceed against their fellow Americans. I've had the distinct privilige and honor of serving with, leading, and being led bythese young men and women. I trust them.

    It's their leaders in the Legislative and Executive branches that I have a problem with. I do believe that, if push came down to shove, the senior officers and noncoms of the services would not betray their oath.

    I believe the message implies that "push has come to shove" and they are trying to get word to the various forces as a heads up. I believe that they also do believe that the people in the military will uphold their oaths. I think you would be hard pressed to find any rational individual today, that wouldn't agree that our government is largely ignoring our constitution. It is also very obvious to a large portion of the country that they are trying to eliminate capitalism and go socialist. A large majority of this country I don't believe will allow that to happen, without a fight.
    +1 I also believe that these fine young soldiers,sailors,airmen and marines will NOT throw down on our citizens and will believe and defend the constitution. The oath states "obey the lawful orders of the President and those officers appointed above me." Any order given must not violate the constitution, or the laws of land warfare, Geneva Convention etc. Of course I'm basing this on my own beliefs and faith in the soldiers I led and the officers I served under.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spring, Texas, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I remember swearing to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

    I'd classify the current administration, along with quite a few members of congress as domestic threats to the constitution.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I was emailed that yesterday. As I commented then, if you are going to almost call for an armed insurrection the least you can do is record your message in stereo. That it is recorded mono and LEFT channel to boot makes me suspicious.
    :P

    Seriously though, I think the guy comes off as being a few bananas short of a crate. The set, the introduction by the "aide" and the "aide" standing nearby throughout I'm sure was intended to give it an air of a formal, upper level government press conference. However, the audio quality and Gary's scraggly goatee and mustache instead give the air of someone living in his mom's basement usually playing video games taking himself overly seriously.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Rob_B wrote:
    I remember swearing to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

    I'd classify the current administration, along with quite a few members of congress as domestic threats to the constitution.

    Same here ...


    My question is, will LEO's do the same? being that alot of what they do now is UNconstitutional.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post


    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Yorktown VA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    +1 I also believe that these fine young soldiers,sailors,airmen and marines will NOT throw down on our citizens and will believe and defend the constitution. The oath states "obey the lawful orders of the President and those officers appointed above me." Any order given must not violate the constitution, or the laws of land warfare, Geneva Convention etc. Of course I'm basing this on my own beliefs and faith in the soldiers I led and the officers I served under.
    Something to consider; a commissioned officers' oath does not include this phrase:


    "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."


    An officer's oath is first and foremost to the Constitution, then to the well and faithfulexecution of his duties- which points right back to the Constitution.



  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Rob_B wrote:
    I remember swearing to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

    I'd classify the current administration, along with quite a few members of congress as domestic threats to the constitution.
    I took the same oath as an Air Force Officer and current Air Force Civilian. Working with the guys I do today, CGOs and above, they aren't going to forget their oaths and become mindless SS because Obooba says so. Not so sure about the dumb ***** that are cops, however. I'd hope most would follow their oaths, but there are too many that have room temperature IQs to suit me.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    JosephMingle wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    +1 I also believe that these fine young soldiers,sailors,airmen and marines will NOT throw down on our citizens and will believe and defend the constitution. The oath states "obey the lawful orders of the President and those officers appointed above me." Any order given must not violate the constitution, or the laws of land warfare, Geneva Convention etc. Of course I'm basing this on my own beliefs and faith in the soldiers I led and the officers I served under.
    Something to consider; a commissioned officers' oath does not include this phrase:


    "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."


    An officer's oath is first and foremost to the Constitution, then to the well and faithfulexecution of his duties- which points right back to the Constitution.

    Yes it does, or it did when I took it in the '70s, at least.



    The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:



    "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).
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    I wish I could be as optimistic as you all about any branch of the military or law enforcement disobeying orders in favor of the Constitution. Such mass disobedience hasn't happened in our history, quite the contrary: the Bonus Army, Kent State, Katrina, etc. We fought a Civil War on orders rather than keeping to the Constitution.

    As Col. Nathan Jessup says, "We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple."

  13. #13
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Dom wrote:
    I wish I could be as optimistic as you all about any branch of the military or law enforcement disobeying orders in favor of the Constitution. Such mass disobedience hasn't happened in our history, quite the contrary: the Bonus Army, Kent State, Katrina, etc. We fought a Civil War on orders rather than keeping to the Constitution.

    As Col. Nathan Jessup says, "We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple."
    Not sure about the other services, but in the LAMS (leadership and management) course that we are required to take at E-5, teaches us to question and re-evaluate orders we receive all the time based upon ethics, logic and probable outcome.

    Not many "brainwashed" people I work with, especially at the levels of leadership that deal with. There are certainly gung ho people, but not many I would consider federal fanatics.

    I even took a copy of bill 4009 (Washington State Sovereignty) to work and passed it around. Some looked skeptical, but no one seemed upset or too surprised that 21 other states were also calling for it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    JosephMingle wrote:
    Something to consider; a commissioned officers' oath does not include this phrase:


    "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
    Yes it does, or it did when I took it in the '70s, at least.
    The current oath is specified in 5 USC 3331:

    An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: β€œI, AB, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

    To the Constitution, against its enemies. Nothing at all about obeying the chain of command.


  15. #15
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    JosephMingle wrote:
    Something to consider; a commissioned officers' oath does not include this phrase:


    "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
    Yes it does, or it did when I took it in the '70s, at least.
    The current oath is specified in 5 USC 3331:

    An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: β€œI, AB, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

    To the Constitution, against its enemies. Nothing at all about obeying the chain of command.
    That's the oath I took as an Air Force civilian. As I said, the oath I took as an officer was as noted. I see that the current oath was updated in Jan 07.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    I'd hope most (LEOs) would follow their oaths, but there are too many that have room temperature IQs to suit me.
    I honestly busted out laughing after reading that.

    Then I realized you're correct. Scary thought! :shock:


    What are you laughing at??!!! You used to be one!!

    Room temperature IQ.. classic!!!

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    In my experience most LEOs and military will not follow an outrightillegal order. The problem is that many are not in a position to determine of an order is legal or not. For many who are not in this position it may seem simple but it really is not as clear as we might all wish.

    If these things were simple none of us would need to quote Supreme Court decisions to support postings on this website. We would also not need to cite code sections and the argue over what the words actually mean.

    The biggest litmus test will be if the military knows that being deployed against US citizens on US soil is illegal. if they do in fact know this is illegal and refuse to follow orders in that area then we and the Constitution may stand a chance.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    In my experience most LEOs and military will not follow an outrightillegal order. The problem is that many are not in a position to determine of an order is legal or not. For many who are not in this position it may seem simple but it really is not as clear as we might all wish.
    It would depend on their position in the organization and how comfortable they would be in questioning it and under what conditions (routine, stressed, emergency, etc.) they would be questioning it. At my rank, I have more luxury and knowledge to question such orders than say, a SN out of boot camp. Conversely, I also have much more of a chance to be the one giving such orders than that SN. I also have more responsibility of ownership of any order I give or carry out than that SN.

    If a military/LEO member had several hours in which to research and think about a questionable order, the chances are higher that they would do so. If they were given an order in an emergency (shoot that man or we all die) situation, the chances are it will be examined after the fact. We see that scenario come to life quite often in Iraq, and more often than it should, in our own cities by LEO.

    At the end of the day, most military/LEO follow or refuse orders based not upon the legal or punitive consequences, but based upon what is going to get them home alive, unharmed and able to live with themselves afterward. In that order.

    Such a decision, factoring all the above, made at a moments notice, is anything but simple or clear. As the time for decision making on each incident and scenario increases however, so should the expectation that a better and more reasoned response should be made.

    I believe we don't give enough leeway for decisions made under the former, and way too much leeway for decisions made under the later.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    LEOs already follow unlawful orders and violate the constitution everyday they are at "work". why should we expect them to do anything else?

    LEOs here will say blah blah, its been ruled legal, blahh blahh its the law of the land... doesn't make it right or consitutional.

    if a gun ban was passed, it would be legal, considered consitutional, etc...

    we all know LEOs will do whatever they are told to do. some might not enforce a gun ban, but it would be simply because they like guns and agree with gun rights, not because it would be unconsitutional.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    ocman1991A1 wrote:
    LEOs already follow unlawful orders and violate the constitution everyday they are at "work". why should we expect them to do anything else?

    LEOs here will say blah blah, its been ruled legal, blahh blahh its the law of the land... doesn't make it right or consitutional.

    if a gun ban was passed, it would be legal, considered consitutional, etc...

    we all know LEOs will do whatever they are told to do. some might not enforce a gun ban, but it would be simply because they like guns and agree with gun rights, not because it would be unconsitutional.
    It is obvious you have not read the ENTIRE constitution. I am certain it will be news to you that there are provisions for enacting laws beyond what is in the ORIGINAL constitution and there are also provisions for allowing the states to pass laws.

    When the process is followed and the courts rule the laws constitutional, then guess what ? They actually ARE the law of the land. If you will recall, unanimous consent of the people is NOT required, only a majority of the representatives in the congress.

    Welcome to the United States.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  21. #21
    Regular Member CrossFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Irving, Texas, USA
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    ocman1991A1 wrote:
    LEOs already follow unlawful orders and violate the constitution everyday they are at "work". why should we expect them to do anything else?

    LEOs here will say blah blah, its been ruled legal, blahh blahh its the law of the land... doesn't make it right or consitutional.

    if a gun ban was passed, it would be legal, considered consitutional, etc...

    we all know LEOs will do whatever they are told to do. some might not enforce a gun ban, but it would be simply because they like guns and agree with gun rights, not because it would be unconsitutional.
    It is obvious you have not read the ENTIRE constitution. I am certain it will be news to you that there are provisions for enacting laws beyond what is in the ORIGINAL constitution and there are also provisions for allowing the states to pass laws.

    When the process is followed and the courts rule the laws constitutional, then guess what ? They actually ARE the law of the land. If you will recall, unanimous consent of the people is NOT required, only a majority of the representatives in the congress.

    Welcome to the United States.
    Well said Hawkflyer

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •