Ever since the new Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the sixty day stand down on extremism, there have been a lot of us vets crying foul. We know that what we consider patriotism, is counter to what the left believes. An article in the Military Times even said that the social media accounts of service members was fair game to be used to determine this undefined “extremism.”

Many of us have devoted years to the country and still believe in the oath we took. That oath does not require us to swear allegiance to the government. It also doesn’t require us to support the people. We swore to defend the constitution.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Now why would the democrats be so nervous if every military man, woman, or something else, swore this oath? It specifically mentions following the orders of the president. Well the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides guidance here (emphasis mine):

Art. 90. Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished—
(1) if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; and
(2) if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

So the orders have to be lawful to enforce this article of the UCMJ. This means that the officer giving the orders is also lawfully appointed. That may explain some of the nervousness on the left right now. If the President was installed, versus elected, then the orders given would be moot.

It also helps explain one of the reasons that the national guard is standing the watch. There is a minor difference in their oath. They swear allegiance to the state governor, as well as the president. So the elected governor is able to make lawful orders. There are also other issues here concerning Title 10 forces, and posse comitatus that make things muddy.

So back to the central question. What happens if you boot a bunch of military trained individuals out onto the streets because of an imagined extremism? That is the hinge point of their fear.

In order to make things safer for their power structure, they need to know where the weapons are. A national registry would help with that. Then they could take cues from Australia and conduct a mandatory buyback. This would help get guns out of the public and ensure that only the “sanctioned” actors had weapons.

But what if all of the people that are vets, or just got booted for extremism, decide that those orders are unlawful? Behind the right leader you have a well organized mess.