Many high-ranking officers are being let go over the last year or so, also, which is rather disconcerting. I'll stop there.
If you're implying a link between the two factors, the allegation demands some serious proof.
That said, the nature and role of our military in this respect is worth addressing. The founders of this country were highly educated men. They read Locke, Blackstone, and Gibbon. They took those lessons to heart.
Gibbon's
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had a special place for several. It was first widely published between 1775 and 1776. It was a "bestseller." Jefferson was known to walk around with a copy.
Gibbon was the first author to gather up every source we had at the time and provide a consistent analysis. Many concepts of our government, such as separation of powers and a strictly-defined set of responsibilities for the chief executive, came from the lessons in his work.
One of the factors for which he blamed the fall of Rome was the Praetorian Guard. They started as a sort of military police, then evolved to become the personal guards for emperors. Over time, they became a domestic military operating on Roman soil--something that was never supposed to happen.
Some emperors used them as enforcers and secret police. Their political influence ballooned over the years. In time, they'd make kings and kill kings who didn't meet their approval. More to the point, they weren't mere "citizens." In fact, "citizen" was what they were called when they were disgraced or relieved of duties.
Throughout history, we'd see this happen in other nations, on a smaller scale. The result was always the same: corruption and rule by a standing army. The founders didn't want that to happen here, which is why we've got provisions against it.
Furthermore, military service doesn't grant anyone a privileged role in society. Sure, we tend to feel some positive bias towards vets who run for political office or in a job interview, but that's not why they serve. Nobody goes into our military expecting to be rewarded with wealth or political influence.
As such, our soldiers
are citizens. There's no insult in it, because they were never
elites to begin with. It's hard to overstate how novel that is from a historical perspective.
It also explains why they're not inclined to blindly follow orders that are unconstitutional or unconscionable. There's simply no reward for betraying their oath, or the trust of their fellow citizens.
As such, would there ever really be a shooting war between
the military and
the citizenry like gun controllers think we're advocating? No. A Commander in Chief who gives unconstitutional orders would find himself
without the support of the military.