• 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
clownboy said:
No, your original assertion was:
Click to expand...

Dude, one can be legally ordered to fire on a civilian, if that civ is engaging. It doesn't matter Martial law or otherwise.
 
It would depend on the issue and it would depend on how invested I was in the job of being a soldier.
If being a soldier was my career and I was in some kind of special unit that was paid a good amount, I would be more likely to follow orders. If it was a random militia shooting and killing people in the name of going against a tyrannical government with very little cause, I would most likely follow my orders.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's the other angle.

I'm not going to confuse rules of engagement just because someone wants to cry 'Martial law!'
 
ecofarm said:
Dude, one can be legally ordered to fire on a civilian, if that civ is engaging. It doesn't matter Martial law or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I don't even have to be a soldier for that one. As a civilian I carry a gun all the time, and should something happen I'm not going to call my Team Leader to ask for permission to open fire.
 
Jerry said:
I don't even have to be a soldier for that one. As a civilian I carry a gun all the time, and should something happen I'm not going to call my Team Leader to ask for permission to open fire.
Click to expand...

I dunno how he got confused, unless he was hoping that he could construe Martial Law as "open season".


ecofarm said:
Firing on civs is not a lawful order.
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I don't want even think about the possibility; and that's all I have to say on the subject.
 
I would shoot a fellow American, only in the case that he/she was trying to kill me, someone I love or care for, or commit violence against an innocent bystander. Ordered to do so? No way in hell.
 
I wouldn't shoot anybody unless I needed to... Doesn't matter if they are American or not. I always hate it when a crisis hits and the news says, "Flight 634 went down killing all 322 people, including 8 Americans". Who gives a **** if they are Americans or not? I think that many Americans fail to realize that there are literally millions of Americans out there that are total assholes, lunatics, sociopaths, criminals, rapists, lawyers, murderers, etc.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that many Americans fail to realize that there are literally millions of Americans out there that are total assholes, lunatics, sociopaths, criminals, rapists, lawyers, murderers, etc.
Click to expand...
:lamo

I almost didn't catch that.
 
lizzie said:
same here. I thought it was pretty funny the way he just slipped it in. :lol:
Click to expand...

I have to keep you people on your toes... ;)

Going through a Court Case right now and lawyers are bugging me...
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have to keep you people on your toes... ;)

Going through a Court Case right now and lawyers are bugging me...
Click to expand...

Believe me. I have no great love for lawyers, having dealt with a few of them myself. Except for Turtledude, of course. :lol:
 
ecofarm said:
Dude, one can be legally ordered to fire on a civilian, if that civ is engaging. It doesn't matter Martial law or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Was that hard? Of course it's in direct conflict with your original assertion. But thank you anyway.

But again we're talking about American civilians here on American soil (refer to the OP question). For the situation to occur where a civilian is engaging the US military on US soil and the military being given orders to fire, generally speaking, we're talking about a martial law situation.

Again, Posse Comitatus.
 
Whoever is shooting at me, I will shoot at them if at all possible. That goes for Americans and otherwise, as a civ or not. Nonetheless, rules of engagement do not permit "shoot on sight" for curfews.
 
lizzie said:
Believe me. I have no great love for lawyers, having dealt with a few of them myself. Except for Turtledude, of course. :lol:
Click to expand...

I really could have put in insurance agents just as easily...
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

One man's tyranny is another man's sensible governance.

If I were a military man, I would either obey my orders or defect. There is no honorable middle ground.
 
Shooting Americans should be a sport... seriously, the less Americans there are the better.
 
I think this is one of those questions that only has legs on the internet. What is this tyrannical government of which you speak? Some bombastic ranters throw that word around like pork rinds at a fat bot farm right now.

I was a soldier
I was in the Infantry
I was trained to put 'feelings' aside to accomplish the Mission
Buddies fall screaming
But the Mission remains

Now orders can be verified, circumstances change without 'Higher' knowing of the change
But training is training, a soldier can easily see civilians as no threat, not armed, not destroying sensitive Government property and STILL fire on them.

Good example is if a group of protesters is seen as un-American, treasonous, somehow privileged by the soldiers...

May 4, 1970- 4 dead in Ohio. Guardsmen fired almost 70 rounds in less than 15 seconds.
two things seem to stand out, either the NGs are extremely bad shots, or many of them missed on purpose but did OBEY the order to fire (perhaps obeyed training and fired when others did but to the same purpose)

That unarmed civilians protesting in what by then was pretty much boilerplate civic protest would face armed troops and be fired on.

I personally believe if there was a revolt against a 'tyrannical' government it won't be by those who were never soldiers but rather by large portions of the Military fed-up with the actions of the Government. The never beens would probably follow along... :peace
 
I’m a soldier. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. If our government truly turned tyrannical I would be on the side of the rebels. But even on a smaller scale, the only thing that would make me shoot my fellow Americans is if they were trying to kill their fellow Americans. For example, if martial law were declared and there were Tea Partiers or OWSers practicing civil disobedience, and I were ordered to open fire on them (which I can’t imagine receiving such an order) I would refuse to obey the order. If they were trying to kill people, that would be a different story.
 
Wake said:
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
Click to expand...

I feel that most people in the military would probably be part of the revolution if the government became tyrannical.
 
Wake said:
Even if the government becomes a genocidal dictatorship? Perhaps you supported dictatorships throughout history?
Click to expand...

A genocidal dictatorship!?!?!?!?!?

Is this the sort of fear which motivates so much of the far right? They live from day to day thinking that somehow someway they will fall through some wormhole time portal and come out on the other side of reality?
 
notquiteright said:
Guardsmen fired almost 70 rounds in less than 15 seconds.
Click to expand...
First of all, thank you for noting the fact that the shooting was found to be unlawful and Civil cases brought against the Guardsman resulted in an unanimous verdict awarding the victims over half a million dollars in 1970s money.

Secondly, thank you for noting that a Gallup Poll taken immediately after the shootings showed that 58 percent of respondents blamed the students, 11 percent blamed the National Guard and 31 percent expressed no opinion.

Thirdly, thank you for offering the proper background and context showing how this protest was part of a growing trend in the country of peaceful protests which quickly turned violent. There was a history of students all over America quickly escalating out of control and protest turning into riot. This doesn't excuse the shooting, but it does help one understand why a trained solder might fear for his life while guarding a protest. Context is everything.

Finally, I can about match that rate of fire right now, on my own, with my privately owned semi-auto pistol. I can more than double that all by myself with my M249. Frankly, as a guardsman I'm embarrassed that a group of soldiers could fire 70 rounds and only kill 4 people. That's piss-poor marksmanship. If you want to kill 4 people then you set the selector to semi and fire 4 single aimed shots.

Point is, that's not a big number at all, but you folks keep citing it like it's a lot. It's really not, and you sound like an infomercial saying something like "space-aged technology" when you say it.

The shooting was not ordered, or later condoned by the Guardsman's chain of command. This was not state sponsored killing of unarmed civilians. For you to insinuate that it was, and conveniently leave out critical facts, is just silliness. Please act in a way that helps other take you seriously.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom