-- Posted by Bud2400 at 7:46 pm on July 4, 2009 It seems that there is some disagreement about when the government declaring martial law on its own territory (whether a specific area or the entire nation) is appropriate. So here's my question to you - when do you think it would be appropriate for the government to declare martial law at all (whether in a specific area or on the entire nation)? -- Posted by Complex Kid at 7:47 pm on July 4, 2009 Give me liberty or give me death. - Patrick Henry -- Posted by ok 2b myself at 7:56 pm on July 4, 2009 Never in the entire nation. But when an area of the nation has seceded and been brought back, it is appropriate. But that is the ONLY circumstance. -- Posted by Elm at 7:58 pm on July 4, 2009 Whenever the due and just lawful system of an area is incapable of handling the just prosecution of those who infringe on the rights of others, in shot "Whenever the police force of a city / area is suspended / disbanded / otherwise absent." is the closest to my opinion. -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 9:08 am on July 5, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 7:58 pm on July 4, 2009 Whenever the due and just lawful system of an area is incapable of handling the just prosecution of those who infringe on the rights of others, in shot "Whenever the police force of a city / area is suspended / disbanded / otherwise absent." is the closest to my opinion. This. It should be the last resort if the nation is in total chaos. Like a zombie attack. But war is war and thats not going to stop, so to instate martial law for that, we may never get freedom back