Originally posted by burncycle
View Post
It was my understanding that according to the US Constitution, the standing army (US Army) could not be used for Domestic Law Enforcement purposes. This dates back to the founders not wanting a standing army and was reinforced following the end of the Civil War. Martial Law has to be instituted in order for the US Army (the standing army) to be allowed on US soil to act as a governing force. This is also why in the event of emergencies, it is the National Guard (technically state militia) that is brought in, not the US Army. It would take a massive political move in order to bring the US Army into play.
On top of this, the order has been given before in US history. During the Vietnam War, roughly 10,000 protestors marched on Fort Dix and proceeded to in essence invade the installation. At the time, Fort Dix was serving as a final "field" training for soldiers before deployment to Vietnam. These were young men who had just come from basic training. For those that don't know, there is more than just physical training that goes on during a basic training. The mental aspect is one that is hard to describe but very deeply researched through out history. Having experienced the psychological experience first hand of US Army training, I can attest that they are very good at training soldiers to do as instructed and fight as needed. With this still fresh in their heads, these men were put in a situation unlike one many have faced. Before them lay an "assault" by US civilians. The order was passed down to repel the protestors and ammunition was passed around. It is a situation I don't imagine anyone would want to be faced with. Imagine being that young and having a violent crowd coming towards you and being ordered to defend your position. Having known an officer who served during this incident, the story goes that all the privates ignored the orders and refused to comply, some to the point of not manning their posts. This story has always stuck out in my mind as an example demonstrating exactly what XOR described above.
The bottom line is although this post may be flagged as mere politics, I have attempted to comment from a historical prospective as we were all once (at least supposed) to be taught to do in our history classes. If you recall your US History, these laws were made during a time when the future-American population experienced the effects of being stripped of their right to bear arms, had to quarter and house the British Army, and were effected by the presence of a standing army. If you go back and read such things as the Federalist papers and the debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, all the evidence you need is there. Since the adoption of this nation, the conflict has raged on. Although I am alarmed by recent events the fact that these debates still continue to this day makes it almost reassuring to know that we live in a nation where this is possible. This is given evidence why the Bill of Rights and Constitution were made so difficult to change for a reason. Although many Americans believe that it is in their best interest to give up the right to bear arms or to instead limit it, the constitutional amendment protects that. It is a demonstration of the strength of a democracy and why we are as fortunate as we are to live in a nation like this.
Leave a comment: