Military Times Presidential Race Poll

[Ben]

Interesting poll by Military Times. The Johnson percentage was actually quite surprising to me. If you would have asked me to guess before seeing it, I would have said slight lead to Trump, then Clinton, then at least 20% back, Johnson.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-military-has-gary-johnson-tied-with-donald-trump-in-the-race-for-president

[roo_ster]

They only back Johnson to that extent because they need access to legal weed to dull the pain of constant SHARP briefings.  And to hallucinate that they are in an military with leadership dedicated to killing the enemy and breaking his stuff in furtherance of America's interests.

[MillCreek]

The USMC is certainly in favor of Mr. Trump.

[wmenorr67]

I'm actually not all that surprised considering that most of us in the military have the I DON'T GIVE A *expletive deleted*ck WHAT YOU DO AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE ME ALONE ATTITUDE. 

[Scout26]

I'm surprised that James Mattis is only polling ~3%. 

[just Warren]

It's polls like this I like to point gun-grab-tards to to show them that they have no chance of confiscation.

Three-fourths of the military is simply not down with lefty/proggy/commie types and will not obey such an order.

They might not actively rebel en masse but enough will to make the pro-prog type troops hesitate to take any action.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm actually not all that surprised considering that most of us in the military have the I DON'T GIVE A *expletive deleted*ck WHAT YOU DO AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE ME ALONE ATTITUDE. 

That coupled with they're tired of being tossed into senseless conflicts. 

[Ron]

30% of Officers are going to vote for Clinton?

That is scary.

When it comes to crunch time I suspect many of the enlisted polling for Johnson will vote Trump, esp if it looks like it is going to be close between Trump/Clinton.

[wmenorr67]

30% of Officers are going to vote for Clinton?

That is scary.

When it comes to crunch time I suspect many of the enlisted polling for Johnson will vote Trump, esp if it looks like it is going to be close between Trump/Clinton.

Actually a lot of higher ranking officers have to sort of play politics and hedge bets if they want to continue career progression beyond O-6 and into the ranks that wear stars.

[Hawkmoon]

It's polls like this I like to point gun-grab-tards to to show them that they have no chance of confiscation.

Three-fourths of the military is simply not down with lefty/proggy/commie types and will not obey such an order.

They might not actively rebel en masse but enough will to make the pro-prog type troops hesitate to take any action.

I wish I could believe that, but ... I'm not so sure.

[just Warren]

I'm just going by numbers. I'm not military so I admit I don't know the actual mindset of those that are. It just seems to make sense if you're wiling to vote conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist that you wouldn't support gun control. Following on from that you wouldn't allow yourself to be used in a confiscation scheme. 

[roo_ster]

It's polls like this I like to point gun-grab-tards to to show them that they have no chance of confiscation.

Three-fourths of the military is simply not down with lefty/proggy/commie types and will not obey such an order.

They might not actively rebel en masse but enough will to make the pro-prog type troops hesitate to take any action.

I wish I could believe that, but ... I'm not so sure.

How long did it take Stalin to purge the Trotskyites and others he was suspicious of?  Not long.

Great Purge 1936-1938
~1million murdered.  Bureaucracy & military and such purged of the unreliable.

Purge of the Red Army 1941
Even more purged from the Red Army.  Done in the face of a German offensive.

So, we have a data point that shows a purge taking something less than three years.  Assume that, unlike the USSR, folks not down with the company line are allowed to leave of their own accord and it won;t take 3 years to purge the armed forces of those unwilling to murder citizens to enforce gun control.

[wmenorr67]

How long did it take Stalin to purge the Trotskyites and others he was suspicious of?  Not long.

Great Purge 1936-1938
~1million murdered.  Bureaucracy & military and such purged of the unreliable.

Purge of the Red Army 1941
Even more purged from the Red Army.  Done in the face of a German offensive.

So, we have a data point that shows a purge taking something less than three years.  Assume that, unlike the USSR, folks not down with the company line are allowed to leave of their own accord and it won;t take 3 years to purge the armed forces of those unwilling to murder citizens to enforce gun control.

I would hope that there are a lot of citizens and former military members that would stand with those that are unwilling as well as stand up to those that are willing.

[roo_ster]

I would hope that there are a lot of citizens and former military members that would stand with those that are unwilling as well as stand up to those that are willing.

Me, too.  So, best case scenario at that point is Civil War II: The Sifting.

But then there is the "Hope in one hand and *expletive deleted*it in the other.  Which one fills first?" test.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm just going by numbers. I'm not military so I admit I don't know the actual mindset of those that are. It just seems to make sense if you're wiling to vote conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist that you wouldn't support gun control. Following on from that you wouldn't allow yourself to be used in a confiscation scheme. 

No, no, no.

Believing that the 2nd Amendment says what it says and being politically and philosophically opposed to gun control does NOT (IMHO) equate to disobeying a direct order from a superior officer. Yes, I understand that the UCMJ says military personnel are not supposed to obey unlawful orders, but who decides whether or not an order to confiscate is lawful? And when is the determination made? The penalties if you refuse to obey and you're wrong are significant.

I would truly like to believe that the military would tell the civilian aw-thaw-rih-tays to FOAD, but I just don't see it happening in real life.

[Hawkmoon]

I would hope that there are a lot of citizens and former military members that would stand with those that are unwilling as well as stand up to those that are willing.

Good luck with that. The Oathkeepers are generally regarded as a whacko fringe group ... if not outright terrorists.

[wmenorr67]

No, no, no.

Believing that the 2nd Amendment says what it says and being politically and philosophically opposed to gun control does NOT (IMHO) equate to disobeying a direct order from a superior officer. Yes, I understand that the UCMJ says military personnel are not supposed to obey unlawful orders, but who decides whether or not an order to confiscate is lawful? And when is the determination made? The penalties if you refuse to obey and you're wrong are significant.

I would truly like to believe that the military would tell the civilian aw-thaw-rih-tays to FOAD, but I just don't see it happening in real life.

I can say without a doubt my leadership told the civilian authorities just that back in 2005 in NO.  The only firearms we touched were those that we found unsecured.  We secured them, tagged them with the address where they were found, and then turned over to the NOPD.  We did not unarm any civilians unless they were breaking the law.

[dogmush]

It has been my experience that there is a pretty fair sized number off NCO's and Officer's in the Army that feel not only would an order to confiscate civilian firearms be illegal, but that it would cross the line to something that had to be prevented.  i.e.  Not just saying "No" and not doing it, but actually arming up and preventing the other folks from doing it.  So Civil War 2.0 then.

This subject (or one similar to it) is a matter not only of barracks and beer discussions, but it (when exactly an order from the civilian command authority goes too far) is a repeatedly covered subject in our Professional Military Education classes.  Complete with historical examples, discussions, likely outcomes, and the possibility (likelihood) of no win scenarios.

We study, and take to heart, the lessons from the purges of the Red Army and other communist purges.  How exactly it would go is something I don't really want to find out, but as a professional military sworn to defend the Constitution there is an acute awareness that the Constitution and the fed.gov aren't synonymous.

[zxcvbob]

I'm just going by numbers. I'm not military so I admit I don't know the actual mindset of those that are. It just seems to make sense if you're wiling to vote conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist that you wouldn't support gun control. Following on from that you wouldn't allow yourself to be used in a confiscation scheme. 

IMHO, the military would collapse if given an order to confiscate guns.  Some would be gungho to enforce it, and some would oppose them, and chaos would ensue.  Why do you think the feds have been arming so many bureaucrats?  You think the Department of Education (etc) really needs its own police force?  They are getting ready for something (I don't know what) that they know the military won't do.

[JN01]

Meh. Democrats will ensure that the overseas military votes won't count anyway.