Powergamz1
Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
|
And thank God the US military stuck to that oath when they were given the illegal orders to take part in rounding up 70,000 unarmed peaceful US citizens including women, children and old men, and lock them up in internment camps for committing no crimes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
<SNIP>The simple fact is the only thing protecting the US civilian population from a potentially opressive government is the fact the US military would almost certainly mutiny before engaging in wholesle slaughter of our own people.
Just like the British troops mutinied instead of attacking Ghandi's followers for picking up salt from the beach? The way the Guard at Kent State mutinied? The way the Philly cops mutinied rather than drop bombs on an occupied housing complex?
Getting todays 'warrior' military stoked up to fire on American civilians would be child's play.
They wouldn't be killing 'our people', they would be defending against 'Them'... in the guise of 'domestic insurgents', and 'unindicted enemy collaborators'.
That's what OOTW is for.
Kent St., less than a third of the NG troops actually fired. It was a tragedy but it proves my point.
Philly cops aren't the US military and the US civilian population is not MOVE.
The fact is todays military, being geograohically integrated would most certainly have members from every community that they might be called upon to enter and pacify. Troops that identify with the locals are unlikely to obey orders calling for killing so it is simply unreasonable to believe that the US military could be used to suppress the civilian population. It really is the only guarantee you have. A bunch of idiots with rifles and shotguns against IFV, MBT's and helicopter gunships is not a war that can be won no matter what dumbass Red Dawn fantasies you may have.
There is an oath. It does not have an expiration date. Within are the words, "I, {state your name}, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Now, if someone is silly enough to direct these oath-takers to violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and crazily enough from some news stories I have read. . the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. . . umm. . . I think that the oath tells you where they will be on that.
You see. . . the Constitution does not GRANT us plebes rights. It enshrines and protects them. It says, 'Here you may go, no further.' Generally speaking, if the Constitution doesn't specifically say that the government can do it, and neither the states nor the people consent to a proposed action, the government can't do it. If the government tries to enforce their move to violate our 2nd Amendment rights, those trying to enforce Obama's gun control edicts would be enforcing an unconstitutional "edict" or "law."
Rights are natural, in that philosophers have shown that sentient beings, even more than animals, have the right to self-preservation (life), to move, speak, worship, earn, reside without undue restraint (liberty), and to seek and secure homes, property, wealth beyond basic needs, companionship, education, and those things which provide pleasure in living (the pursuit of happiness).
Governments derive their certain just powers from the consent of the governed. When governments endanger or constrain the above recognized rights, then it is necessary to recognize that to preserve those rights that an armed populace is required to leash the government into the servitude for which it was created to **defend**, not **constrain** those rights.
That's the main purposed of the right to bear arms -- to leash the government.
The second purpose is self-defense. The right of self-defense includes, in any rational
analysis, the right to own your preferred tools of self-defense. The Constitution and the SCOTUS recognizes that the right of lawful gun ownership provides benefits to civilization in regard to the preservation of the safety of the citizenry from barbarians.
Either rights are derived from the natural order of the world or they are unreal. Therefore real rights are natural -- id est, orderly rights derived from the organization of reality -- or they are unreal. Ergo, A = A, and the natural right for people to own guns for self-defense against the barbarians and the government is the same as the natural right for people to own guns for self-defense against the barbarians and the government.
If a state is declared to be in rebellion then troops could be ordered to attack rebel forces. If a state of insurrection exists, or anarchy, or riot, etc, then yes they can. If the citizens in question, however, are not actively bearing arms, rioting, whatever, then no they can't. For example, California revolts and the Army is sent in. In that case they could fire on Californians who were acting as the California Army. Or rioters who did not disperse peacefully. They could NOT, however, fire on any old Californian who annoyed or pissed them off.
Competent legal authority is only one factor; U.S. troops are explicitly trained _not_ to obey _unlawful_ orders. Firing on (unarmed) (peaceable) civilians would, on the face of it, seem to fit that bill.
Now, armed and hostile "civilians" (of whatever citizenship status) would be another thing entirely. And what constitutes "armed and hostile" is a rubber yardstick. Forty years later, the Kent State University event, where NG troops fired on, and killed, students and bystanders at a Vietnam War protest, is still an issue in this country.
I also wouldn't count on the military units staying on the side of the Feds, depending on what had happened and how it was worded. There's a deep-seated aversion in the military to firing on our own citizens. Even the Kent State incident was caused by the inexperienced National Guard squad firing to miss - and not taking proper caution of where the bullets were going to end up. The students killed were NOT the demonstrators who deserved it.
Troops of the National Guard (as opposed to Federal troops), when operating under the authority of their (civilian) state governor, may be used for riot suppression and/or in times of civil disorder, and that doesn't violate the Posse Comitatus Act. IIRC, CA NG troops fired on rioters during the Watts Riots in the '60s after they had had injuries from hurled stones and Molotov cocktails. Then there were the LA riots in 1992.
“President Bush invoked the Insurrection Act via Executive Order 12804 [not Executive Order 6427] of 1 May 1992, federalizing elements of the California National Guard and authorizing active military forces from the Army and Marine Corps to help restore law and order.
The State of CA doesn't seem to made an official request for help viz:-
Art IV Section 4. "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/jtf-la.htm
I will give you this one, Ken, on a possibility from LTC Kratman, is that there is no necessary limit on who we can lock up as a prisoner of war. We can put everyone behind barbed wire if we want and, should they resist...
_____________________________
"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy
" About damn time...wooot!!' Me
|
RE: Why people support higher capacity magazines - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread