Replies

RE: "He would need more than officers who would order their men to fire on citizens. He would need soldiers willing to carry out those orders."

I remember when this was a hot topic on the emerging modern talk radio.

Twewntynine Palms survey of Marines, 1994

Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."
The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the Statement.
According to the results given in Cunningham's thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question.
Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens."
Of that total, 18.67 percent, or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent, or 23 Marines, indicated that they "strongly agree."
A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing at citizens.
Of the total, 42.33 percent, or 127, indicated they "strongly disagree" and 19.33 percent, or 58, indicated they "disagree."
In his thesis, Cunningham noted: "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on their response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission,"
However, it becomes clear that a poll would be useful in determining which soldiers, and in this case Marines, would be willing to undertake such a mission, to fire upon U.S. citizens."

This type of civil disobedience rarely happens in the USA. The Kent State event in 1970 is the most recent I believe. There was another one in 1963 when hundreds of thousands marched on Washington, D.C. in MLK's Freedom March. It was not publicized but those of us serving in the Military District of Washington (MDW) underwent a couple weeks of riot control training. At the time, I was HQ Company supply clerk in The Old Guard at Ft. Myer in ANC and we all went through the training with fixed bayonets and gas masks. To make a long story short, on the morning of the "March" all the armorers and supply clerks issued weapons and gear to the troops. NCOs were issued ammo and we all loaded into deuce and half trucks strung with chicken wire to protect us against thrown objects and awaited the order to move out. As I sat nervously in that truck, the colonel commanding the battalion of about 700 walked down the line of trucks telling us to remember our training and follow orders. He then said grimly: "men, you may have to kill some Americans today". He then moved on to the next truck.

In my truck we wondered how 700 grunts were going to control hundreds of thousands of angry Americans but there was no doubt among us that we would FOLLOW ORDERS. That's what soldiers did then and that's what soldiers always do.

Thankfully it all turned out peacefully and we went back to our normal duty of burying dead warriors with honor.

According to the results given in Cunningham’s thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question.

Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to “fire upon U.S. citizens.”

Of that total, 18.67 percent, or 56 Marines, indicated they “agree” with the statement, and 7.67 percent, or 23 Marines, indicated that they “strongly agree.”

These Marines have to remember that there are generations of veterans who were trained on the same weapons they’re using and those veterans are equally adept at marksmanship to this day.

If They start a battle they’re going to get a rude awakening.