We all end up with our own point of view on issues. It is in fact the backbone of this entire site as we strive to put across our opinions on various
topics up for discussion.
Sometimes I like to step back and examine my own perceptions. Occasionally I can't do so in isolation, that is, I need other peoples views, views
that have more actual experience than I do. This is my purpose in creating this thread.
Over the past months various threads have commented on what the US Military would do if the were ordered to, for example only, confiscate civilian
weapons in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
In my view, the Regular Army would never accept such orders. There would be more than enough Officers and Men that would simply say NO!
I often come across posts such as the one here www.abovetopsecret.com...
They not only will, they already have. Patton and MacArthur attacked military veterans during the great depression and need I remind you of Kent
state? How about the Whiskey Rebellion? Let us also remember the war of Lincoln's aggression.
So, to my perceptions.
There is a vast difference between Regular and Reserve Troops. As far as I am aware, and please correct me if I am wrong, but the above atrocities
were carried out by National Guard troops not Regular Army!
I can never imagine, Marines, Seals, The Big Red 1 or the 82nd Airborne acting against their own citizens. Never going to happen.
Looking to some of the negative stuff from Iraqi and other places such as the disgusting photos of troops dehumanizing captives, that was all done by
Reserve troops. The U-Tube vids of shooting civilians, of whooping and cheering when enemy get blown away, are reserve troops.
Two hours a week, one weekend a month and two weeks a year does not a soldier make, not one that understands service at a conceptual level.
I think we all need to look at the fundamental differences between Regular / Reserve Troops and consider them as separate elements.
edit on 2/4/2014 by pheonix358 because: filled in