• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you shoot your fellow Americans?

Would you shoot your fellow Americans?


  • Total voters
    31
First of all, this is not without precedent. Look up Kent State, assuming you think the National Guard is the same as an American soldier, which, of course, it is. And it's not as far-fetched as people might think. In the case of massive riots, I could well picture the National Guard being called in -- even the Army being called in -- if civil unrest got really, really bad.

I would hope that American soldiers would obey orders to quell violence in a big city, as an example. Or, a massive organized assault on the White House, as another. If they had to shoot their guns to quell it? So be it.

To think that American soldiers would never fire on American citizens is kind of silly. If the need arises, they would and should.

The rather scarey thing about it is that I'm not entirely confident that our soldiers would be told the truth.

What about fighting against an increasingly tyrannical government, God forbid? If it were alright to shoot them, then those thinking it would be alright would be the enemies of American patriotism.
 
What about fighting against an increasingly tyrannical government, God forbid? If it were alright to shoot them, then those thinking it would be alright would be the enemies of American patriotism.

If the military ever turned against the American people, there would have to be such a vast conspiracy as we could never imagine it. And we would see red flag after red flag after red flag. Their oath is to defend the Constitution of the United States. I can't imagine how the military could manipulate men not to do that and to actually subvert it.

There were rumors when Nixon was in office that he didn't intend to leave the White House -- that he was going to use the military to keep himself there. There were other rumors that the top brass in the military had secret meetings to develop a contingency plan in case that happened. (But that discussion belongs in the conspiracy forum. Ha!)
 
Martial law does not mean all civilians are fair game to be shot. No, I never heard of the Civil War.

No one said it was. However, if the command gives the order to shoot on sight anyone out after curfew, it is indeed a legal order (under Martial Law).
 
No one said it was. However, if the command gives the order to shoot on sight anyone out after curfew, it is indeed a legal order (under Martial Law).

Not really. I'd question it to higher. It sounds ridiculous. The Lt. can hold the post until I get back with chain of command's answer. A good friend from another company was sent to Hurricane Andrew security. They were not told anything of the sort.
 
If the government is in the wrong, the people should be able to revolt. That, iirc, was one of the reasons for the 2nd Ammendment. Assuming I were a soldier in that sort of situation, I wouldn't shoot against Americans who were trying to escape out from under the yoke of tyranny. (IF it ever happened)
 
citizens of America have free speech and can vote, so a revolution or civil war is unnecessary.
 
Not really. I'd question it to higher. It sounds ridiculous. The Lt. can hold the post until I get back with chain of command's answer. A good friend from another company was sent to Hurricane Andrew security. They were not told anything of the sort.

What you say has nothing to do with the legality of the order. All you did was to confirm the order. The order to shoot to kill is perfectly legal under martial law. Doesn't make it right, or even the goto move for command. But legal, yes.
 
What you say has nothing to do with the legality of the order. All you did was to confirm the order. The order to shoot to kill is perfectly legal under martial law. Doesn't make it right, or even the goto move for command. But legal, yes.

Depends on the threat. An order to shoot must consider context and be legal therein. The unnecessary use of lethal force is not legal.
 
Depends on the threat. An order to shoot must consider context and be legal therein. The unnecessary use of lethal force is not legal.

Let's see, your original contention was that it was not a legal order under martial law (to shoot civilians). Just admit you got it wrong initially.

Again, for the US military to be involved, and not violate PC, federal martial law must be declared (in disasters we bend that rule). Typically though, when there's a state disaster, the state's executive declares martial law and the STATE national guard - operating in their capacity as state militia are the army on the ground. The thread topic supposed the US military.
 
Martial law or normal law doesn't matter. The unnecessary use of lethal force is not a legal order. Shooting on sight after curfew would be unnecessary use of lethal force, given the slightest resources and an objective.
 
Only if they were zombies.
 
If any buttwipes tried to use violence take over the elected government of the American people, they deserve what they get. And if that means being shot down like rabid gods in the streets - so be it.
 
Martial law or normal law doesn't matter. The unnecessary use of lethal force is not a legal order. Shooting on sight after curfew would be unnecessary use of lethal force, given the slightest resources and an objective.

You're wiggling around your original assertion again. Martial law does indeed matter, the issue was surrounding US MILITARY shooting civilians in a domestic setting. Under civilian law the US military may not operate (see Posse Comitatus).

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies in using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land.

As you see that only affects the Army and the AF. The Marines and Navy are bound to it by DOD directive.

You're just spitballing about the neccessity of the shoot if out after curfew order. Your original assertion was incorrect, why go to these lengths to dodge that?
 
I've met many people that need shooting. If I thought I could get away with it, our population would be about that of the early colonies.
:bomb:


((it's humor folks))
 
If any buttwipes tried to use violence take over the elected government of the American people, they deserve what they get. And if that means being shot down like rabid gods in the streets - so be it.

Even if the government becomes a genocidal dictatorship? Perhaps you supported dictatorships throughout history?
 
No one said it was. However, if the command gives the order to shoot on sight anyone out after curfew, it is indeed a legal order (under Martial Law).

After looking into this I have not faound anything about "shoot on sight" orders. Only indefinte detention in order 1021. Show some links with some evidence.
 
To answer the question from the OP, yes, I would. Of course it would depend upon the actual circumstances if I would follow such an order or not. If I caught someone trying to burn a food truck that was going to folks who were in desparate need, I'd probably shoot to wound, but wouldn't care that much if I was off a bit. However, if I was ordered to shoot anyone out after curfew, I'd probably let most folks get on their way home and risk being shot myself for doing it.
 
After looking into this I have not faound anything about "shoot on sight" orders. Only indefinte detention in order 1021. Show some links with some evidence.

We weren't talking about whether this has happened, but if it would be a legal order when under federal martial law.

But hey, what do you know, found one:

Martial law and San Francisco were no strangers - following the earthquake of 1906, the troops stationed in the Presidio were pressed into martial law service. Guards were posted throughout the city, and all dynamite was confiscated. The dynamite was used to destroy buildings in the path of fires, to prevent the fires from spreading. Troops were ordered to shoot looters.
 
This thread topic stems from the conversations gathered in the thread at the bottom of this post.

Basically it's about civillians taking up arms against the government should the government start becoming tyrannical.

Somewhere along the way in that thread, it was mentiond that the U.S. military could squash any sort of rebellion. Mow them down.

So I gots a question. If God forbid you're a soldier and you're ever ordered by your leaders to shoot fellow Americans, would you?

Likewise, if you were a soldier, or even if you're a civillians, if you were given that sort of order as a soldier, what would you do?

I'm asking this question 'cause I want to have some sense of security, knowing that our American soldiers won't be turned against us.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/138913-guns-revolution-not-real-real.html#post1061002943
I would follow Gunnery Protocol.
  • If they're shooting at me, yeah.
  • If they're a threat to a government asset such as an installation, or are rioting, then yeah.
  • If they're a threat to a government official or head of state, yeah.
The question is not "would I shoot", the question is "is the order lawful". In the above 3 example, an order to fire would be lawful and would snap-to and execute it.

On second thought, in those examples, I probably would not need an order, I would probably fire without being prompted due to General Order #1.
 
Last edited:
nah, I wouldn't should civilians...even if ordered to.

soldiers, government functionaries, bureaucrats, and politicians are fair game during a revolution, though.
 
We weren't talking about whether this has happened, but if it would be a legal order when under federal martial law.

But hey, what do you know, found one:

I saw that one too... it doesn't talk about shoot on sight though... it talks about shooting people breaking the law.
 
Your original assertion was incorrect, why go to these lengths to dodge that?

My original assertion is that Martial Law does not fundamentally effect the rules of engagement.
 
My original assertion is that Martial Law does not fundamentally effect the rules of engagement.

No, your original assertion was:

Marial law does not render firing on a civilian a legal order. If someone is trying to shoot me, no one needs to tell me to engage.
 
My original assertion is that Martial Law does not fundamentally effect the rules of engagement.
There are no rules of engagement regarding civilians. You have to be an enemy combatant or enemy solder for the rules of engagement to apply.
 
Understandable. I'm meaning if there was ever a revolution/rebellion against an increasingly tyrannical government. If it were something like American terrorists attacking government buildings/whatever, it'd make sense for troops to combat them.

still depends on whos opinion its based on?

do I agree the government has gone crazy and is tyrannical then yes I very well may protect myself and take arms against the problem.

do i think the government is fine and the people trying to take it over are crazy? then yes i will protect me and my family and may take arms against the problem
 
Back
Top Bottom