Things Liberals Believe in

[natty bumppo 297]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

how many crew served weapons do you send after a single person ....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dictatorships don't really work like that though do they? Climate of fear and tittle tattling on the neighbours is far better than spraying the masses with bullets, cheaper too.

That usually comes last, in the event martial law is declared. Usually by that time people have already been turned against each other by politicians and double-speak so that if private citizens haven't already been convinced to side with the dictatorship, any resistance will be scared into silence.

To some extent we saw this (to a very slight degree) post 9/11 - when people were scared and the natural reaction was to embrace nationalism via hysterical dialogs that painted pretty much anyone who didn't agree with the administration as being "Unamerican"

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[*Robert* 2]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

I'm curious... who actually thinks soldiers would obey, and who thinks they would not? And what about the situation? Would it not affect an individuals actions?

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Plenty. There's a lot of evidence to support this.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I should add I'm speaking generally about human behavior, not U.S. law enforcement/military authorities specifically.

[Danno 1,228]

It depends on the situation.

The military is made up of many viewpoints, 2nd amendment types are certainly in no short supply.

The Gov't would be risking a lot to put commanders and troops in a position where orders might be refused, once that happened, it's hard to regain control.

If memory serves me correct, didn't this exact thing happen when the USSR broke up.

The military refused.

Wasn't that the scene where Yeltsin climbed on top of that tank in red square?

[*Robert* 2]

It depends on the situation.

The military is made up of many viewpoints, 2nd amendment types are certainly in no short supply.

The Gov't would be risking a lot to put commanders and troops in a position where orders might be refused, once that happened, it's hard to regain control.

If memory serves me correct, didn't this exact thing happen when the USSR broke up.

The military refused.

Wasn't that the scene where Yeltsin climbed on top of that tank in red square?

That's why I asked the question, because it is not exactly cut and dry.

As a soldier, you're trained to follow orders, but at the same time, you should also question orders that are deemed unlawful. It would definitely be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

Military personnel have been Court Martialed for following orders, so one would have to feel very confident in their Commanding Officer before following such an order.

[Peikko 1,575]

History gives us plenty of examples of what the military personel would do when given an order against civilians. If you think the American military are special in some way, you'll hve to do better than this well, it depends malarky!

[Till 0]

I also don't understand the position that the values of the NRA and the ACLU are diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive. I've considered joining both (still must do further research).

The NRA’s position, regardless of contemporary jurisprudence, is that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own and carry guns, and gun control is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberties.

The ACLU’s position is that Article 2 allows for the provision of state militias, and applies towards individuals only so far as they are mustered by state national guards. They say that they’re neutral (wink wink) on the subject of gun control, which they say is NOT an abridgement of civil liberties. Prior to a recent supreme court 2nd amendment case (Heller vs. DC was announced), they cited a previous supreme court case (U.S. vs Miller 1939), effectively saying, "See, we must be right because the supreme court agrees with us." After Heller's announcement, their website says that they disagree with the ruling.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

I'm curious... who actually thinks soldiers would obey, and who thinks they would not? And what about the situation? Would it not affect an individuals actions?

Sure - I'm only talking in generalities, but there certainly are historical precedents for it.

[nowhereman 1]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

That's not actually true. Posse comitatus prevents active duty & reserve (i.e. federal) forces from performing law enforcement duties in the U.S. but national guard troops on state duty are not bound by this limitation. I'm an Army officer & I work in homeland defense, so I'm well versed in this area.

[*Robert* 2]

History gives us plenty of examples of what the military personel would do when given an order against civilians. If you think the American military are special in some way, you'll hve to do better than this well, it depends malarky!

Then please share with the rest of the class!!! As a veteren, I would like to know what makes you think the US military would act one way, or the other, with regards to opening fire on "innocent" civilians.

I was not trying to be sarcastic, so don't get that way with me.

[nowhereman 1]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

I'm curious... who actually thinks soldiers would obey, and who thinks they would not? And what about the situation? Would it not affect an individuals actions?

Sure - I'm only talking in generalities, but there certainly are historical precedents for it.

It depends on the commander and the command climate. If he's a strong commander & gives a ####### about doing what's morally right then it's highly unlikely that his troops will do something unethical or immoral. If he's a weak commander or has questionable ethics than yea it's totally plausible.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's simple really, unless there is something specifically different about the US military than other military, then there is no reason to believe that they would behave differntly. It's not a question of whether any or all individuals are 'good' people or not. To think that would be to think, for example, that the foot soldiers of the Weimar were particularly evil. There is no evidence to support this, in fact, quite the contrary.

So, what is different about the US military that would prevent them obeying an order from the top that said 'fire' on civillians? If the officers disobeyed a civilian President, well that's a completely other story.

[Peikko 1,575]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

I'm curious... who actually thinks soldiers would obey, and who thinks they would not? And what about the situation? Would it not affect an individuals actions?

Sure - I'm only talking in generalities, but there certainly are historical precedents for it.

It depends on the commander and the command climate. If he's a strong commander & gives a ####### about doing what's morally right then it's highly unlikely that his troops will do something unethical or immoral. If he's a weak commander or has questionable ethics than yea it's totally plausible.

I'll ask you the same question. What is different in the command structure of the US military that would allow for mass disobediance of an officer by the foot soldiers? Are you suggesting that somehow they weigh up all the moral probabilities of their actions before they take them? I have to say, I find that dubious in the extreme - although of course we always like to think that these things would be true.