Now you're just lying about my response.
You clearly believe recruits get some form of legal training, and you wish me to post just exactly what that is, right?
And you are labeling anything short of that as "doctrinaire" or "tap-dancing" or you'll just lie about it as being "completely UN-trained".
And your reason for making such a ludicrous fuss over this is what, exactly?
Consider, here is the military oath of office:
Wasn't referring to your response. The military trains for EVERYTHING. There must exist some training covering legal and illegal orders and some indication of how to distinguish cases.
"You clearly believe recruits get some form of legal training, and you wish me to post just exactly what that is, right?"
Wrong. I "do" believe that recruits get some form of training on the topic. Whether you post it or not is irrelevant.
"And you are labeling anything short of that as "doctrinaire" or "tap-dancing" or you'll just lie about it as being "completely UN-trained".
"I" didn't label anything "doctrinaire". But the logical result of your assertions "is" that soldiers "are" completely un-trained on the topic of legal vs. illegal orders.
"And your reason for making such a ludicrous fuss over this is what, exactly?"
I am concerned about what the military might do in the face of the specific violation of the Constitution of an order to seize civilian arms.
You can blow it off as a fantasy. I don't consider it to be so impossible. Your last comment was basically "I don't wanna think about it".
"I [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]"
I'm well aware of the oath of enlistment. Now, how are those words reduced to practical military doctrine, and what is the training covering an incident of same.
Your comment of trying to end things with the oath "is" tap dancing (or doctrinaire, to use papertyger's terms).