It was called the Combat Arms Survey, and was administered primarily to Marines.
Don't stop there! What were the results? OK, I'm going to google it.
300 Marines were asked to respond to this statement:
I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
The stated scenario 46:
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this p eriod, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to:
I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded.
Strongly disagree:
127 = 42.33%
Disagree
58 = 19.33%
Agree 56 = 18.67%
Strongly agree 23 = 07.67%
No opinion 36 = 12.00%
Total: 300 = 100.00%
The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire.
According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the thesis and designer of the survey qu estions; "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks on their response or written comments in the margin space."
Is there a problem here?
What troubles Lt. Cdr. Cunningham and other opponents of using U.S. military forces for U.N. peacekeeping and non-traditional missions within United States territories is the 26.34% indicating they would fire.
In another scenario, such a significant minority could be separated from those unwilling to shoot their fellow citizens, and easily organized into a unit that would obey such orders.
Source: VikingPhoenix.com