The USNG is not the military, nor is it armed as such. I could go to some of my families homes and find most of the weapons that the USNG has. The NG normally acts under the control of the local political office. Not the president. In order the the President to retain control once deployed he would have to gain permission from congress by 2/3.There is no requirement to change anything. The State Govenors can call out the National Guard for Aid to the Civil Power operations (that includes rebellions) and the President can deploy troops on his fiat for up to ninety days before needing legislative branch approval.
Katrina showed us how well that works.
The President needs to give an EO. Those troops cannot and will not act against the population. A riot is against the population there for the NG would put down the riot. BUT, if the President ordered the NG to attack the population in order to force control over then you would have the NG refusing or declaring Non-Factional. They will remove themselves from taking sides until a court order or act of congress told them to do otherwise.
And none of these changes have called for the military to attack the US population. In fact it has done more to remove the military from even being connect to such enforcement needs.Define these "morals" - the character of the US Constitution has changed several times in the past couple of centuries.
So now two thirds of the Nation have to agree that they want the military to used against them. I see that coming very soon.The support of two-thirds of the House, Senate and States.
The military is to obey LAWFUL ORDERS that do not violate the moral code of the UCMJ. Bombing a city will most likely count as unlawful unless you can get those people to agree that they want to be bombed by the military.The job of the military is to obey the law, not decide it. While there are exceptions for orders amounting to war crimes, the individuals refusing orders had better have their reasoning sorted out for their court-martial.
The refute is meaningless if not in context. The population has access to anything that is to be USED AGAINST IT. The population includes police serve both the government and the people.The nukes were more of an extreme example to refute yur claim that private citizens can buy anything the govenment can.
Fair enough.I'm talking about theoretical scenarios here, not making predictions of what could trigger such an uprising.
This alone won't make someone follow. The military would need a reason beyond a halfway hearted paycheck to shoot into a crowd.Because the government employs them, perhaps?
The Bill of Rights can be added to and amended but not removed, EVER. No one has the power to do so.The Bill of Rights can be rewritten in exactly the same manner as the rest of the Constitution - two-thirds of the House, Senate and States.
Even if you somehow got congress to commit to such a thing. How much luck do you think you'll have with telling the armed forces to move against its own population?
