Defending the Nation

Discussion in 'General Firearms Forum' started by allenr, Dec 16, 2016.

  1. allenr

    allenr Member

    A friend and I had lunch today. He carries. We got into a discussion about whether an enemy would invade the USA. We agreed that even in the worst case scenario if our domestically based war fighters were overcome or isolated people like us would rise up.

    I decided to look for anything that might substantiate that opinion. I just went searching and I found this quote from Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who lived in the USA for years before he planned the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    He said: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

    I remember reading about other enemy leaders offering similar opinions. I going to look for them, and when I find them I will post them here.
  2. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    I read that in some individual states there are more people that carry or have guns that they way out number the total sum of our US army.

    I also heard that quote is not really what was said. This is one article I read.

    What bothers me is would a military man shoot a US citizen if ordered to. One navy man told me an order is an order. That sort of freaks me out. I think of how one man got many to drink poison and those that ran were shot.

    It would be very interesting to know what you find out.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2016

  3. Tommycourt

    Tommycourt Tommycourt

    Personally I think if we were ever invaded you would see the whole U.S come together like we did on 9-11. Some won't fight for religious or other reasons but I would venture to say that at least 75% of us old pharts and even the young millenniums would even pick up a rifle. We are a divided country right now, but if we were invaded, you would see people from all walks of life join up to fight-just like WWII. But we wouldn't fight like we did in Nam and Korea. We would fight a guerella style fight, house to house and neighbor with neighbor. The biggest fight would be at the grocery stores where people would loot or steal just to save themselves. That is the part that is disconcerting. I know that if the SHTF that every man and woman on this web site would grab up their arms and fight like hell!!!


    Jim has all the big guns we need and the rest of us would get behind him for covering fire!!!!
  4. spikedriver

    spikedriver Active Member

    ^^^ We wouldn't even have to shoot...Jim's hand held howitzers would scare 'em back to wherever they came from!
  5. allenr

    allenr Member

  6. phideaux

    phideaux Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Theres a lot like me...old . not very mobile,

    But I can still squeeze a trigger.;)

    and....sometimes I even hit what I point at.

  7. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporter

    When you join the United States Military and special branches of the take an OATH to defend this country from ALL enemies...Foreign and Domestic.

    I am an OATH Keeper...

    But I would not fire upon un-armed citizens who are morally and/or legally right to refuse a general order from the government that is betraying their rights and trust.

    Having said that...I will return fire if fired protect my life and the life of my family.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2016
  8. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporter

    Buster40 wrote:

    What bothers me is would a military man shoot a US citizen if ordered to. One navy man told me an order is an order. That sort of freaks me out.It would be very interesting to know what you find out.


    Text...Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 16

    “Any person subject to this chapter who—

    (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

    (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

    (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”


    (1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.

    (a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;

    (b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and

    (c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.

    (2) Failure to obey other lawful order.

    (a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;

    (b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;

    (c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and

    (d) That the accused failed to obey the order.

    (3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

    (a) That the accused had certain duties;

    (b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and

    (c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.


    (1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.

    (a) General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Transportation, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:

    (b) A general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer.

    (c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).

    (d) Knowledge. Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be alleged or proved, as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.

    (e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or regulations can be enforced under Article 92

    (1). Regulations which only supply general guide-lines or advice for conducting military functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).

    (i) an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction;

    (ii) a general or flag officer in command; or

    (iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).

    (2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.

    (a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1).

    It includes the violation of written regulations which are not general regulations. See also subparagraph (1)(e) above as applicable.

    (b) Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

    (c) Duty to obey order.

    (i) From a superior. A member of one armed force who is senior in rank to a member of another armed force is the superior of that member with authority to issue orders which that member has a duty to obey under the same circumstances as a commissioned officer of one armed force is the superior commissioned officer of a member of an-other armed force for the purposes of Articles 89, and 90. See paragraph 13c(1).

    (ii) From one not a superior. Failure to obey the lawful order of one not a superior is an offense under Article 92(2), provided the accused had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a sentinel or a member of the armed forces police. See paragraph 15b(2), if the order was issued by a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office.

    (3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

    (a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.

    (b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.

    (c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. I t refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.

    (d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.

    Lesser included offense.

    Article 80—attempts

    Maximum punishment.

    (1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

    (2) Violation of failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

    Note: For (1) and (2), above, the punishment set forth does not apply in the following cases: if in the absence of the order or regulation which was violated or not obeyed the accused would on the same facts be subject to conviction for another specific offense for which a lesser punishment is prescribed; or if the violation or failure to obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order. In these instances, the maximum punishment is that specifically prescribed else wherefor that particular offense.

    (3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

    (A) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.

    (B) Willful. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

    Above Information from Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 16
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2016
  9. allenr

    allenr Member

    Glad to see that the rules for general orders and regulations have not changed since I retired.

    Understanding any section of the UCMJ requires the same diligence as required to understand civilian laws

    For those who have not been exposed to the UCMJ terminology I point out that a General Order or a regulation is a written statement that applies to all serving.

    You might notice that any order that violates the Constitution is an unlawful order.

    Service members also get oral orders that are specific to a situation. So if I were ordered to take a team and work my way up the enemy's right flank it would be a lawful order.

    If I were ordered to shoot an unarmed person who shows no sign of being a threat it would be an unlawful order whether it was an American citizen or foreign national.

    If that person was armed it would be subject to threat analysis. Here's a comparison.

    In Nam it was uncommon for a noncombatant to have a weapon. If a person had a weapon but was not readily identifiable as a combatant one would tell them to disarm. If they did not they could be shot but that was a judgement call.

    As I understand it in Afghanistan and Iraq since so many people had guns and often carried them a similar rule applied, but non combatants were told not to approach our forces if armed. Fortunately I got to miss Iraq 1 by two years. Glad I did

    Maybe some on this forum served in one or both of those AO's and can clarify if I got it wrong.
  10. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    I guess it really doesn't matter if the quote was actually said by the Admiral because it actually would have been the reaction of the citizens. Men enlisted all over America to fight those that attacked us. In other words we took it from our blades of grass to theirs. And actually we didn't really take it to their blades of grass. Pearl Harbor was the then 9-11 to get us into the war with Hitler.
    I think Allen and others are right we have been in WWIII for some time now. But it seems nobody knows who is fighting for or against who. IMO it all should be referred to as the CHA CHING WAR because it is all about who can control the world purse strings for a one world government. Using the word government very loosely. Seems all the government really gets is used.

    Personally I believe those that could would fight for this nation but I really think we the people would be fighting a losing battle if we were to go against a domestic or foreign enemy provided by the powers that control the strings. Communications would be all but shut down to the public. No television, no cell phone function, no gas, no free travel on highways, food almost non existent, and patriotic forces would be first targets. Advanced military weaponry would make the average gun owner look unarmed.
    But then again my not having military training could be why I think we wouldn't have much of a chance. But I do understand he who has control over everything is the winner. I most definitely see the need for veterans experience and knowledge. Without it IMO the people will be done for at every corner.

    Our country right now is being calmly taken right out from under us. Go to Michigan, Dearborn or Detroit, if you don't believe that. And we the tax payers are being forced to even pay for it. Are the people even bitching about it? No they have been brainwashed to fight each other with racism while the foreigners take what was ours. Obama bringing in thousands of so called refugees and being cared for, paid for by our taxes, is not out of his humanity for them. IMO it is for the transformation of this country. Quietly this country will be defeated from within simply by installing very capable yet still puppets in the most powerful positions. This also is why I really wonder about Trump's proposed cabinet members.

    The last hurricane that caused the totally ignorant actions of gulf coast evacuations of all in the expected path of the hurricane was proof to me how quickly it could all hit the fan. People became no different than animals, gas was not available, the highways were jammed bumper to bumper for close to 150 miles. A few people were dying because they couldn't take the heat while sitting in their cars. The grocery stores were almost emptied out of non perishable foods. People that tried to take alternate routes were forced to turn around and go get in the traffic jams. People couldn't make it twenty miles in 8 hours. It really opened my eyes to what would happen if actually the SHTF instead of just an at most three day upheaval like what happened. It took over a week just to get things semi back to normal. Imagine if instead of three days it had lasted a month. People would have run out of money and many wouldn't even have had the means to get money to get back home.

    Like they say till you lived through it you can't even imagine what it would be like. Those of you veterans that have seen it first hand even don't like to talk about it. People want to say the Holocaust didn't even really happen. Well my uncle could still remember the stench of the burial pits. I know my uncle wouldn't have any reason to lie about that. He didn't even want to talk about it.

    Where will supplies come from for those trying to fight back? All I can say is the fight better be "ALL" at once for an over throw or the people will be screwed. Racism better be replaced with national patriotism or we will be done.
  11. allenr

    allenr Member

    Gosh Buster,

    I find myself agreeing with you for the most part, although not entirely.

    I agree that an armed citizenry could not sustain itself against a domestic or foreign force intent upon conquering the people. However, I see no realistic scenario of that happening. Our military members are not going to turn against the people. They could turn against the government if the pols repressed the people enough. Keep in mind that there is a substantial number of of officers and noncommittal who have to implement the orders from above. Without them on board there is no chance such repression could be made. And they would not get on board. More likely they would inspire their troops to oppose such an unlawful order. They actually believe in the oath they took.

    A foreign invader would have to have an invasion force of more than a million men to have any chance of success. But as they assembled those forces we would know it blow them away once the ships and plains headed our way.

    The more realistic SHTF scenario is what the military and local LEOs have been training for over the past two years. That training is aimed at combating assaults on urban areas. That training is preparation for combating organized violence. To date it had occurred only in regions where large numbers of illegal immigrants flood across the border and live. Read that as So. CA. They also train in cities that have large Muslim populations as in Detroit. But the military and police can handle those tasks.

    I think that the greater danger for citizens like you and I is the possibility of organized violence from protesting mobs, gangbangers, and other violent types who just love it.

    I live in an area that is not protected by local police force. The PA State Police cover my township. Response time is slow because they have few officers to due routine duties and respond to incidents.

    The area I live in has many small wineries and mushroom farmers. Therefore there are many migrant workers in the area. They have never posed any kind of a problem. I doubt that they ever will. But if they do, it would be a SHTF scenario if they did because the police are spread too thin.

    Why might they throw the S at the fan? How about if an order is given to deport them all. How about if their economics are further deteriorated be economic policies and regulations.

    They can't just pick up stakes and go home to their countries of origin. They are mostly established as families, and they can't just pick up and leave.

    Therein lies the latent explosiveness. A disgruntled group that feels oppressed. If citizens ever have to act as a militia it will be because there will be too many disgruntled for local law enforcement and the National Guard is not activated until the trouble is well underway. That is the norm in such situations.

    I live in a retirement community where all residents are older than 54. There are no kids or young people here. Because of age my community could be a target of any organized local group of violent people seeking spoils such as food and money or other assets.

    If such an assault occurred, it would take the State Police 15 minutes to respond with a couple cars and 2 officers they would call for assistance and then maybe another 6 officers might show up in ten minutes.

    Well my and others could be harmed, looted, etc in that time.

    So my neighbor, a retired Philadelphia Police Detective and I are in the process of identifying gun owners on our retirement community. We have identified 23 out of nearly 200 to date. I expect that number to grow because there are a good number of retired military and active hunters here. So will have the core of a small local militia in the case it is needed. Since we all use mobile phones our emergency alert system is text messaging.

    We won't be facing tanks, mortars and heavier weaponry. We will facing a mob. That has few if any guns. We would win.
  12. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    I know the scenario you are talking about is happening in Germany and some other countries right now. I just read that in Germany the citizens have finally got together to fight off the refugees that sought to take what is not theirs. The report said the police are not going against the citizens for fighting to keep what is theirs.

    That is what needs to happen in our country where Muslims and refugees have taken over. IMO The refugees need see a wave after wave of patriots take back what was theirs. There are places in Detroit that an American is tempting death just by going into the areas taken over by these not so peace loving Muslims.

    I hope your thoughts on what we might have to go against are the threat we have to face. But I really feel though that might be used partly in what's ahead I think what we will be facing could very well be many times more of a threat to this country and its way of living life.

    I live outside a very small town but yet on each of the three traffic lights are cameras. Years ago wires were run from Houston out my way and even farther to who knows where. Supposedly the cable was fiber optic phone lines. Interesting that now land lines in homes have almost become a thing of ancient history. Funny with those cables run we still don't have broadband phone internet service. HMMM Could those wires be connecting all those traffic light cameras? My point in this is that we just might have a very dangerous big brother watching every move should the cameras need to be turned on when/if SHTF happens.

    Isn't it interesting Obama and others have spoken that veterans might need to be considered mentally unstable and should not be permitted to have firearms? Obama supposedly has signed the UN small arms treaty and it goes before the Senate now for a vote on accepting the treaty. I really don't think our biggest threat will come from some P O local Muslim refugees. But I sure hope you are right.

    Why all the military equipment and many with UN markings being stockpiled here in the USA? Maybe they are just waiting for the need to arise for them to be shipped elsewhere in the world? So many things we don't know. Let's hope they are waiting to be shipped elsewhere. Is there any truth to tens of thousands of foreign troops being stationed here? Yeah I know I have to much time on my hands and should take on another hobby. Could be there are things I shouldn't see or hear about. There might not be a storm brewing but there sure are a lot of thick dark clouds showing up.

    Gotta luv the internet even if Hillary thinks it is all fake news. That's to funny. Almost as funny as Al Gores global warming and thinking we can save the planet by taxing farmers for their cow farts. You just can't write stories any better than what politicians can.
  13. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporter


    (c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).
  14. greg_r

    greg_r Well-Known Member

    I would not say that the military would not turn on the people. There are dozens of examples. Kent State, Blair Mountain, E.O.9066, Whiskey Rebellion, just to name a few.

    Armed citizenry also can sustain itself. Again that has been proven by history. The Baltic is a prime example. Even our own battle for independence shows that. Granted Uncle Jed dosent stand much of a chance, 30/30 against an Abrams, but in the whole, armed citizenry can make invaders think twice. The citizenry will need to organize though. I read a story from a survivor of the Baltics. He made it clear that groups survived, loners did not. He also made it clear that the number 1 commodity for barter was not food or weapons, but medicine.

    This is, I believe, the idea that our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the 2A. I think their comments bear this out.

    I agree that social problems would be the most likely, at least at this time. But there have been rumblings. Texas comes to mind.

    If the citizenry did need to protect our democracy, I think John Adams had it about right in his writings when he said 1/3 of the people would fight, 1/3 of the people would be for the "king" and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone. Of course John Adams writing was not about the American Revolution, the writings happened in 1815 about some other country, whose name escapes me now. Our revolution I think had numbers of about 40% Patriots -20% Tories - 40% Neutral, neutrality mostly decided by whose army was closest I think.
  15. allenr

    allenr Member


    I agree with some of your conclusions but not your examples. They simply do not support your position.

    The Whiskey Rebellion was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791 (before the Constitution) during the presidency of George Washington. The so-called "whiskey tax" was the first tax imposed on a domestic product by the newly formed federal government. It became law in 1791 and was intended to generate revenues to pay off the Revolutionary War debt.

    Protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax.

    Washington dispatched elements of state militias to quell the rebellion.

    No one was killed or wounded. No order to fire on protesters was given.

    The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and one of the largest, best-organized, and most well-armed uprisings since the American Civil War. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders, who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired, and the United States Army intervened by presidential presidential order. The incident was, as in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion a response to violence by the government not an attempt to subdue the people.

    Kent State was a travesty of untrained and poorly led Ohio National Guard troops. No order to fire on the students was given. Guardsmen that fired pled that they feared for their lives because students were throwing things like bottles and rocks at them. To respond to that scenario with armed force without an order was inexcusable. The government did not assault the people. That was done by poorly trained and undisciplined guardsmen.

    E.O. 9066 was a travesty of justice but no one was shot or killed. No order to shoot anyone was ever given. In fact only west coast Japanese Americans were interred while those in Hawaii and on the East Coast were not.

    The only modern day similar proposal is the Muslim registry suggested by Trump. It is not as bad as internment, but it is contrary to our principles.

    Keep in mind that the Japanese American units in the Army were the most highly decorated in the WW II Army. It was Japanese Americans in the Army and Marines that were translators, interrogators, and intelligence evaluators in the Pacific Theater of Operations.