Regular Military Vs Reserve Forces / National Guard in a SHTF Scenerio.

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... that said,

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.

Cont ....

P

Some may ask why I, as an Australian, want to know or in fact care about this!

In my opinion, in the longer term, considering the one world Government that is someones wet dream, we are all in the cross hairs.

The US Government sucks! Most other Governments Suck! My own Government are a mob of brainless Kangaroos.

The last hope for pure Freedom, rests in the hands of good, wholesome, US citizens, and there are an awful lot of you. In the end game, it could come down to you guys, to take the candle and the fight for the rest of us. That is not fair, but only your Fore Fathers had the insight to allow you to feed the Tree of Liberty down through the ages.

Don't get me wrong, Australians can only be pushed so far and our Military would never turn on us, ever! But we are not well armed and we do not have a right to bear arms. We need a license to hold a weapon!

P

reply to post by pheonix358


This is actually the first time I've ever posted on here because I just saw this thread and felt I needed to. I've been a member of the Reserve for over a decade including many oversee deployments in the recent conflicts, and some of the best soldiers I know have been National Guard/Reserve. Terrible things have been committed in war by all branches and status. Active Duty Marines/Army/Air Force/Navy are just as guilty when it comes to shameful acts during war. So although I can appreciate and respect your viewpoint, it bothers me when a statement is made that makes the Reservists/National Guardsmen and women seem like they are not real soldiers or in any way make less of a sacrifice. Thanks

pheonix358
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... that said,

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.

Cont ....

P

edit on 2/4/2014 by pheonix358 because: filled in

I respectfully disagree with your view of the reserves. You need to look at the individuals not lump all together. Not all are weak. Maybe since it was a way to get college money and not serve full time for some back when i was in. I could see that. But not everyone is weak and sheeple. There are weak people everywhere. It won't be a specific branch thats our undoing but those people.

pheonix358
Some may ask why I, as an Australian, want to know or in fact care about this!

In my opinion, in the longer term, considering the one world Government that is someones wet dream, we are all in the cross hairs.

The US Government sucks! Most other Governments Suck! My own Government are a mob of brainless Kangaroos.

The last hope for pure Freedom, rests in the hands of good, wholesome, US citizens, and there are an awful lot of you. In the end game, it could come down to you guys, to take the candle and the fight for the rest of us. That is not fair, but only your Fore Fathers had the insight to allow you to feed the Tree of Liberty down through the ages.

Don't get me wrong, Australians can only be pushed so far and our Military would never turn on us, ever! But we are not well armed and we do not have a right to bear arms. We need a license to hold a weapon!

P

edit on 2/4/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)

Revolutions have mostly been fought and won by unarmed populations. When you start shooting unarmed civilians your military tends to turn on you and join them. If the population is shooting at them, then the military will have no qualms about putting them down.

reply to post by pheonix358


Having been a member of both active and resreve US. Army Forces. I can tell you the Reserve "Weekend warriors" are light years ahead of the "active" Army. In honnor and duty to country and our COTUS. In general, they have real life experience and the US. military does not make better warriors than our reserve forces. The US. Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy have what they get and make. But on the reserve side they have freedom loving "real" Americans that know how to work with thier hands and brains. To their own hurt, they trained them the use of arms and military doctrine. Thay will Bi*ch SLAP a Federal "officer" that dares to Give an unlawful order.. That said, You have here (in the states) a populace grown and "educated" in public schools. What you are reffering too will happen and it WILL end in their favor. But I guaranty, They will never forget it.

reply to post by finitydream


reply to post by lifguard83



Thank you both for your replies. I thought and hoped my perceptions were wrong, your responses gladden my heart!

Respectfully

P

reply to post by MrSpad

Revolutions have mostly been fought and won by unarmed populations. When you start shooting unarmed civilians your military tends to turn on you and join them. If the population is shooting at them, then the military will have no qualms about putting them down.

Very true from an historic perception.

I would hope that this would happen now!

P

reply to post by murphy22


Thanks for that perception drawn from actual experience. It is what I was looking for although some Regular guys may disagree with you

P

I'm active military and here to give my opinion on this. There are judgment calls that are made such as lawful and unlawful orders, and when it comes down to killing innocent civilians, you will have some that follow through and some that don't, it don't matter if they are active or reserve. It's just some people have more sense than others, for the top all the way down. We are all volunteers and that ours us in the 1% of the us population, we would be outnumbered if anything happens.

reply to post by pheonix358


service personel are people too - you cannot judge entire demographics based on a single trait

reply to post by pheonix358


As a US. Army Guardsman, (minus my "active" time) I have more time in "combat" than most US. Marines. What I said, was gospel.

reply to post by pheonix358


Indeed. Government sucks. I am not good at hiding my love for Thoreau. I quote various parts of his opening paragraph to civil disobedience without shame. And I fully believe it: the best government is that which governs not at all. But we aren't yet ready for that (and I am unsure if we ever will be).

With that in mind, then it would seem most appropriate to me that we should want to liken government to a scared puppy, trembling in the corner as its master looms over it with scowl and a rolled up newspaper. This should be the state of affairs in any nation which dares call itself "free".

But to your point about how well armed we are in the US, I mentioned this in another thread recently. We are very well armed. I would be willing to pit my odds against most others should a zombie apocolypse happen, that is for sure. But we all also know what it means to see the camels back finally break. It scares the hell out of any reasonable man.

"The People" are made up of the same folks that make up the military power supporting our government. And I dare say that most in the military would find themselves abandoning their post if faced with firing on their brothers and sisters. I also, therefore, suspect that the government will just utilize air to ground warfare to leverage technological capability instead of manpower.

All that aside....we all know how bloody it would be. We have seen revolutions emblazoned across our televisions for decades. Growing up, i watched bloody news reports of various events (most of which, it turns out, were caused by our government). Blood ran in the streets, violence was in the air, and people looked completely mad with rage. It was on the news every night for decades. We have all seen what it looks like in a country where citizens have not been allowed to keep arms.

Worse for me, to be honest, is my proximity to Mexico. But Texas whipped their asses once before. If need be, we can do it again.

Thank you for the very articulate question/stance!

I consider 2 topics of discussion here

1. The difference b/n active duty vs. reserved/guard duty.
2. The intent of the 2nd Amendment

As a retired US vet, I contribute the following:

1. There is no difference b/n the active and reserve/components of the military... Well, there shouldn't be....

I respect the reserve/guard forces for what they are designed to accomplish. But, in our austere economy, this definition has become more gray and we are asking them to accomplish duties they are not necessarily trained to do, nor do they have the "vested interest" in the history or future of those actions. I lost count of how may reserve/guard (Air Force and Army units) have deployed to "accomplish the mission", only to arrive in theater and accomplish the mission they understand based on the vacuum of information they have been exposed to, or because this is FINALLY the golden opportunity for the commanding officer to be recognized.

2. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is founded in our forefathers' vision of freedom, based on a hostile government.

Be careful in literally translating the intent of the 2nd Amendment and the actual execution of defending it. I would argue the US military would have no qualms shooting its own because there is a sense of "defeating the enemy at the gates" that will prevail. All that is needed is an exuberant commander (president?) that justifies the need based on a perceived threat to the nation. Consider the McCarthy era (ref: The McCarthy Era).

I am honored to have worked with Australian's Finest in the Middle East (Per Ardua ad Astra), and respect you and your stance on the world's issues. I caution you to be careful of US intentions (because I'm not sure we understand them - e.g. Obama and the US media)

Your comment is fresh and well received. Thank you!

reply to post by pheonix358


As it regards Reserve/militia/national guard troops versus a standing army....i am in 100% opposition to a standing army. I have no issue with a state level mlitia like the national guard. I am not in opposition to those guard forces having national level training regimens to manage federally funded weapons platforms, like jets and aircraft carriers. I am not opposed to seeing the assignment of forces done on a national level via a cooperative system that the individual states manage.

I am 100% in favor of seeing the role of military entrusted with the states.

In that line of thought, I see the DoD being completely reworked in what it does and how it does it. It should be a liaison between states on matters related to the military, working in its cabinet level access to the state department to handle "threats foreign"

reply to post by jrflipjr


Well said.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Having studied your Constitution to some extent .... It is difficult to do so from outside the country .... I don't care how smart I am .... I just can't get the same perspective because, well, I don't live there.

As I understand it, in times of peace, the National Guard is commanded by the various State Governors.

When War is declared, the Command of the National Guard is transferred to the President. If I have that right then was the War on Drugs and the War on Terror merely a conduit to remove the Command of the National Guard away from the States?

Thanks for your views and for everyone's, I am learning and I am happy to do so. The perspective of one looking in, from without, is always limited and yet still has merit due to the differences in perspective.

P

reply to post by jrflipjr


Thank you for the well thought out reply. I agree re the McCarthy era and I would add the Hoover years as well. Much freedom was removed from the people.

Yet I counter with the following.

Never in all the annals of history has the population been so well educated AND have the ability to communicate literally at the speed of Light.

Trying to control a population that is largely uneducated is one thing. Doing so in modern times is much more difficult and many educated people are waking up, slowly, but it is happening as views from both within and without are aired openly.

The combination of Education and the Internet are a powerful force, one never seen before. One military unit or one town having the balls to stand up and be counted can inflame the entire populous. I would cite the Battle of the Alamo as a prime example. Today, such examples can spread in minutes rather than weeks.

Time will tell.

reply to post by pheonix358

I'm going to assume your not a US. Gov. Fed. fishing for "trators and terorrist" LOL! If you are? Bring it, coffee is always on but bring your own sugar. We drink it black here. If you have read the COTUS, you would understand it says what it means and means what it says. Nothing more, noithing less. The US. Gov has very little power over the "several states".. "not deligated" But with the "war on.. " this or that. The feds use the "Commerce Clause".. and the fact we have no men with any balls and emotional women that can be bought, running the states and Fed. Well.. it is, what it is. IT can only get worse.. before it gets better. Historical FACT!

reply to post by murphy22


I am semi-retired. Do they pay well? If I gave them lists of names, it would be of their own shills. That would be funny as!

P