- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would the people have a chance against the government...
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:09 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:09 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Our military could not defeat ragtag middle eastern peasants and Vietnamese with guns.
How could they beat 150 million armed americans?
Our military has been handcuffed for 8 or more years. If you gave our generals a mission and let them do whatever they needed to do short of dropping a nuke we would roll most countries
0
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:11 pm to okietiger13
quote:
I take it you don’t know many Federal government agents that work in the south? There’s no distinction from local LEOs as far as their loyalties to what’s right.
What does this mean?
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:14 pm to Raptordawg
Would take about 10-15 million people , armed and acting in unison. Imo.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:15 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
They won't be. Also this notion that the military would side with the people is ridiculous. They side with the government.
What government? If it's fractured. Hell if the Intelligence agencies have been accused of treason at the highest point of government? What then?
There is no unified government.
Government ends up with the most powerful...military is entrusted to obey the Commander in Chief right?
Who is that, when this revolution happens? Military would be so confused. Defend the United States. What would that mean with this internal strife?
Government is a mess...it's a Spy-vs.Spy game right now.
To the strongest would go the military.
It's not a huge fall from Top of the heap to Banana Republic. Great Empires and nations have had similar fates.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 11:17 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:16 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
What government? If it's fractured. Hell if the Intelligence agencies have been accused of treason at the highest point of government? What then?
There is no unified government...already parts of it and the media are trying to frame the POTUS.
Government ends up with the most powerful...military is entrusted to obey the Commander in Chief right?
Who is that, when this revolution happens? Military would be so confused. Defend the United States. What would that mean with this internal strife?
Government is a mess...it's a Spy-vs.Spy game right now.
To the strongest would go the military.
It's not a huge fall from Top of the heap to Banana Republic. Great Empires and nations have had similar fates.
Miltiary oath is to the Constitution and it's taken very seriously.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:25 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Our military could not defeat ragtag middle eastern peasants and Vietnamese with guns.
How could they beat 150 million armed americans?
You should look up; rules of engagement (how tight it was in OIF/OEF), unconventional warfare, and actual events of the wars. Also, IEDs have been the largest cause of damage by our enemies.
For the other posters who think the military would turn on civilians, that's false. IMO 70% of service members wouldn't harm civilians in our country. They wouldn't care, they'd side with the people, not the government and protect friends and family.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:25 pm to starsandstripes
Doesn't Congress - who lets in a million illegals - have the same oath?
So if the oath is to the Constitution, is that to a President or to the Constitution?
And who defines what that oath means - the Supreme Court before a coup? To define what the Constitution means?
Or does an oath to the Constitution simply mean, doing what POTUS says?
Or if POTUS is in contradiction of the Constitution, doing what his opposition leader says - in their interpretation of the Consitution?
The Supreme Court has spent it's entire existence trying to explain to us what the Constitution means to us and our existence.
Swearing an oath to Constitution is ambigous.
Swearing an oath to only the POTUS is clear.
How do you swear allegiance to a tortured document that has been twisted and turned and to a government that is split down the middle?
I wouldn't have the foggiest clue who the military should support after a coup or revolution.
You had the same dilemma during the Civil War...where's your allegiance? West Point guys, going down South to rebel against the Nation that trained them.
Oath means only against foreign enemies, right?
Because how do you define allegiance with internal enemies?
So if the oath is to the Constitution, is that to a President or to the Constitution?
And who defines what that oath means - the Supreme Court before a coup? To define what the Constitution means?
Or does an oath to the Constitution simply mean, doing what POTUS says?
Or if POTUS is in contradiction of the Constitution, doing what his opposition leader says - in their interpretation of the Consitution?
The Supreme Court has spent it's entire existence trying to explain to us what the Constitution means to us and our existence.
Swearing an oath to Constitution is ambigous.
Swearing an oath to only the POTUS is clear.
How do you swear allegiance to a tortured document that has been twisted and turned and to a government that is split down the middle?
I wouldn't have the foggiest clue who the military should support after a coup or revolution.
You had the same dilemma during the Civil War...where's your allegiance? West Point guys, going down South to rebel against the Nation that trained them.
Oath means only against foreign enemies, right?
Because how do you define allegiance with internal enemies?
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 11:30 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:28 pm to Raptordawg
It’s a bunch of pudgy old guys....
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:31 pm to Raptordawg
The fact that we are armed would allow us to take some Guard armories.
But the largest effect would be psychological. Government forces would actually have to fight. They would have to kill and be killed. Would NG units turn on their neighbors? Would regular troops fight civilians and NG units? How many would switch sides or stay out of it?
America has the largest chance of a completely internal revolution than any other nation on earth.
That is the point of the 2nd amendment. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station...just sounds good. It is useless unless: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But the largest effect would be psychological. Government forces would actually have to fight. They would have to kill and be killed. Would NG units turn on their neighbors? Would regular troops fight civilians and NG units? How many would switch sides or stay out of it?
America has the largest chance of a completely internal revolution than any other nation on earth.
That is the point of the 2nd amendment. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station...just sounds good. It is useless unless: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:36 pm to Raptordawg
WOLVERINES BITCHES!
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:37 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
No.
There is no weapon in possession of a civilian that scares me when sitting insdie of an armored vehicle. I will stare out the window while you fire round after round at the vehicle.
So, you haven't seen what improvised explosives can do?
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Our military could not defeat ragtag middle eastern peasants and Vietnamese with guns. How could they beat 150 million armed americans?
This is not accurate.
We defeated the m e peasants several times but politically declared defeat one time more.
We were winning Vietnam, and the communist launched Tet in desperation. And we won the battle but Walter Cronkite surrendered the country.
Before this the British won the Malay Uprising 1947-60. Took years but Britain did not let moron politicians or journalists Surrender.
And we won the Indian Wars and the Philippine Insurection 1899-1902.
The professional army wins the war as long as the politicians stand fast.
We would have lost the Revolution if Parliament had the stomach to stick it out.
Then again since the government in this theoretical endeavor are anti gun, we can assume the people are fighting Democrats that did surrender the ME and Vietnam!
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:49 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
Government forces would actually have to fight. They would have to kill and be killed. Would NG units turn on their neighbors? Would regular troops fight civilians and NG units?
Cops love taking any excuse to kill people and many of them are ex military. As much as rednecks love fantasizing about civil war, cops fantasize about killing people without the possibility of repercussion. No reason to believe military would be different.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:51 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
No.
There is no weapon in possession of a civilian that scares me when sitting insdie of an armored vehicle. I will stare out the window while you fire round after round at the vehicle.
In this absurd scenario, I'd be a hell of a lot more scared of being starved to death or die of dehydration inside my Stryker than I would be of a civilian taking a potshot with an AR15.
It would never happen as 90% of the military wouldn't turn on the people, but picking off supply lines, cutting off C&C centers at the knees, the slow burn of attrition warfare, and so forth would cripple the military. It simply isn't big enough to effectively fight a country the size of the U.S. especially with our terrain, even with modern technology - I think it would struggle to conquer and hold a state the size of California or Texas, as an example.
An actual real-deal civil war would involve the splitting of military assets along partisan lines, so it would look nothing like that in my opinion.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:52 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Doesn't Congress - who lets in a million illegals - have the same oath?
similar oath
quote:
So if the oath is to the Constitution, is that to a President or to the Constitution?
answered your own question
quote:
And who defines what that oath means - the Supreme Court before a coup? To define what the Constitution means?
Oath is easy to understand and define. You can do a search for it.
quote:
Or does an oath to the Constitution simply mean, doing what POTUS says?
Nope.
quote:
Or if POTUS is in contradiction of the Constitution, doing what his opposition leader says - in their interpretation of the Consitution?
The oath is to the Constitution. For enlisted members it also contains language about obeying orders. This is absent in the oath for officers and that is an extremely important point. But the hierarchy is clear. Constitution is primary. As a default, as settled by case law in the military courts, orders are given a presumption of being lawful. But orders that are not lawful, not within regulations, and contrary to the Constitution, are not obeyed, thus maintaining the oath to the Constitution. It's very simple. Can certainly lead to some difficult decisions but the decision framework is simple.
quote:
The Supreme Court has spent it's entire existence trying to explain to us what the Constitution means to us and our existence.
OK
quote:
Swearing an oath to Constitution is ambigous.
Much less so than you seem to think, IMO.
quote:
Swearing an oath to only the POTUS is clear.
And also very dangerous. Which is why it's not done.
quote:
How do you swear allegiance to a tortured document that has been twisted and turned and to a government that is split down the middle?
You don't swear allegiance to the govt. The oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domesitc.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:55 pm to Raptordawg
So you folks are willing to shitcan your sacred "rule of law" and resort to shooting your fellow Americans because there are segments of our society that you don't like and apparently can't tolerate them? Jeeze, get away from this board a while and go outside. Take a walk. Go see a shrink. Take some pills or have a few drinks.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 11:57 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
So, you haven't seen what improvised explosives can do?
HME will very, very rarely affect these vehicles.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 12:02 am to starsandstripes
quote:
Constitution is primary.
If you have one side saying this is what the Constitution means.
And another side saying this is what the Constitution means.
And this is treason...(for instance, militarily stopping illegals into the country for that's what the Constitution allows for.)
And this is treason...(for instance, not allowing illegals into the country because that's what the Constitution stands for.)
Swearing an Oath to the Constitution in this political and judicial climate...shite...might as well swear an Oath to flippity-floppity.
You can't have a clear understanding of what the military would do when you have half of government subverting the POTUS and intelligence agencies engaged in internal subterfuge.
The demands of the military might be quite clear with regards to Oaths - but simpler times and simpler definitions.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 12:03 am
Posted on 1/28/18 at 12:05 am to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Cops love taking any excuse to kill people and many of them are ex military. As much as rednecks love fantasizing about civil war, cops fantasize about killing people without the possibility of repercussion. No reason to believe military would be different.
You can make a strong case that there are problems with LE in the country but I don't think it's quite as bad as your comment portrays it.
There is every reason to believe the military would be different.
Also, they are finding out that most mil guys that go into LE are much better on the trigger and not pulling it - because they've made that decision already.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 12:13 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
It would never happen as 90% of the military wouldn't turn on the people, but picking off supply lines, cutting off C&C centers at the knees, the slow burn of attrition warfare, and so forth would cripple the military. It simply isn't big enough to effectively fight a country the size of the U.S. especially with our terrain, even with modern technology - I think it would struggle to conquer and hold a state the size of California or Texas, as an example.
An actual real-deal civil war would involve the splitting of military assets along partisan lines, so it would look nothing like that in my opinion.
There is such an imbalance between military and civilian weaponry that the US military, unchecked, would take over the US in a heartbeat. This is what the Founders feared and this is why they wrote the 2nd Amendent to mean that civilians and military should be on equal footing with regard to weaponry.
I agree that 90% would not do anything, though I think it would actually be higher. I do not agree that there would be a splitting along partisan lines. Take two military members, one leaning left and one leaning right and I think both wish to stay out of it completely - no tension, no split, etc.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News