Perhaps, but a lot of other Second Amendment supporters are concerned about the same "fantasy".
"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?"
I'm well aware of JAGS and what they do. My question is "what do the JAGS tell the troops about this specific situation."
"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?
Why would JAGS need to be gone??? And the Democrats in Congress most certainly believe they can pass laws requiring the seizure of civilian weapons, since D. Feinstein has just introduced legislation for a second and more extensive "assault weapons ban".
"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?
Yup.
"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?
Completely different situation. "IF" the progressive forces succeed in amending the Constitution according to the prodedures laid out in the Constitution itself, then guns are gone. The HONEST gun-grabbers admit that that is the only legitimate way to attack guns...not an end run around the Constitution via Congress.
"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.
As shown in paragraph above....not the same situation. But nice "bait and switch" debate tactic.
"Would that be a satisfactory resolution to your apocalyptic fantasies?"
No, because your bait and switch of topics won't fly.
But keep on dancin', you do it so well.
FWIW, I am researching the subject myself, and your position ain't lookin' so good. But it will take a few days to dig through all the information I am finding (search term:
"illegal order" military training programs
and time limited to 2017)
But there's no "bait & switch" because I already told you your fantasy cannot happen, period, and cited the enlistment oath to the constitution.
I then offered up an alternate scenario which might happen.
Wonder Warthog: "My question is 'what do the JAGS tell the troops about this specific situation.' "
The simple answer, which should be obvious to you, is: they don't need to tell the troops anything, if they do their jobs and advise commanders against issuing unconstitutional orders.
Only extreme corruption up & down the chain of command would ever put individual troops in the position of trying to decide if a certain order is, or is not, constitutional.
Wonder Warthog: "Completely different situation.
"IF" the progressive forces succeed in amending the Constitution according to the prodedures laid out in the Constitution itself, then guns are gone."
So have we now established that there are no circumstances under which ordinary military troops should ever be put in the position of trying to decide if certain orders are, or are not, constitutional?
Wonder Warthog: "FWIW, I am researching the subject myself, and your position ain't lookin' so good.
But it will take a few days to dig through all the information I am finding..."
So now, having long & loudly complained that I keep "tap dancing" around an answer (i.e., your posts #226 & 232), you finally claim to know my "position" and you assure me now it "ain't lookin' so good"??
So tell us all, sir, what "position" is that, and why is it not "lookin' so good"?