• 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
Jerry-
First thank you for pointing out how NONE of the NGs were convicted of any crime. The civil action, which included an appeal ruling awarded what the State of Ohio called the cost of going to trail, the State also issued an apology and in a written statement did admit it appears the NGs were not being threatened and the shooting never should have happened.

Second thanks for pointing out few if any citizens at large had much information on what happened at Kent State, no CNN back in the day.

Good of you to note this re-enforces my previous comment that if the UN-armed civilians are considered unpatriotic or malcontents by the public at large the protesters would be blamed for supposedly trained troops skipping from marching abreast to clear a campus to shooting into a crowd of UN-armed citizens.

Good of you to point out there is a vast difference between violence and deadly confrontations and when I did time in the NG we were taught many ways to confront violent but UN-armed civilians shy of shooting willy nilly into the crowd.

Third thanks for pointing out the students were protesting President Nixon's expanding the SE Asian war into Cambodia instead of the promised drawdown. Good as well of you to point out the Kent State campus was violence free during the multiday protests, there was rioting in the nearby town that turned violent- but not deadly, and not on the campus.

Excellent of you to point out there are pictures of NGs and students laughing and talking prior to the unit recieved orders to clear the protesters.

Good too to mention the NG unit was a 'protected' unit men could join to avoid going to the SE Asian games where the USofA placed second after a decade of competition.

Good of you to point out the NGs didn't use personally owned pistols or GPMGs but M1 garands. NO MAN expended his the entire 8 round enbloc clip so many men fired and in a volley as apposed to a running fire fight. My point wasn't 70 rounds was a massive firestorm, but rather many of the NGs fired and they did it in a runny volley.

(as an aside, if you used your pistol to fire 70 rounds in 13 seconds your hit ratio would be the same and a real feat of shooting, you must be quite the pistolero over 5 13 round mags in 13 seconds, you da man!)

It is ASS-u-ming the NGs were marksmen with WWII/Korean vintage rifles, just as likely many didn't aim at anyone.

You play pretty loose with 'facts'. I was a grunt back in the day. We were trained that in combat you most likely won't hear the command to fire so when everyone else fires you do too. While the NGs and state officials claim no orders were given to use deadly force, deadly force is always permitted under the 'fear for life' part of any general orders to units committed to civil unrest deployments.

It isn't so much that no in the rear with the gear Officer did or didn't order the troops to fire but as many civilians claim, someone in green at the confrontation did.

Also good of you to see my main point is there are circumstances where troops will fire on UN-armed civilians, instead of butt stroking those 'damn hippy' treasonous scumbags... :roll:

From the war protests of my salad days to Katrina, soldiers will violate the Constitution, as many 'patriots' see it when it suits them.
 
notquiteright said:
Jerry-
First thank you for pointing out how NONE of the NGs were convicted of any crime.
Click to expand...
Servicemen have a degree of immunity when it comes to criminal charges. You would know that if you knew anything at all about what you're talking about.

I'm not reading the rest of your post, you have nothing intelligent to say on this topic.
 
More tap dancing... a degree isn't blanket immunity. I know that because I was both Regular and NG. The state and Guard did alot of ass covering but in the end did admit the shooting was unwarranted.

I trained for civil disturbance, as it was called back then, there are many steps in the force escalation between a skirmisher line and firing on UN-armed civilians.

But wiggle all you want, the main thrust is soldiers WILL and HAVE fired on UN-armed civilians with little provocation.

Soldiers will violate the Constitution and round-up privately and legally owned weapons.
 
Eighty Americans are shot to death every day by other Americans, another 250-ish are wounded. What was the questioner thinking?
 
notquiteright said:
Soldiers will violate the Constitution and round-up privately and legally owned weapons.
Click to expand...
I'm here to tell you: No, I won't. I will refuse that order, and I won't be alone, either.
 
I'd shoot anyone who threatened my liberty.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Eighty Americans are shot to death every day by other Americans, another 250-ish are wounded. What was the questioner thinking?
Click to expand...

Finally someone answering my question. The thread did not say war. It said shooting other Americans. In todays society that does not necessarily mean armed struggle. Some will say my post is not pertinent but I beg to differ.
 
Dooble said:
I'd shoot anyone who threatened my liberty.
Click to expand...

Define YOUR LIBERTY please? And does this liberty only extend to you? What if what you were doing as part of what you saw as your liberty was in fact infringing on anothers? What then?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Eighty Americans are shot to death every day by other Americans, another 250-ish are wounded. What was the questioner thinking?
Click to expand...

He was referring to shooting Americans at the request of a superior, not criminals shooting other peeps, or innocents defending themselves.
 
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...

That is a self contradictory statement as the question of why involves whether or not they are engaging in terroristic or illegal action. If they are shooting at the military, government officials, cops etc because the don't like government policy? I'd blow their asses away real quick and pro-actively - and wouldn't need be in the military to do it.
 
If they were about to harm me or anyone or anything I care about, then i wouldn't hesitate to light up anyone.
 
I will just say this.

In 1989, when the communist governments were collapsing all over eastern Europe, numerous dictators appealed to the military for support. The army along and protected the institutions. Some of them ordered the army to fire on the population, and it happened. Even in my own country of Romania, numerous people had been killed by the military because they were ordered to do so. Eventually, the dictators lost the support of the army too... but not before bloodbaths have happened.

That being said.

Americans and all of us living in the free world. When we even BEGIN to consider EVER having to stand up against the military because they are standing against us to protect the government, we have LOST our freedoms. We are already on the way to an autocratic regime. Halfway there I might add.

The military is NEVER meant to take action, or even consider, taking action against the people. Never. The moment such things are considered there is a the dictatorship rising. The police, or law enforcement agency, is the only one who has suppression prerogatives over the population. NEVER the army. The army is an institutions who is made STRICTLY for EXTERNAL enemies not internal turmoil.
 
For our history nerds:

"Reichswehr schießt nicht auf Reichswehr!"

("Reichswehr doesn't shoot on Reichswehr!")

:D
 
Given the proper circumstances, there's exactly one person I would not shoot.
 
Higgins86 said:
what a horrible topic...
Click to expand...

It's not a horrible topic. It's an issue that should be discussed, so that we get more of an understanding of what people might do should any kind of situation like this happen.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...
People need to understand a few things here. If there were a mass armed insurrection in the U.S. it would be a serious situation and something we've never seen, not even the civil war in this modern day would be as charged. Some officers are political and would have no problem giving the order to fire on civilian populaces, many subordinates however would obey or defect(in theory).

Any civilians who took part in the insurrection would have to understand they are doing so at the risks of both life and what freedom is left, their property also could be forfeit so it is a commitment requiring full sacrifice, this is why insurrection isn't likely anytime soon in our current climate and would depend on the perception that all other options have been stripped. Military support of the government is a 50/50, as MaggieD pointed out, it would all depend on what information they were given which could be anything from the full story to something pro government.

Finally, this would be a bloody thing, which is why no one really wants it to happen. However Jefferson himself warned about the nature of the fight between liberty and tyranny and just how quickly tyranny can happen.
 
ecofarm said:
Firing on civs is not a lawful order.
Click to expand...

What this boils down to is that soldiers swear an oath to the constitution and not so much the president or the chain of command. Unlawful orders are prosecuted. Suspending the values of the constitution suspends the oath and invalidates the president's authority. Now, I don't think people should bust a move with Orly Taitz; however, being told to fire on civilians is in violation of a soldier's oath and I hope that I'd turn my weapon on the issuer of the order and take them into custody.

Americans shoot Americans all the time, has anyone seen the gun stats for the US? The OP question, or what it was warped into, is not so much about law but insane-levels of nationalism. The questions:

1) "If an American terrorist was shooting people, would you shoot him, or not - because he's American".
That's a stupid question.

2) "If you were a soldier and an American was shooting at you, would you return fire".
Stupid question.

3) "If you were a soldier and told to fire on harmless civilians (who are Americans), would you?"
Loaded:
A) It presumes such is within the scope of a soldier's oath.
B) It presumes that a murderer might refuse to kill a fellow American. And that's a stupid question.
 
What's also interesting is that judging by the current poll results neither political side really seems to have a monpoloy on any choice. Both left and right-leaning members have opted that they wouldn't shoot their fellow Americans.
 
Higgins86 said:
what a horrible topic...
Click to expand...
I agree, but it's a minute possibility. As long as there is any chance of it the topic is important, though uncomfortable.
 
Surtr said:
Why would we do that? Such a task is for little people, like cops and feds.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, a police chief and mayor of a major metropolitan area(L.A. iirc) postured a total ban on handguns and police collection. Almost unanimously the lower ranking officers said to paraphrase "If they want them that bad they can get them for themselves, we aren't getting our asses shot off for that".
 
wolfman24 said:
Define YOUR LIBERTY please?
Click to expand...
Certainly. We can use the following example:

Let's say President Obama declares the U.S. Constitution ineffective, and pronounces himself King. We'll assume that 90% of the Democrats support this move, and approximately 60 - 70% of our national government also supports it, as long as they don't lose any power or influence during the transition. Then let's say our supreme leader freezes all assets of non-elites and government officials and redistributes all of it among the kingdom's future peasant-residents (sans all fire arms of course, as those would be confiscated by our newly reformed law enforcement officials). I suspect it would be during this great private weapons round up, that I would begin to open fire.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Interestingly, a police chief and mayor of a major metropolitan area(L.A. iirc) postured a total ban on handguns and police collection. Almost unanimously the lower ranking officers said to paraphrase "If they want them that bad they can get them for themselves, we aren't getting our asses shot off for that".
Click to expand...

I'm surprised they didn't call the ATF. Those people love to leave a path of death and fail behind them.
 
Surtr said:
I'm surprised they didn't call the ATF. Those people love to leave a path of death and fail behind them.
Click to expand...
That's no lie. Sad thing is a couple of friends of mine have had conversations with a few field agents, they are actually not bad people. The upper ranks of the ATF are complete incompetents who are severely anti-gun though, and unfortunately they're the ones issuing orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom