If called upon by someone who says he can do whatever he likes, to fire upon Americans Would you do it?

SSgt George Brown — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:30:07 -0500

Would you go against the constitutional rights of the US if called upon to do it?

National Guard Training Envisions Attack by Second-Amendment Supporters

(Media Trackers) – Documents from an Ohio National Guard (ONG) training drill conducted last January reveal the details of a mock disaster where Second Amendment supporters with “anti-government” opin...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2014 11:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:41:37 -0500

I don't understand this question. I think your asking if someone was "anti-gov" and wanted to revolt against the government with arms, would in join them and/or what would I do?

If so, I would definitely not join them, if I was in a situation where i could detain them I would.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 10 at 2014 11:58 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:58:05 -0500

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign OR domestic..... Things would have to go seriously (and I mean SERIOUSLY) awry in our nation for me to have to decide if shooting US citizens or US soldiers constitutes that part of my Oath.  I do not envy the guys who had to decide which side they would choose just prior to the Civil War.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 12:15 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:15:40 -0500

I believe this will become a more constant scenario and question brought up in talks in the coming days. I believe personally in the Oath in which I took which states " I, ____ do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will support defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." In this case according to the Second- Amendment which only covers the right to " Keep and Bear Arms". So I would not engage a U.S. Citizens with hostile force unless said Citizens endangered the personnel under my charge. To answer this simply I would not engage Citizens just because someone in charge had the bright idea that they could impose their will through force on the Citizens who are just utilizing Constitutional Rights.

Response by SSgt George Brown made Feb 11 at 2014 12:02 PM

SSgt George Brown — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:02:04 -0500

commented in wrong area.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 11 at 2014 12:20 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:20:30 -0500

The constitution is not a person. It is words on a sheet of paper, subject to the interpretations and whims of the reader. Ultimately, our mission is dictated by politicians, the President, and the Officers appointed over us....We can discuss principles and ethics all day, but ultimately, in the military, the constitution does not put food in our childrens mouths, or a roof over our families heads. If ordered to shoot a bunch of gun nuts, even if I don't necessarily think they need it, it comes down to choice. Do I think their opinion of guns is more important than my wife and child having food and shelter? ..I'm sorry, but given that choice, you couldn't hand me enough ammmunition, nor give me enough gun nuts to shoot at......Besides, all the AK's and AR's in the world won't help you when the 1st Marine Division and the 1st Infantry Division gets ordered to roll into town, backed up by drone support, A-10 Warthogs, Spooky gunships, and Cobras... If you ever have to fire a shot against your government, you've already lost....Forget david vs goliath, it's more like newborn kitten vs great white shark in the middle of the ocean...

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Feb 11 at 2014 1:16 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:16:27 -0500

I will defend myself and my battle buddies, soldiers, fellow leaders if threatened with deadly force. I can't shoot anyone who does not pose a reasonable threat.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 2:08 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:08:55 -0500

You made this one exceedingly easy when you stated "go against the constitutional right of the U.S." Officers of the Military are sworn to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States". The order you are proposing would violate this oath and I would happily disregard it.

Now, let's look more closely at the scenario you are basing your question from. The Ohio National Guard is responding to a domestic terrorism incident in a junior high school where chemical weapons were used and are being produced. I have read the article three times now and I am unable to see how the author made the leap from an exercise to increase the Ohio National Guards capabilities to combat domestic terrorism to what he obviously percieves as an attack on the 2nd ammendment. If he is making this leap based on the fact that the terrorist cell leader was described as "right wing", he is way off base.

He then goes off on a tangent interviewing local Tea Party officers and states "Throughout modern history, groups and indiviuals associated with left-wing causes have proven far more likely to commit acts of domestic terror." This is patently ridiculous. Perhaps this author should do a little research on domestic terrorism in Germany, Greece, Italy, etc. If he continues to claim that this is not the case in the U.S., I have one name for him: TIMOTHY MCVEIGH! I could go on for quite awhile on the lack of factual substance contained in this article but I think my point is clear.

The simple truth is that, in the scenario presented in the article, I would happily shoot the members of this domestic terrorist cell. And I would do it as a proud supporter of the 2nd Ammendment (which does not extend to cover someone possessing and producing mustard gas; I would hope even the most conservative Tea Party member would realize that).

Response by CWO3 Brent Kern made Feb 11 at 2014 2:15 PM

CWO3 Brent Kern — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:15:13 -0500

I would never go against the Constitution of the United States of America; or the oath I took to defend it. The part about " against all enemies, foreign and domestic" has been a reoccurring conversation in the Marine Corps. I think this often looked upon as fellow citizens but domestic enemies could be our elected officials acting outside the constitution. And Yes I would take up arms against any who encroaches on my families constitutional rights.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2014 2:43 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:43:59 -0500

It depends on the situation.  If armed civilians are defending their homes, families, and their Constitutional rights (2nd Amendment, or Article 2 of the Bill of Rights) and are not posing a clear threat to Military forces or lawful/Constitutional operations, then there is no way that I would blindly follow orders to gun down innocent civilians. On the other hand, if taken under fire, or ordered to neutralize a threat force intending on harming innocent civilians and/or Military personnel, I would not hesitate to terminate that threat as quickly as possible, with maximum violence using any and all assets at my disposal.  Once someone takes action to illegally harm or kill others, they become combatants.  But until/unless that happens, Americans defending their families and their rights are NOT the enemy. As one whose family (Matlack) was instrumental in the creation of this nation, I cannot deny the patriot thought that is quite literally in my DNA.  I will NOT turn my back on our history nor those who have sacrificed to make and keep us all free.  George Washington was understandably afraid of standing armies.  This is why the Second Amendment was put in place.  A government should fear its people, as it keeps them honest.  When The People fear the government, we have Tyranny. As a Soldier who has raised his hand three times now and has sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, I cannot overlook and obey illegal, immoral, and/or unconstitutional orders of the president or the Officers appointed over me.  I take my oath seriously, as I do the Soldiers Creed and the Creed of the Noncommissioned Officer.  If you are doing this job SOLELY for a paycheck, and will blindly follow orders regardless of their legality, morality, or Constitutionality, then you are quite simply a mercenary.  The day that our Army, DoD, and country ONLY wants mercenaries in the ranks is the day I will resign. If you, as an American Servicemember, would fire upon American citizens without cause JUST because someone ordered you to, then you have made yourself an enemy of the US Constitution.  The "I was just following orders" defense did not work for the Nazis in Nuremburg, and it didn't work for LT Callie at My Lai.  Many (especially the younger Soldiers) forget that illegal/immoral orders are NOT to be obeyed,  As we as leaders tell our subordinates, we all must take the hard right over the easy wrong.  Everyone would do well to remember that.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Feb 14 at 2014 4:31 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:31:11 -0500

When I first read the headline on this discussion my first though was "Really?!" but then I thought about it more and I think the discussion topic can be pretty interesting.

If you look back over the last 12 - 13 years that our nation has been fighting terrorism most of the plans, actions and personnel have had some sort of tie to America. Let me remind you of the Solider-on-Solider attack that occurred on March 22 - 23, 2003 at Camp Pennsylvania. During that attack, a US Service Member took it upon him to engage in what I can only call an act of betrayal upon the command group of the 1BCT, 101st Airborne Division just hours before we were scheduled to invade Iraq. Inmate Hasan Akbar is now sitting on death row for killing 2 fellow service members and wounding 12 others.

The attacks on Fort Hood attack that was carried out by Nidal Malik Hasan is a more recent verson of that same type of attack where an American attacked other Americans. The Boston Bombers, Tim McVeigh and sadly countless others have all carried out attacks to injure and or kill Americans.

The oath we all took states you will carry out your actions to defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. So if called upon to take action against an American citizen to stop him/her/them from completing an attack on other Americans, I think we would have to. It might suck to know that the group you are about to take on in a fire fight are fellow Americans but if there are planning an attack on this nation, haven't they sort of given up the right to be called Americans?

Response by CSM Michael Poll made Feb 14 at 2014 4:48 PM

CSM Michael Poll — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:48:04 -0500

I will be very candid with my answer, however your question poses more questions.  The duty of the Service member is to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domesticmestic.  The big question is this.  Who is the enemy.  Is it the American citizen violation the Constitution, or is it the Government voilating the Constitution.  This is a debate that will be impossible to settle as it will depend on the individual.  If this were to happen I beieve that we would be in a world of hurt and the great country that we live in now will cease to be significnant for many decades if not centuries.  I do not believe that an administrator of the United States would order such an action knowing the end result being another civil war.  I do not know how I would react to killing the citizens I swore to protect. I also dont know how I could kill the Soldiers that I call brothers and sisters...  I pray I will never need to find out.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2014 5:34 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:34:55 -0500

Unless they are violating the rights given to them in the Constitution I would not. Also if the government decides to use me as an enforcer for an action that is unconstitutional I will also refuse. We all swore an oath, but that oath never specified who the enemies were.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2014 6:32 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:32:01 -0500

I think this is a silly question because there's only one reasonable response to it. It's not even controversial because no one is going to respond with "I'm all for violating the constitution and look forward to following some unlawful orders!" It's like asking, "Do any of you think it's a good idea to rehydrate with gasoline?"

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Aug 9 at 2014 12:56 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 00:56:26 -0400

Let's not forget about the Nuremberg trials. Those German officers thought they were just following orders until they were executed. I am not sure what sort of capacity I would have to be in but if I received those "orders" to murder defenseless civilians I would have to repeat the orders in front of wittnesses for clarification, and I would refuse to follow those orders. I couldn't live with myself knowing I was "just" following orders, and I would be no better than those German officers who murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews. I would also stop anyone from following those orders too by any means. I believe that would be my duty to do so.

Response by SFC Michael Peterson made Aug 9 at 2014 5:00 PM

SFC Michael Peterson — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 17:00:29 -0400

Not one single solitary chance in hell! I will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." IF ANY order were issued contrary to that first part of the oath, the person issuing that order would, in fact, be a domestic enemy and, it would be my duty to shoot him in the face.