Would the U.S. Government Use the Military Against Gun Owners?

But the real question is: Would the US military obey the orders?

Yesterday, I spoke with two, young military men (ages 27 and 35). Both of them are officers. Both of them gave the same answer.

In the event that the US Government ordered the US military to take action against US gun owners (such as confiscation of all weapons), both of these officers said they will refuse the order. Further, both said that they would take their troops and fight the US government on the side of the gun owners.

Both of these officers are combat vets (total of 5 tours of duty in Iraq). The total number of troops under their command amounts to about 400 personnel.

If the vast majority of US officers take similar action, then there is no question why President-elect Obama wants a "Civilian National Security Force". If the US military refuses to take an order that would place them in open conflict with US civilians, then Obama MUST have some one to carry out his orders. (If Obama brings UN troops into the US, he will be guilty of "High Treason". If his side loses, his punishment will be death.)

"The times are getting very interesting."

My question regarding the US Armed Forces is: When does their vow to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, come into play? Would the JCS order troops to arrest or otherwise prevent members of Congress from taking actions that are expressly prohibited by the Constitution?

Example: After an election that failed to re-elect the speaker of the house, the speaker makes a rules change (a legal right) that prevents the newly elected congressman from taking office and replacing the speaker. This would clearly violate the Constitution and be an illegal attempt to execute a coup.

Per the Oath sworn by all military personnel they would be required to prevent the coup attempt.

Whose responsibility is it to give that order? The President? The Joint Chiefs? The Defense Secretary? Would the order be obeyed? Would subordinate officers order their commands to stand down?

Good, thought provoking post. Thanks.
Glenn Flowers

Gray Ghost and Glenn Flowers:

I'm afraid you are correct about the government using the military against us but it is nice to hear that some officers would refuse to obey an unlawful order.

I had not heard this for certain until now but I have suspected as much.

Thanks for your comments

Dave

Have you ever heard of Lincoln's war? Have you ever heard of loyalists/Tories siding with the Brits?

I've already covered this here:

http://www.willowtown.com/reality/columns.htm

The best we can probably hope for is a 50/50 split. But then we'll have to be able to pay the volunteers and provide for their families while this protracted war plays out.

All the while the evil ones will be recruiting from the cities and overseas. Nothing matters to them but victory, at any cost. They live for their revolution.

Unless we harbor a similar commitment we are doomed to be their slaves, or to death.

Don't understand? Start here:

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

This is the column link I meant to provide:

http://www.willowtown.com/reality/absurdqs.htm

But the other one will keep you busy for a while.

That this is a silly question:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/

http://www.infowars.com/?p=6261

While the government has deployed the military against civilians in the past (MacArthur, Patton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army) I was thinking about your average civilian using this as an argument about the futility of engaging the military. The question was more rhetorical. Certainly the government has used the military or aspects of the military against civilians and probably would/will again, at least to a limited degree (i.e. Waco) But these are "isolated" events. What I wonder is this: Would the government deploy the military against gun owners in a nationwide effort to disarm us? My question and response was to show that while gun owners who resist gun confiscation may be at a disadvantage the result is not a foregone conclusion. Gun owners resistance is not destined to end before it begins. I wonder if the clowns in D.C. are stupid enough to believe they could disarm us by the use of military force. I don't think they are that stupid. I don't believe that the entire military would comply with orders to do so. I do, however, believe that law enforcement would comply with orders to disarm the civilian population (Waco, New Orleans). While some cops support the Second Amendment many cops are frankly afraid of an armed populace. Many cops don't distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and criminals. They view all guns not owned by law enforcement or military as a threat. I know for a fact that some cops don't even like being armed. A lot of cops don't like guns at all. Some cops, generally those who have been around for a while don't have a problem with civilian owned guns.

Great essay. I have no doubt that a whopping majority of the US military would turn their back on ACORN Osama in this arena. Some would stay and probably form the backbone of his goose-stepping blueshirts!

The military is taught that there is only three times you can disobey an order and get away with it.

1. It's unsafe.

2. It's immoral.

3. It's illegal.

You don't believe that the US Government would mobilize mobile artillery or aircraft to "protect" Americans from Americans?

You should have seen the tanks on Canal Street or the helicopters making low passes in the Bywater after Katrina. To my knowledge, nothing was fired, but their presence was made known as a deterrent.

Good essay and good questions.

I don't believe many of our military would obey an order to confiscate our arms. I also do not think they will have to as our government already has a force to do so, the BATF.

As during the Clinton years, I think you will see some restructuring of the BATF to fall in line with the new regime's ideals. I see them as the core of his new CNSF. I hope to God I am wrong.

I have no doubt that at some point the military will be deployed to "protect" us but not as a measure to confiscate firearms. I could be mistaken about this but as Dean D states the BATFE is more likely to be called upon for that job (with the military advising and providing logistical support).

I think using the military is too overt and too likely to cause resistance due to the illegal nature of deploying the military.

I think people are more likely to comply with some form of LE agency, or at least the government will think so and use agencies other than the military.

In my opinion there isn't really much difference so, strictly speaking the government will turn on us in one form or another.