Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Marine Sgt. on Civil War

Not sure if this was posted before, but here is an interesting blog from a marine on taking sides in a potential civil war. My only issue is that who decides when and how the constitution has been violated? What constitutes a violation: canceled elections, ignoring a SCOTUS decision, what? His problem is that he doesn't define why the civilians have rebelled. Thoughts?

"But this government of ours is a democracy. We vote for our representatives, and they vote in our interests. Sometimes, the votes don't go our way. That's life, better luck next time. Exhaust your legislative options, and then focus on gaining the required votes and/or seats to achieve your desired legislative vote next election time. That's the way things work.

But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you've usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM."

http://christopher-calbat.newsvine....stop-and-think?pc=25&sp=0#discussion

>His problem is that he doesn't define why the civilians have rebelled. Thoughts?

It doesn't matter why. He's telling the birthers, the secessionists, the tea partiers, etc., that if their rhetoric becomes violence they'll face the marines, etc.

In my opinion, the rest of us will face the loss of the 2nd amendment.

Quote: "it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me

I don't know who this guy thinks is thinking of overthrowing the government, but it ain't most of us.

What this does mean is that the military mostly will blindly follow orders. Note that he mentioned being deployed in combat in the states.

this almost certainly goes for the police, too.

Kind of sounds just like the Nazis crud spoken at rails.:Just following orders"

Just to bad, quess he thinks all Military will follow his thinking.

Pray it never comes to any more than hot air

I do not believe for a minute he speaks for the majority of rank & file military.

More of the mil will follow this thinking than not. It would not be the first time the US military has been used to quell civillian dissent (even peaceful). See the US Army vs former servicemen after WWI during great depression. That was peaceful march, also nat'l guard being used to quell union supporters during same century.

Not something I'd bet they would never do again.

the various arms of the military are always going to follow orders. that's where their pay, rank, pensions, and health care comes from. they have a self-interest to uphold.

when the soviet union crashed and burnt, what did the military choose to do???

The good sargent bases his blog on some sort of revolution springing up, rather then the citizens reacting to some overt central government outrage. Think Ruby Ridge.

Jim

I'd suggest that he and you read the Posse Comitatus Act, passed a hundred and fifty years ago.

Maybe he's already read about the whiskey rebellion.

Mako, ya better read up on it yourself, I believe it has been pretnear gutted.

Yep.

Great point, the Rebellion where the Fed demonstrated they would violate their own law to put down conflict. The end result was a couple dozen arrests, and all were acquitted.

Even the early federal governmenr realized the importance of centralized power.

While the act appears to prohibit active participation in law enforcement by the military, the reality in application has become quite different. The act is a statutory creation, not a constitutional prohibition. Accordingly, the act can and has been repeatedly circumvented by subsequent legislation. Since 1980, Congress and the president have significantly eroded the prohibitions of the act in order to meet a variety of law enforcement challenges.

One of the most controversial uses of the military during the past 20 years has been to involve the Navy and Air Force in the �war on drugs.� Recognizing the inability of civilian law enforcement agencies to interdict the smuggling of drugs into the United States by air and sea, the Reagan Administration directed the Department of Defense to use naval and air assets to reach out beyond the borders of the United States to preempt drug smuggling. This use of the military in antidrug law enforcement was approved by Congress in 10 U.S.C., sections 371�381. This same legislation permitted the use of military forces in other traditionally civilian areas�immigration control and tariff enforcement.

For a sergeant he doesn't know much about the constitution. We are not a democracy, he gets it wrong from the start.

You continue to amaze me (rhetorical statement) with just how brain washed you are by your democrap buddies. Equating the kook element with the Tea Party movement is right out of the leftist playbook. As to the Second Amendment, you voted for a man who doesn't believe in it and who appointed an Attorney General that's even worse. The scary part about all this is that you'll probably vote in the next election...jorge

The armed rebellion created America. Most developing countries have a political rebellion which for us was the Revolutionary War and a social rebellion the Civil War.

The next rebellion will combine the two previous rebellions.

Doc

That is quite astute.

Why would you associate birthers or Tea Party folk as this guys foe? I have yet to hear anyone associated with the TM movement advocate civil war. I think you are watching too much MSNBC.

The government is already ramping up for there own security. They have started talking about protection for all of them like the president has, do you think that they are already planning on the up riseing. There not stupped after all they have buffaloed there way threw this far, it may be only a matter of time before they increase the pressure on us. May be before the November vote. I also might be looking at to much of the bad side of things too and I do hope I am wrong.