Military Oath vs Tyrannical Government

[Phr3121]

The difference here is our military and their pledge to the constitution and not the leader.

The military has its own system of checks and balances. It is called 'good conscience', following lawful orders, and the UCMJ. Soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors are as human as you and me. They are Americans first and the majority with families. Why do people think that folks in the military have no conscience of what they are asked to do? Also, they are all still volunteers, not draftees.

 

[lilelvis]

Not sure, but no I don't think either the military oath or the second amendment are very good checks against tyranny, at least the expected tyranny. Like today, 2A supporters barely even notice how tyrannical this administration is. Most would be on the side of tyranny. No idea why people have so much trouble seeing that their gun-warped concept of "patriotism" is just as likely to back tyranny as it is to fight it (probably more so in America).

I disagree. It’s the vocal minority getting all of the media attention, much like the crackpots on the left.
Most 2A folks just want to be left alone.
No one likes to be persecuted for the idiocy of someone else.
In this political fight it does feel like the left is the aggressor. When we start regulating based on statistical anomalies, we’ve definitely lost our way..
I honestly believe that we have a psychotropic prescription problem, the links are to numerous to discount. Let’s not talk about that though, big pharma pours a lot of doe into campaigns. Instead, let’s strip the entire country of a specific, and very important, constitutional right.

 

[Fluffernutter]

I disagree. It’s the vocal minority getting all of the media attention, much like the crackpots on the left.
Most 2A folks just want to be left alone.
No one likes to be persecuted for the idiocy of someone else.
In this political fight it does feel like the left is the aggressor. When we start regulating based on statistical anomalies, we’ve definitely lost our way..
I honestly believe that we have a psychotropic prescription problem, the links are to numerous to discount. Let’s not talk about that though, big pharma pours a lot of doe into campaigns. Instead, let’s strip the entire country of a specific, and very important, constitutional right.

You raise an interesting point. What prescription drugs are these mass shooters on?

 

[lilelvis]

You raise an interesting point. What prescription drugs are these mass shooters on?

.

One of many.

https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/

 

[Trotsky]

In short, when things get that bad, order that would instill and uphold that value has already broken down and oaths don't mean so much. It becomes about choosing sides, interests and loyalties, etc.

In theory, a president could come out of left field with blatantly dictatorial actions (and we'd smack them down), but in a strong democracy like ours or Canada's, for something like that to have a chance of working, it would require significant erosion of norms and values over quite a period of time, or some kind of crazy natural or economic disaster, or a military invasion.

I think you're missing the magnetic power of existing/experienced authority. A military/soldier will go far, far beyond breaking the oath of patriotic service before defecting. Because the ethical buck just gets passed upward.

Just look at any dictatorial military in history, even those which are knowingly subservient to another foreign power.

 

[Fawlty]

I think you're missing the magnetic power of existing/experienced authority. A military/soldier will go far, far beyond breaking the oath of patriotic service before defecting. Because the ethical buck just gets passed upward.

Just look at any dictatorial military in history, even those which are knowingly subservient to another foreign power.

Yeah oaths are at least very fragile things. When you get into perfect chain of command hierarchies (where the man above you can literally arrest you), you're likely to see all kinds of horrible behavior when it's pushed from the top.

 

[Trotsky]

Yeah oaths are at least very fragile things. When you get into perfect chain of command hierarchies (where the man above you can literally arrest you), you're likely to see all kinds of horrible behavior when it's pushed from the top.

Absolutely, but I wasn't even talking about rigid authority in which arrest is imminently threatened in a 1984ian sense.

I was meaning more in terms of the mere psychology of the phenomenon and the peer pressures involved. Group-think and agent-think (I made that term up to mean the "just following orders" mentality) are both powerful ways to excuse, shirk, or distort moral responsibility. Combine those both into the military, which is already infused with misplaced and undeserved sanctimony and self-perpetuating delusions of righteousness, and you get an institution that can be wielded to pretty disgusting aims even if comprised of otherwise decent people.

You know better than I since you were in the military, but I think history reflects this. And, even though soldiers throughout history weren't as...err, enlightened as they are now and able to access information, neither were they as well-regimented and morally distilled as they are now.

 

[Fawlty]

Absolutely, but I wasn't even talking about rigid authority in which arrest is imminently threatened in a 1984ian sense.

I was meaning more in terms of the mere psychology of the phenomenon and the peer pressures involved. Group-think and agent-think (I made that term up to mean the "just following orders" mentality) are both powerful ways to excuse, shirk, or distort moral responsibility. Combine those both into the military, which is already infused with misplaced and undeserved sanctimony and self-perpetuating delusions of righteousness, and you get an institution that can be wielded to pretty disgusting aims even if comprised of otherwise decent people.

You know better than I since you were in the military, but I think history reflects this. And, even though soldiers throughout history weren't as...err, enlightened as they are now and able to access information, neither were they as well-regimented and morally distilled as they are now.

"agent-think" is awesome. That's a keeper for sure.

I'm too tired to think clearly on this, but I think you have me on this point. What I'm really searching for here is the difference between believing an oath and believing in belief in oaths. So there are definitely officers who will hold to the Constitution when the chips are really down. But many more who would be flexible and take their cue from the top. The first person believes his oath, and the second person probably believes that oaths are good and that we should believe in them, but is fatally detached from that commitment, or his belief in the hierarchy is simply more important than his belief in the oath.