[GlockMeister]

Quote:       Originally Posted by mym1a

the issue as i see it at this time, generaly everyone is still prety fat and happy

????????????

[LarryO1970]

Quote:       Originally Posted by GlockMeister

LarryO, you don't know me, you have every right to disagree with me and I'm in no way a lefty extremist, if that's what anyone thinks or is insinuating. But I have every right to also disagree and feel as I do. I have every right to consider a WORST CASE SCENARIO. Hell, people have made millions making movies about this very thing, worst case scenarios. Some, were I'm sure based on real actual events. But LarryO, Please tell me this, What is the penalty for a soldier that refuses to follow an order? And if the someone doesn't follow that order, do they stop there and say, well he wouldn't do it, so we've decided we just not going to pursue it or worry about it anymore? I'll let you answer all involved if a soldier doesn't follow an order in the military. And please, base that order on this worst case scenario type order being given and talked about in this topic, and explain not only what all will happen to them, but how they proceed not only with that refusal and that soldier or soldiers, but how they proceed in getting the order followed. And until you do I'll only say, that they'll probably go to the next in line or command and then give that same order to that person. Is that not correct? And I'll also ask you this, you say a soldier would never bring harm to another American? Has a soldier ever arrested another soldier? We both know that answer is yes. Ok, now let's hypothetically say that this soldier, is cornered and has a gun. And won't come out. And as they proceeded to move in, he fires a shot, just to scare them or let them know he's armed. Wouldn't they then probably be given the order to take them with any force necessary? Is that not correct? So now let's put it in this, hypothetical situation. God forbid, but let's say a law has been passed that Americans can now only own handguns. No more then say 1 10 round magazine with it or 1 revolver, no more then a 6-shot capacity and that no American can have say, more then 200 rounds of ammo at any given time. Now, gun owning Americans are now told to bring what is now illegal to own to their local P.D.. or let's say they have some special locations set up. Now we both know, some will. We also both know most won't. So what do they do to get them to follow and obey this new law? We both have to agree that most police forces are understaffed as it is, so they may try or have some try but in the end, they'll need a special what, "task force"? Let's say they ask the military for ASSISTANCE. And in the process of assisting, the soldiers are given ORDERS to HELP DISARM the Americans that have refused to follow this new law. Now let's use you, the one with a military back ground but, let's say they are coming to your house LarryO. Let's say you won't go down without a fight. Like most say here or elsewhere. From the beginning, you nor they want to kill another Americans. You just want to stand up for what you believe, and they are just following orders, again, as a soldier is trained to do. But as they proceed to ask you, with no results to come out freely, that they now see they'll have to bombard your home with teargas or other non-harmful weapons, and they do just that, and that you are one of those prepared Americans and nothing has affected you. Let's say they (soldiers) thought the tear gas worked and proceed to move in. In doing so you let them know you aren't done yet by say firing into the air or at their feet, anywhere you know that won't kill one of them. Are they now not going to shoot back? Are they now not going to be given the order to use whatever force necessary to get you to submit? LarryO, Americans kill Americans every day in this country. Some for no more then $20 bucks, so they can buy crack. Some for the car you drive. Others because they simply want to get even with a person. Still others, because they just don't care. Every day this already happens. Wasn't there a story very recently where a soldier raped another soldier (that is causing harm to another American) and then they also KIDNAPPED AND KILLED that same American and soldier (again, isn't that the worst case scenario in causing harm to another American)? Didn't that soldier not take the same oath as you or any other soldier? And yes, that is one out of how many? But out of how many are there. There will always be someone that will follow any order given, without question. The gung hos'. Also this country is NOT immune to treason and self righteousness. Money can buy you power. Our elections, that democratic process we live by, where usually the one with the most money gets elected. Let's face it, if anything ever gets to the point, that our own military is needed to disarm Americans or Assist in any civil disorder, this country is already then most likely, in a civil war. A worst case scenario. l, and that's if you'd let me, and I get the impression you wouldn't, would stand shoulder to shoulder with you LarryO. As I said though, I get the impression you wouldn't simply because I think different then you, because I wasn't in the military and because I've expressed what I have. Wars are started over less. Cain killed Abel over jealousy. People commit genocide simply because people are different then they are. G-Meister

The simple fact of the matter... it is the duty and responsibility to not follow an order that is considered unlawful. like I've said... I've done it before and I'll do it again.

I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you too... you assume far too much. We're both American's ... aren't we ?

As far as your hypothetical questions go... whose to say I'd have the guns in my house anyway? Why invite a fight when it is not necessary?

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[mym1a]

things haven't escalated to that point yet glockmeister thats what i ment by that, we are comfortable

[GlockMeister]

Quote:       Originally Posted by mym1a

things haven't escalated to that point yet glockmeister thats what i ment by that, we are comfortable

Yes, I would agree with you there. And I'd hope it would not get to any point beyond this.

G-Meister

[mym1a]

I think all of us share that

[BattleRifleG3]

One thing nobody mentioned - Who are becoming an increasing number of US troops?

Foreigners, Mexicans in particular. Now I have every bit of respect for the US Citizens and legal resident aliens of Mexican descent who are serving our country earnestly. But just like Rome, an increasing number of our military is foreign born and a large number of Mexican illegals are foreign loyal. Some take the oath because they're told to, not because they believe it.

I am NOT generalizing about the US military. But if illegal immigration continues and becomes more tolerated by a future administration, I think developing a military loyal more to the current government officials than the legacy they've inherited will be high on the agenda. One that is more oriented towards global government than national sovereignty, and one willing to make the Constutution a thing of the past.

And as far as what would happen, there's a difference between ultimately choosing to side with the constitution and being mentally prepared to act immediately when the lines are drawn.

Take the entire US military. Figure that a percentage would follow the orders without question. This would be the unloyal and brainwashed, and by brainwashed I don't mean necessarily by the military, I mean the ones whose character is screwed up in the face of terror instead of being made stronger.

Then factor in the percentage who would believe the order to be wrong but would follow it with tremendous regret. Including those acting under fear for their life, and those who would rather fight someone they didn't know than their fellow US soldiers.

Then throw in the ones who would choose not to act at all. The ones who wouldn't turn on anyone, whether government or citizens, who would effectively become pacifists or conscientious objectors in the specific situation, willing to face the consequences but not to kill.

Then there would be those who would desert but still not fight against the military. They would become a sort of "dodger" of the situation, seeking mainly escape. They might try to oppose the government secretively but would still be seeking to be hidden and mainly waiting for it to end.

Then there would be the ones with their loyalties clear and willing to take the side of the people. However they may have never believed such a thing could happen, and wouldn't be prepared to act and organize when the time came. They would end up either unable to make much difference, or easily defeated and/or captured.

Finally there would be the people who had thought out their loyalties long before and had mentally prepared for such a contingency. Such people would be the ones who had limited trust for their government for a long time, and served knowing that such a time could come. Even if they didn't have a complete plan, they would be the ones mentally and emotionally ready to reorganize their ranks and execute a strategy.


When you look at all those categories of people, and that's just servicemen, not citizens in general, I'm sure you could put people in all of those categories. I don't know how the percentages would work out, and a few years time could easily change the distribution as some would choose not to re-enlist and entrance criteria and recruiting targets may change dramatically. But the situation is far from black and white as far as whether the military would fight the government or fight citizens. Realistically, the color would probably be a very strong shade of red.

As hard as these answers are to find, it's easy for people in government to convince themselves that it could work out their way, and others to convince themselves that it could never happen. Unfortunately, I think that some people out there may be so sick in their pursuit of power that they may actually try it, warping their ideology to think that it could be worth the risk of that many people dieing within their own country.

[troy2000]

Quote:       Originally Posted by mym1a

only about 25 percent of the population were in favor

I'm skeptical; can you back that up? I seriously think that if the Revolution's supporters had been outnumbered three to one, the British troops wouldn't even have been necessary; their fellow Americans would've squashed the revolt.

edit: here's the first quote I've found on the subject: "Although most Americans supported the decision to break away from Britain and declare independence, about one-third of the colonists did not. These Loyalists were heavily concentrated in the lower southern colonies but could also be found in concentrated pockets throughout other regions, including the North."

SparkNotes: The American Revolution (1754–1781): American Society in Revolt: 1776–1777

[mym1a]

Quote:       Originally Posted by troy2000

I'm skeptical; can you back that up? I seriously think that if the Revolution's supporters had been outnumbered three to one, the British troops wouldn't even have been necessary; their fellow Americans would've squashed the revolt. edit: here's the first quote I've found on the subject: "Although most Americans supported the decision to break away from Britain and declare independence, about one-third of the colonists did not. These Loyalists were heavily concentrated in the lower southern colonies but could also be found in concentrated pockets throughout other regions, including the North." SparkNotes: The American Revolution (1754–1781): American Society in Revolt: 1776–1777

history channel troy2000 thats the stats on who favored the war the actual population that fought the war???????including slaves, mercernary??????

so troy2000 before you get busy arguing my statement what do you think of our girl wanting to charge everyone for health insurance?, even those who refuse? I don't know about you but I think Hillary's pretty hot!!!!!!!!!

[Seabeescotty]

I have to say, you guys make it a real debate!! BRG3, that is an interesting outlook on what has been bandied around here. And that's something that we need to think about, as we allow illegal foreigners to join our military in order to become citizens. they haven't had time to become "American", and who's to say the training they receive won't be used against the very people who trained them? Very good point to bring out and discuss!!! And T2K, the American Revolution almost never happened, and THAT"S something to think about!!

[BattleRifleG3]

In the American Revolution, 1/3 were in favor, 1/3 were opposed, and 1/3 were waiting to see who won.

Out of those groups, a higher percentage of those who wanted independence actually got up and fought than those who were loyal to the crown. In other words, the Tories were more inclined to support their cause with their mouths and pocketbooks than with their arms. And as far as what the governments were, the various colonies' governments were the ones who voted for indepencence. After the Revolution, the Tories moved to Canada, and the Canadians in favor of independence moved to the US.

[Seabeescotty]

SSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, our cousins up north are reading this! That is some of the history they started leaving out! Our children are being left in the dark! I wonder why?

[mym1a]

your right seabeescotty all they learn is sensativety training

[ezearln]

GMeister A point you have failed to consider is a little item called "Posse Commitatus" which forbids the use of Federal Military forces to enforce civil law. In other words in your scenario about a law passed limiting the free excercise of our second ammendment rights and suddenly finding Armed troops at your door demanding you surrender your "excess" firearms and/or ammunition, is so improbable as to not be worth serious consideration. What about martial Law?? Well it has severe limitations to it and can only be imposed under the most extreme of circumstances and then for very short periods of time. And to your question as to what would happen to a military member who refused to obey an order, That greatly depends upon the order and whether or not the order was lawful (Legal) if it is an unlawful order the member is BOUND by military law NOT to obey and to report the superior who issued the order to higher (Courts Martial) authority. An additional point I'd like to make is there have been many servicemen courts martialed for OBEYING an order they KNEW to be unlawful, feeling they could use the ever wishful excuse of "I was only following orders"

[Seabeescotty]

Earl, you are a jewel of information, and the nice thing is that you always remember the right stuff at the right time!!!! I knew, but didn't remember that law, and that is what keeps a power hungry individual from using our own military against us. Good point!! You get the gold ring!!

[troy2000]

Quote:       Originally Posted by mym1a

history channel troy2000 thats the stats on who favored the war the actual population that fought the war???????including slaves, mercernary?????? so troy2000 before you get busy arguing my statement what do you think of our girl wanting to charge everyone for health insurance?, even those who refuse? I don't know about you but I think Hillary's pretty hot!!!!!!!!!

First things first, mym1a. I only went to the one site, but it seems to be a pretty scholarly review. It says that "probably" a majority of able bodied men in the colonies served at least some time in either the Army or the Militias. Those who tried to ride the fence and sit it out were "encouraged" to pick a side by various state laws requiring them to join said militias.

As far as Hillary's health-care program, I know nothing about it; I probably won't pay it any attention unless and until she gets the nomination.

But I do know we're the only major industrialized nation in the world without some sort of universal health care, and that nationwide we pay more per capita for health care than any of them. The money the Insurance Industry is soaking up would pay a whole lot of taxes.

Besides that, we're already part-way there. We have Medicare, disability programs of one sort or another, drug packages for seniors that cost a whole lot more than they had to; taxpayer-subsidized emergency-room services for indigents, health care for dependent children on welfare, etc. It might make sense to consolidate it all into one package and be done with it. Can't argue with you about the details, though; I haven't hammered out in my own mind what form it should take.

I also know that right now, if you have lots of money or insurance, you have access to the best care in the world. If you're dirt-poor, you have access to some sort of government-paid basic care. If you're anyone else, you're screwed. Providing medical insurance through employers, instead of through the government like everyone else does, is a very odd way to do things, if you sit and think about it...

[mym1a]

Quote:       Originally Posted by troy2000

First things first, mym1a. I only went to the one site, but it seems to be a pretty scholarly review. It says that "probably" a majority of able bodied men in the colonies served at least some time in either the Army or the Militias. Those who tried to ride the fence and sit it out were "encouraged" to pick a side by various state laws requiring them to join said militias. As far as Hillary's health-care program, I know nothing about it; I probably won't pay it any attention unless and until she gets the nomination. But I do know we're the only major industrialized nation in the world without some sort of universal health care, and that nationwide we pay more per capita for health care than any of them. The money the Insurance Industry is soaking up would pay a whole lot of taxes. Besides that, we're already part-way there. We have Medicare, disability programs of one sort or another, drug packages for seniors that cost a whole lot more than they had to; taxpayer-subsidized emergency-room services for indigents, health care for dependent children on welfare, etc. It might make sense to consolidate it all into one package and be done with it. Can't argue with you about the details, though; I haven't hammered out in my own mind what form it should take. I also know that right now, if you have lots of money or insurance, you have access to the best care in the world. If you're dirt-poor, you have access to some sort of government-paid basic care. If you're anyone else, you're screwed. Providing medical insurance through employers, instead of through the government like everyone else does, is a very odd way to do things, if you sit and think about it...

lol what no arguement about Hillary being hot????????????????

[Seabeescotty]

Mym1a, you can have her all to yourself!!!!LMAO!!!!

[mym1a]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

Mym1a, you can have her all to yourself!!!!LMAO!!!!

you know she was an attractive woman when she was young, I just don't think her and i could be in the same room with out a big arguement starting up.

[JBS]

"Posse Commitatus".....


Ya'll better do a little more research on that Posse Comitatus thing. It ain't no law. JB

[ezearln]

For your edification Sir,

"POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement

Please note it's presence within Title 18 of the United States Code, indeed very much making it a law!