I think that there’s a greater danger that rises up with a decision to use Federal Troops in an anti-gun enforcement role.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:20 pm I am convinced that this entire subject, and threats from the top down, are why the political left are so enraged by the "2A Sanctuary" movement. The US military is NOT a reliable mechanism to enforce hard-core gun control. The armed Federal agencies do NOT have anywhere near enough personnel even if every last one of them were put to the task of confiscating firearms. The Feds are reliant on state and local law enforcement resources and personnel to aid them even in much more modest efforts. Without those resources, the task is simply beyond herculean, and THE LEFT KNOWS IT!
First, is the damage and internal fragmentation that will occur due to an order(s) to do so.
Second, some Commanders may opt to “sit it out” and simply
not do anything.
Third, if force or intimidation or some other coercion is attempted, you could well have units act to defend the Constitution. And that could range from protective custody for naughty men and women to outright direct action against opposing forces.
I think the likelihood of the military simply going along with un Constitutional is very, very low. Also, IMO, the most dangerous officers in such a fluid situation will be the Colonel/O6’s that have direct command of line units/planes/ships.
Jeff B.