Military personnel, who would you side with?

[MustangJim21]

Given the current state of the country, the political and class divide/warfare, and the constant threat to our constitutional rights, if there was a civil uprising against the government, who would you side with?

Based on the oath of enlistment you swore to uphold the constitution as well as obey the orders of the President. Would you side with the people, or would there be an American version of Tiananmen Square?

Sure this is hypothetical and I'm am in no way promoting an uprising other than by doing so by exercising your right to vote.

 

[03_SVT_Freak]

I have always wondered this myself. If given the order, how many armed forces personnel could fire upon their fellow citizens.

 

[wieduwilt]

Read this:

http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/shootus.htm

 

[Bouttime09]

To many unknown variables to answer that question. If I felt the government was within reason and justified, absolutely. If I felt that I was violating someone elses constitutional rights, then things get complicated.

 

[wieduwilt]

To many unknown variables to answer that question. If I felt the government was within reason and justified, absolutely. If I felt that I was violating someone elses constitutional rights, then things get complicated.

This.

 

[TBCobra]

I think it needs to be pointed out that even though the Constitution is listed first in the Armed Forces Oath, military personal are already failing to uphold it. IE indefinite detention, where a person, including U.S. citizens, can be held indefinitely on suspicion of supporting terrorism WITHOUT the right to trial. This is in direct violation of our 6th Amendment right.

Im not saying if it's right or not. It just looks like they sworn to uphold the Supreme Court's Constitution.

 

[Bouttime09]

I think war comes with its' own rules/constitution...

 

[joeg215]

Read this:

`SHOOT AMERICANS' SURVEY RESULTS

That's interesting. I honestly think if it really came down to it, the military will take care of its own. Whenever you make such a stark distinction between groups, in this case civilians and military, group mentality comes into play. Its not military vs civilians anymore, it becomes us vs them. Will the military fire on civilians? There isnt a doubt in my mind. Look at the Kent State shooting. Throw guns into the mix, it would get pretty ugly.

 

[RedRocketMike]

Armed Citizens > 25% of the military.

 

[Ironhand]

All Military personnel are required to disobey an order they deem unlawful.


Question is way too vague for anyone to wisely answer that question.

 

[nofire]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I've come to the conclusion that I swore to protect the CONSTITUTION, not the government, from all enemies foreign and domestic. So in a case where the fecal matter hits the oscillating motor, I'm with the public. (I'm not in the military anymore, for the record. But I'd come to the same conclusion if I were still in.)

 

[Dragu1a]

Armed Citizens > 25% of the military.

keep in mind, that just bc farmer joe has an old hunting rifle does not put him on even playing ground with an equipped Marine/soldier. greater numbers does not always make up for far greater training/gear/firepower

it's a very hazy, gray area. i think that most military members wouldn't fire on general public...but if these 'civilians' were bunkered in, firing at them then i could see it getting ugly.

 

[Chosyn1]

keep in mind, that just bc farmer joe has an old hunting rifle does not put him on even playing ground with an equipped Marine/soldier. greater numbers does not always make up for far greater training/gear/firepower

it's a very hazy, gray area. i think that most military members wouldn't fire on general public...but if these 'civilians' were bunkered in, firing at them then i could see it getting ugly.

^^What the British said...a man who is fighting for freedom is more fierce than a free man fighting..it'll never happen but military members would be at a disadvantage imo due to undecisiveness

 

[Dragu1a]

^^What the British said...a man who is fighting for freedom is more fierce than a free man fighting..it'll never happen but military members would be at a disadvantage imo due to undecisiveness

i agree that it'll never go that far.

that was musket vs musket. if the british had tanks, machine guns, body armor, artillery and air support we'd be sipping tea watching cricket tourneys and the world cup....but they didn't, so 'Merica! :beer:


...and like you said, that'd depend largely on the entire military being 100% committed, which would not be the case.

 

[Chosyn1]

Mmm Sweet tea..like I said undecisiveness in the military..not all tankers,pilots, or artillarymen will side with the govt which will open up military training AND equipment..gear a drift

 

[Guy Fawkes]

They would, no doubt in my mind. Maybe not 100% but at least 95%. What you all fail to remember or realize is they are indoctrinated into a certain way of thinking and behaving, they themselves dont even realize until after they are out. I didnt realize how dependent I became on the Army for my every need and even decision making processes. Remember when you first got to basic and they told you they are going to break you down to build you back up again as a Soldier? Thats what they meant.

Its a good thing to make your Army follow orders. Its a needed thing for a good Army, but take that into consideration.

 

[Oceanside78]

Not a ****ing chance I would go against my fellow Americans. Never. I'd switch sides in a heart beat. I know MANY others would as well. I honestly think the only people left would be the chicken shits and the ones too incompetent to know what to do for themselves, you'd be fighting a much different Army then what it is now and the civi populous would receive a big influx in combat vets.

 

[Oceanside78]

^^What the British said...a man who is fighting for freedom is more fierce than a free man fighting..it'll never happen but military members would be at a disadvantage imo due to undecisiveness

I side with civi's, that being said, I was in a sniper section for over 3 years. I can tag a head shot at a further distance than 99% of civilian optics can even focus on, let alone provide an accurate sight picture. It's not the same bud. If it were to go full fledge, and no one left the military side, civilians would be ****ed. Just being honest. Not to mention, you wouldn't see 99% of us. It's all in the training man

 

[DaleM]

I'd wait out the NG and police. If the insurgents had no reasonable political and social objectives I would protect the union (riots or kooks). If the gov't became so oppressive and used Active Military force on the populace as a control I'd rather not say what I would do.

 

[Chosyn1]

I side with civi's, that being said, I was in a sniper section for over 3 years. I can tag a head shot at a further distance than 99% of civilian optics can even focus on, let alone provide an accurate sight picture. It's not the same bud. If it were to go full fledge, and no one left the military side, civilians would be ****ed. Just being honest. Not to mention, you wouldn't see 99% of us. It's all in the training man

100% agree..if NOONE leaves the military/govt sector you're absolutely right.