Skip to comments.Will U.S. Troops Fire On American Citizens?
Posted on 04/02/2012 11:26:01 PM PDT by yank in the UK
click here to read article
What it even means after all these years, I couldn't say. But there it is, Montana.
What do you mean “will they”....read some history.
Kent State would be a start.
Would the US military fire upon its own citizens?
Not as it is currently comprised.
However, if the US military eventually weeded out those who are loyal to the American Constitution and the America people then it becomes an open question.
“Kent State would be a start.”
or WACO, Texas. But this time, I doubt the armed forces will still follow Klownie the Kenyan and his sasquatch wife. Most hate him.
“They” certainly will. A bundle of empirical evidence to that effect.
” Will they confiscate gold and silver?”
I don’t have any of that. I do have some brass and lead. I don’t expect they will want that.
Can’t believe we’re even contemplating the idea. What year is this? For that matter what country?
whoah nellie! walk that past me again?
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
The wrong question.
The right one: “Under what circumstances should American soldiers fire on US citizens, and when should they refuse to do so?”
Let us look at a not totally unlikely scenario.
Next November Obama loses the election to Romney. Massive rioting and murder breaks out across the country. Thousands die and the rioting is ongoing and spreading.
Should National Guard and Army troops refuse to fire on the rioters because they are US citizens?
Federal troops in LA:
The Los Angeles (LA) riots were the most destructive civil disturbance in US history, causing the deaths of at least 54 people and more than $800 million in property damage throughout LA County. More than 10,000 troops from the California National Guard (CANG), 2000 active component soldiers, and 1500 Marines were deployed to the area at the height of operations:
The 1992 Los Angeles Riots
Lessons in Command and Control from the Los Angeles Riots
Lieutenant Colonel Christopher M. Schnaubelt
1st Battalion, 185th Armor Regiment
“Police officers responded to a domestic dispute, accompanied by marines. They had just gone up to the door when two shotgun birdshot rounds were fired through the door, hitting the officers. One yelled `cover me!’ to the marines, who then laid down a heavy base of fire. . . . The police officer had not meant `shoot’ when he yelled `cover me’ to the marines. [He] meant . . . point your weapons and be prepared to respond if necessary. However, the marines responded instantly in the precise way they had been trained, where `cover me’ means provide me with cover using firepower. . . . over two hundred bullets [were] fired into that house.”
> What do you mean will they....read some history.
Kent State would be a start.
The troops that fired at Kent State were not experienced combat veterans. They were just as young and just as scared as the students they faced.
Had they been battlefield experienced, they’d have performed differently.
One thing to consider is that the size of the Federal standing army compared to the size of the population is as aout as low as it’s ever been. Active duty army is 700,000 compard to a population of over 300M? The standing army is mostly deployed overseas anyway.
Some will; most won’t.
Most miilitary ammunition will penitrate the “bullet proof” issued vest at any practical range. Only the heaviest vests with added plates will stop the stuff.
I’m not too sure of the latest steel-core stuff in 5.56mm, but it would certainly be worth a try.
It’s a good chance we might find out—soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.