Martial Law: What will happen?

[RockofStrength]

That was the National Guard of the 60s. Most of those kids had little training and no combat experience. And let's not ever forget that there were activists in that crowd who were trying to get the Guard to react the way they did. Today's Guardsmen are better trained and have more experience - and their junior and senior leaders have seen combat. When we trained up prior to deployment, all of us had crowd-control training, which almost none of those Guardsmen had at Kent State.

All that says nothing about whether or not Guardsmen will obey orders to enforce martial law or weapons confiscation.

Though there is something to be said for training giving that much more self-control to the fellows trying to stem the tides of a riot. You can't de-thugify people, but you can keep some young kid with a rifle from panicking and blowing two or three people away and starting a massacre.

 

[edsinger]

I'll need a citation on this one. I was a Marine during the clinton years and i don't remember any survey.

GoogleFoo, it has been so long but you get the idea



Firing on U.S. Citizens.

 

[Expat]

The subject has come up several times before and I posted several examples of where Federal troops were used to murder US citizens and they did it willingly and without coercion. There were the miners strikes in West Virginia and the railroad strikes. There was even talk about the Army commander calling in airstrikes with poison gas for one of them. As I have posted them before I am not going to look for them again but STFW and you can find them.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I suppose if any troops were to fire upon American citizens that they would probably be the UN peacekeeping forces that have been training in our cities and towns (for over 30 years) for this exact purpose. That way there will be no problem with dissension among the ranks.

 

[gunman41mag]

They will have HELP from some LEO

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

It seems to me that it would be almost impossible to justify enacting a "coast to coast" martial law. No matter what happens it would probably be a regional event like Katrina.

Let us suppose that "Katrina II" hits the Gulf Coast AND travels up the east coast causing far more massive damage than expected. Minor looting begins on Day #1 after the hurricane. This CANNOT be stopped as local authorities are overwhelmed and take time to organize. Damage is substantial and relief is a long time coming.

By Day #7 massive looting is reported and food riots are beginning to occur. IF the people seen in the media begin calling for government control as their homes and neighbors homes have been robbed martial law will occur - fully supported by the people! State guard units will be more than happy to bring order (and assistance) to those in need.

By Day #10 most is going well (for the guard and local LE) BUT some people are refusing to leave their homes. NOW the authority is being told these people "must be evacuated for their own good." Most decent Guard and LE will begin attempting to enforce this, first by talking then by more direct force if necessary.

So the government in this scenario can hide behind:

#1) the call of "The People" to restore order;
#2) the portrayal of the the "authority" by the media as being "the good guys."
#3) the delay of abuse of power stories hitting the mainstream media.

A lot will depend upon the following factors:

#1) How justified is the government in enacting martial law (because sometimes there IS a good reason).
#2) How does the mainstream media cover this "event."
#3) Just how abusive are the authorities in enforcing the martial law AND how much of this abuse reaches the people..
#4) How long does the martial law last. The longer the time, the harder it is for the government to justify its actions.
#5) How quickly and how justified are pro rights groups in attacking this extreme authority?

There are many variables that will contribute to Americans tolerance of martial law.

Say a group of five (5) bank robbers armed with body armour and fully automatic, high power rifles hits a bank in small town Indiana. Their getaway car breaks down during the car chase and they quickly overwhelm local LE and begin an attempted escape on foot through this small town. State Police are called in and the Governor immediately enacts martial law on this town and county ordering everyone into their homes until the robbers are caught. NO ONE is going to argue with this! Several police may be injured or killed and everyone wants these !%!@#$%!#$% caught and strung up.

In another scenario a nuclear weapon is detonated in Chicago, hometown of our current President. The Federal Government immediately enacts martial law on Northern Illinois, Northern Indiana, Southern Michigan, and Southern Wisconsin - naming the counties affected. Two (2) weeks later marital law is still in place AND they want to expand it to "protect us from another terrorist attack". It now applies to all of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri. This will be a much harder sell to the American people. They will probably get away with it for a while, but have a very hard time justifying it.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

Doug

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Or, let's say a solar storm fries the North American Electric grid. 2 days into the aftermath mass looting prevails because "everything's free".

The military might be well within reason to declare martial law in cities nationwide.

Wouldn't happen in the sticks though, no need, no ability to enforce it.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

....or the dollar collapses causing mass panic and rioting.....think orchestrated event people. Martial law WILL happen and has been planned for a LONG time. Whether or not current events are the lead-up to it has yet to be seen, but things ARE falling into place nicely for it. The words "fundamentally change" speak volumes to those that have been listening for a while.

 

[longbow]

I'd stay home, shut the gate and see who shows up.....

 

[sloughfoot]

I'd stay home, shut the gate and see who shows up.....

Me too.

But do you guys realize that this country has been in a "state of emergency" officially since 9/11/2001? It is how the TSA has been able to do the outrageous things that it does. It explains a lot of the things that go on.

Creeping martial law is the real danger and this ongoing state of emergency is a real danger to personal liberty.

They don't really need to declare martial law and they know that if they use those words, there will be a major push back by those who won't accept it.

This country was in an official "State of Emergency" throughout WWII andit is why the government was able to freely do what it did to restrict personal liberties.

 

[flatlander]

Everybody dies
Nobody wins
No one gets to say "I told you so"

Bob

 

[badwolf.usmc]

GoogleFoo, it has been so long but you get the idea

Firing on U.S. Citizens.

Twelve percent of respondents answered "No Opinion" when asked if they would fire on American citizens who refused to surrender their firearms. Including the total who responded that they WOULD fire on Americans (26.34 percent), and given the fact that those with no opinion on moral issues will mindlessly do what they are told, over 38 percent of those ordered to fire Americans refusing to surrender their firearms would do so.

This does not equal 60%, and i don't worry about No Opinion as a response, most guys say that when they don't want their opinion known.

Also, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the form is dated 1996 while the phone interview about it was dated 1995, and the survey was suppose to take place May 10, 1994. I'm not too worried about it.

 

[edsinger]

I would not be either but I remember it was a higher %, it is just what I could find. It stirred the POOP back then...