"Now you're just lying about my response." 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).
Wonder Warthog:
"You can blow it off as a fantasy.
I don't consider it to be so impossible." You've conjured up a fantasy, pure & simple, which you yourself have somewhat answered: " I 'do' believe that recruits get some form of training on the topic."
You might also remember that the military itself is already staffed with lawyers -- Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) -- who have studied for years the difference between lawful & unlawful orders.
But that's not good enough for you, right?
You wish to fantasize that the JAGs are gone, and the Democrat Congress passes laws authorizing or requiring the US military to confiscate civilian weapons, right?
So push has come to shove, and in your fantasy individual soldiers are forced to chose whether to obey the law or the Constitution, right?
But let me suggest to you, since this is all pure fantasy, we fantasize that Dems have not only passed laws, but also changed the Constitution, removing the second amendment.
What then, hmmmmmmm?
Well, nothing like that happens overnight, and your fantasy implies a complete collapse of conservative opposition to leftist insanities, which could only happen under the most extreme circumstances, which I cannot even imagine.
But the normal time period required to pass & ratify amendments exceeds usual military first enlistments, so you could well fantasize that true conservative soldiers are gone from the military by the time such orders as you imagine arrive.
Where would they be?
Well perhaps home working to convince their neighbors that conservatism is not as dead as the Left supposes, and with their help conservatives can roll back the tide of political history.
Would that be a satisfactory resolution to your apocalyptic fantasies?
