[Butterbone]

All the revolution, and Marshall law talk is getting over the top.

So I have a serious question about the lefty liberal conspiracy side of this.


In theory, if Obama tried to institute marshall law, who would enforce it? The military and National Guard, and police forces are dominated by Conservatives and Libertarians.

Who are the people who will be these "jackboots" stomping around our neighborhoods? Who is going to get the order to storm "Smalltown Mainstreet" and actually follow that order?

Is it the supposition of the conservative punditocrasy, that "great Americans" are going to get ordered into marshall law roles, and they will just blindly follow those orders?

I just can't see that happening. At least not if Obama tries to issue the order.

 

[bullseye]

if you think for a second there will be lack of "jackboots" you are in for a surprise. Lets just use katrina for a more recent public example.

 

[Butterbone]

That's an interesting example. I hadn't considered that. On the face of it though weren't the majority of the National Guard and others deployed to rescue people instead of "control" them. They were being deployed to a specific location that was at risk of looting do to the lack local government agencies.

Do you have a more elaborate description of than the you tube videos.. I can't see those through the firewall.

 

[stonebridge]

I'm glad you started this thread.

Here's where I admit I lose my bravado when it comes down to 'from my cold, dead hands.' If the order is given to disarm Americans, it won't be the fatcats/politicians/REMFs that go about doing the disarming. It'll be kids my age or younger, or my local police and sheriff's department -most of whom know me and vice versa- that are forced to carry it out. There's no way in hell I'm going to point a gun at Sgt. Miller or Smith or some kid from the local National Guard unit. And I think that the bigwigs in DC know that.

-'bridge

 

[ajole]

There are a few different issues in all this.
First, a local group would be less likely to follow those orders...so you send Illinois state Nat'l Guard to Cali, Cali NG to OK, etc. Rome did the same thing, using recently conquered troops as part of their army in places far from their homes. I'll guarantee you, plenty of us feel like the folks in (insert state name here) are a bunch of idiots, and could rise up and need controlling.

Secondly, looking at how the media has portrayed things in the last 10 months, what do we REALLY believe actually happened in Katrina? Who gave what orders, and who really shot, for what real reasons? I'd bet money, what we heard in the news was about 50% BS. I sure don't know which side that BS was on...but the BS will be flowing full force in the wind up to these types of operations, and continue long after.

Thirdly, you get a bunch of young MP's or Bravo 11 reserves riled up and then give them weapons and a cause, and they will kick shit out of whatever their leaders tell them to kick. Including messing up innocent folks, patriotic defenders of the American constitution, whatever. The grunt on the ground will do what he's told, unless he starts getting information that makes him doubt his leaders. And the media will damn sure NOT be doing what they did during Vietnam...they'll be backing the administration to the hilt this time.

Lastly...Any bets that wireless traffic will be interrupted while this is going down? No calls to your son in the guard to tell them how things are...no info but what big Bro wants him to have...

So yeah, it could happen.

 

[zaostar2]

I have to believe that if such an order was given to disarm Americans that a large number of military and civilian police would not follow the order .. There would be a large split in all armed forces over the second amendment and the rights of all Americans . They would know that when they are finished serving that they to would not have that right anymore as well .. It would start another civil war here and there are millions more gun owners than are in our own armed forces .. While I can't stand Obama I don't think that he would be that ignorant to do such a thing ..

 

[Butterbone]

It's a tough concept to wrangle. The big issue I have is that national guardsmen, aren't a standing army. They are out in the work world 90% of the time.

When it comes down to being rolled out inside a US state, most guard are trained for emergencies and controlling crowds who are angry about being without electricity, and water, and stuff like that. I know a handful of guardsmen, and my cousin is still ready reserves after just finishing his two tours. Actually my little brother and I are the only ones in a generation not to join the military. Our brother told us that we should only join if we "wanted to". Since he served, he covered our families commitment for this generation.

My oldest son has already decided he wants to serve. He wants to be a pilot, probably helicopter pilot he says. he's 11 and has a better roadmap planned out than I did at 25 lol.

My family has been military for as long as I can remember. I worked for the military for the last 5 years, and I know the majority of guys there, don't like discussing what they would choose to do given the order to use force against Americans. Apparently stating that you would disobey orders in advance of those orders is grounds for getting in bad trouble.

The concept of moving national guard from one state to another is also an interesting point. And shouldn't be ignored.
But at the same time, I have a hard time believing that state to state rivalry is enough to subvert our common nationalism. Sending young guys to ANY foreign country gives them the window for a little more aggressiveness because the language is different, the culture, the food, the look of things. It's a totally alien world, so it's easier to disassociate from the world you are in, and reflect on the world you come from.
In these cases, national guard and returned standing army troops, would be "in their world". The great home they missed and so on.

Also every soldier takes an oath to protect the constitution. Not their state. Not even America per se! But the constitution right? At least that's what I remember from my army recruiters.


I don't know that I "could" shoot Jim Bob from Alabama. I wouldn't stand there un-armed. But I would probably be as passive as I could in the situation. Remind them of where they are, who they are, and asking them WHY they are following those orders. I'm mostly convinced that deep down, 90% of the people that join the armed forces really are in love with America and the ideals of America that most of us are.


In my opinion that's what all this crazy Tree of Liberty and Revolution 2.0 stuff boils down to. It doesn't matter who may try to give the order.
It comes down to Who they are giving the orders to, and what those men and women feel is their greater responsibility. Right?

 

[gtv]

I don't know that I "could" shoot Jim Bob from Alabama. I wouldn't stand there un-armed. But I would probably be as passive as I could in the situation. Remind them of where they are, who they are, and asking them WHY they are following those orders. I'm mostly convinced that deep down, 90% of the people that join the armed forces really are in love with America and the ideals of America that most of us are.

It isn't whether you could shoot Jim Bob, it is whether Jim Bob neutralizes you as a perceived threat before you can react. If the guard is being called in, you may not be given an opportunity to talk to the troops at all, to convince them that what you are doing is right. They are just going to kick the door in, shove a gun muzzle in your mouth or stroke your noggin with the buttstock of their rifle, and disarm you.

I think part of the problem will be that the NG troops will likely not know what is going on when they are deployed. The feds will have no reason to explain the situation in detail to the troops. More likely, they will just be mobilized and told they are being sent to State X due to a "crisis situation." Next thing these guys know, they are off-loading into a neighborhood with a bunch of locals pointing guns at them and screaming "Revolution!"... their instinct for self-preservation is going to kick in, their training will take over, and the deed will be done. I can guarantee you that the Guardsmen at Kent State didn't get up that May morning back in '70 with the intention of killing their neighbors, but when the sun set over Ohio that night, 13 people had been shot, with 4 dead.

A wise man does not say "It could never happen..."

 

[pheenix11]

1. It's Martial Law, Marshall was the guy that rebuilt Europe.

2. It's coming and it could very well be foreign troops, like UN Blue hats

 

[stonebridge]

I would personally prefer Bluehats, given a choice.

-'b

 

[FriedChicken]

1. It's Martial Law, Marshall was the guy that rebuilt Europe.

2. It's coming and it could very well be foreign troops, like UN Blue hats

I agree and that was what I planned on adding to the conversation.
Our gov. likes to keep our armed forces elsewhere ...

 

[xstuntman]

The United Nations is plain scared of the armed citizens of the U.S. and have been for a long time. For that reason you'll never see blue hats here. Most of us whould consider it an invasion of U.S. soil and a violation of our constitutional rights. I'm one of those. Blue hat, deer, all the same in my scope.

I'm also pretty sure the our esteemed Texas Govenor would never order out the Guard on the idiot presidents say so. X

 

[Ron M.]

While I'm not all that fond of Governor Zoolander, I think xstuntman is right on how he's likely to react.


Ron M.

 

[Corelogik]

Blue hats make good targets!

 

[Rhodes]

Ok here is what happened in New Orleans. After Katrina there was zero power or any governmental services. Looting was not a problem in well armed neighborhoods. You know the type mostly inhabited with those white racist ******* rich guys. Well at least until the Feds showed up and confiscated the weapons of anyone stupid enough not to foresee this. Then looting suddenly became a problem in those neighborhoods and those there suddenly had to depend on the State to protect them, HA. People evacuating and trying to protect property were summarily disarmed under threat of death, an AR-15 being pointed at you, or imprisonment. Old ladies were tackled, people handcuffed, property seized, all for the greater good Progressives are so fond of trumping.

Afterward even protecting yourself with a firearm became a capitol offense, in other words you could be shot. Think all those "missing" people were victims of the storm? No some were looters that received a very just end and never "reported".

Welcome to the State's utopia. Learn from it.

 

[compmanio365]

I have a friend who was in New Orleans around that time. He made it very clear that anyone, from the government or not, that came up to his house, wouldn't make it to the door. He never had to give up his firearms.

 

[Rhodes]

A lot of us kept them, I was armed every moment. Cant believe how stupid some were to allow them to be taken but there you go. Some folks just got caught out and about but still why tell them you have firearms to begin with?

Anyway the point remains they were going to take any they could.

 

[survivalist]

In theory, if Obama tried to institute marshall law, who would enforce it? The military and National Guard, and police forces are dominated by Conservatives and Libertarians.

speaking only for myself, i feel that this isn't a partisan issue and has nothing to do with your precious golden boy, barack obama

i was afraid of marshall law under bush, and i'm still afraid of it now

the federal govt is getting too expansive and too powerful

i couldn't care less which coke/pepsi party is in ascendancy

 

[HiPoint45]

Obama institutes "Marshall" Law:

Marshall Law was an Australian television series, which aired for one season in 2002, starring Lisa McCune and Alison Whyte as lawyers and sisters.

Yegads we all will be FORCED to watch this? It really sounds dreadful..I think this will make people "bare" arms.

 

[Rhodes]

Aussie TV??? NOOOOOOOO!!!!