(July 8, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 12:18 pm)whateverist Wrote: That's just what they say for the cameras.  Most of them interpret the 2nd amendment as a clause for casting a referendum on the govmint.  Only those with private arms get to vote.

That's what I don't get with it though. I'd back the trillions of dollars the US government pumps into its military against a bunch of hicks with a few guns. It ain't 1776 anymore you guys...

Yeah, it's a horse that's been beaten to hell and gone.

(July 8, 2015 at 2:53 pm)KUSA Wrote: The problem with your thinking is that the military is made up of these same hicks. The size of the military pales in comparison to the civilian gun owners. Take away the ones that would not turn on their own and you have a small force to go out and hunt the hicks.

There are a few problems with your thinking as well, starting with organization, doctrine, armaments, and obligation to duty.

(July 8, 2015 at 6:17 pm)KUSA Wrote: The hicks are the ones driving the tanks. They are more likely to blow up the people giving the orders than the civilian population.

I think you're reading the military mindset exactly wrong.

(July 8, 2015 at 8:29 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 6:17 pm)KUSA Wrote: The hicks are the ones driving the tanks. They are more likely to blow up the people giving the orders than the civilian population.

I think you're reading the military mindset exactly wrong.

Well I am a veteran so I know what the military mindset is like.

Did you serve in the military?

(July 8, 2015 at 10:39 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 8:29 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I think you're reading the military mindset exactly wrong.

Well I am a veteran so I know what the military mindset is like.

Did you serve in the military?

Yes, I did.  

I don't think your mindset bespeaks the military as a whole, and I don't think your lauding of your own view is borne out by the facts. Feel free to argue otherwise.  Be prepared to address the Bonus March, Kent State, and other instances where the American fighting man was fine with turning his barrel on his fellow citizens, and in the former instance, on his brother servicemen.

(July 8, 2015 at 10:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 10:39 pm)KUSA Wrote: Well I am a veteran so I know what the military mindset is like.

Did you serve in the military?

Yes, I did.  

I don't think your mindset bespeaks the military as a whole, and I don't think your lauding of your own view is borne out by the facts. Feel free to argue otherwise.  Be prepared to address the Bonus March, Kent State, and other instances where the American fighting man was fine with turning his barrel on his fellow citizens, and in the former instance, on his brother servicemen.

There will always be isolated incidents but the general mindset is not to turn the barrel on fellow citizens. I've had this conversation many times over the years with many friends in the service and the consensus is that they would turn on the ass hats giving the orders.

(July 9, 2015 at 12:15 am)KUSA Wrote: There will always be isolated incidents but the general mindset is not to turn the barrel on fellow citizens. I've had this conversation many times over the years with many friends in the service and the consensus is that they would turn on the ass hats giving the orders.

What a few of your pals might say in the military doesn't really mean jack diddly squat does it.

Personally I know of very few militaries in history and around the world which refused to open fire on their fellow citizens. Certain German units in the fall of 1918, certain Russian units at about the same time, Portugal in 1974. Certain Russian units in 1991. I would be hard pressed to find any more instances from the top of my head.

Usually the chain of command is stronger than the individual. And all the above examples are of times and countries where that chain already was broken.

(July 8, 2015 at 2:53 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Napoléon Wrote: That's what I don't get with it though. I'd back the trillions of dollars the US government pumps into its military against a bunch of hicks with a few guns. It ain't 1776 anymore you guys...

The problem with your thinking is that the military is made up of these same hicks. The size of the military pales in comparison to the civilian gun owners. Take away the ones that would not turn on their own and you have a small force to go out and hunt the hicks.

It depends on the group's methods. If a rebellion can be conducted peacefully without killing anyone, then I could see soldiers refusing to fire. That isn't likely to happen. In order to take over the government, the rebelling force is probably going to kill several people and, unless they have taken over the news somehow, the faces and families of those murdered individuals will be all over the place. Soldiers, like most citizens, will view the group as the enemy. That will probably change how the average soldier reacts to a rebellion. I could see soldiers firing on their fellow citizens once they view those people as traitors instead of Americans.

(July 9, 2015 at 7:24 am)Nope Wrote: I could see soldiers firing on their fellow citizens once they view those people as traitors instead of Americans.

As Parker said: What about Kent State? It wasn't even an armed rebellion, just a protest. But wasn't it the National Guard opening fire?

(July 9, 2015 at 7:47 am)abaris Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 7:24 am)Nope Wrote: I could see soldiers firing on their fellow citizens once they view those people as traitors instead of Americans.

As Parker said: What about Kent State? It wasn't even an armed rebellion, just a protest. But wasn't it the National Guard opening fire?

That is a good point.

I don't see why soldiers would be less susceptible than the general population to authority figures. Because of the Milgram Experiment we know that people will shock each other if someone in authority orders them.