NRA: Put an armed guard in every school, yeah guns!

[shai]

How can you be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and still be a civilian?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Leon Panetta, Barak Obama, Janet NApolitano and Eric Holder are all civilians.

 

 

 

No spin, all fact, fair and balanced.

 

I'm sorry I thought you were going to spin off of what I said about them working for the people, which they don't they work for the government. Either Federal, State or City level.

 

I'm not denying that members of government are citizens.

 

Just pointing out the logic in your statement.

 

And Shai he meant citizen. At least, I think.

[Walid Jumblat]

No, no, I meant civilian because that's the word you used above, although citizen also works just the same.

 

Commander and Chief is not an enlisted member of the military, he is the commander and chief. Also, the government are part of 'the people'. They are citizens, pay taxes, can vote and are subject to the laws of the land just the same as any other citizen or person of 'the people' is.

 

 

I'm not trying to make a point here to be honest, I'm more so just counter-trolling to RIPS' trolling. However there is a point there to be argued. The cops and servicemen are just as much citizens as you are and many that I know are not interested in tight gun control nor a govt intrusive of private life. The libertarian sect in many ways seems to paint a very general picture of the means of govt oppression regarding security services as if they are all in league with tyranny somehow, like they are not their own free thinking people themselves. My experience tells me that this general perspective is very far from reality (although my acquaintances may not be a valid sample size).

 

Same for 'the government' as well. These people are also citizens, civilians and as much as policies and character can be seen as almost identical much of the time (over here as well), there are also many points where you can see just how divergent the many arms, factions, ideologies, geographies, demographics and personalities are in govt.

 

We always tend to see large organisations and structures as monolithic, organised and coherent. Yet experience and closer inspection usually reveals many layers of complexity and myriad of difference instead. As an interesting counterpoint to the "Nuremberg syndrome" (as in 'I was just following orders, no idea if it's called Nurembrg Synd.), do some research in to how many German soldiers were prosecuted or removed from operations due to refusal to carry out their brutal roles or suffered PTSD/etc. after being involved in the genocides, executions, and whatnot. Of course, that's not to say that it had much of an effect on stopping the slaughter and atrocities, just to illustrate my point that terms like 'the people', citizens, civilians, the government and so on cover organisations and concepts that encompass massive complexity, difference and incoherence.

[Walid Jumblat]

I just called libertarianism a sect.

[shai]

I know what you're talking about and that's not "small L libertarian" in the traditional sense.

 

It's more of a fucked up amalgamation of objectivism, neo-conservatism and later libertarian ideology...since it's kind of late, I don't really want to go into it in super detail mode but when I tell people "I know what you think you mean but I really think you mean this" I feel like they deserve an explanation.

 

I think cops think they're military, at least based on what I've heard them say at times (referring to citizens as "civilians," using the "I'm just following orders" rationale) so I feel like it begs the question as to what their role really is. If they ARE indeed military, then their role has changed considerably from what its original intent was. If not, they sure as hell need to drop the pretense and be more accountable to the communities they serve...and in the process they might find that people will hate them a little less. Some PDs behave as if their role is an occupying force...the rationale is usually "Well, people don't like us" but they seem very short sighted as to why that might be.

 

There are communities that don't like letting first responders in of ANY kind because they view anything with a light bar and siren as bad news, or at least the harbinger of bad news. That sucks because the role of firemen and EMTs has nothing to do with law enforcement...but to some people the three are more or less inextricably associated. I've seen this happen in person, it's crazy shit...people will take a cab to the hospital and/or let their house burn down just so they won't have to talk to the Man.

[Fist 666]

Pretty much every definition of "civilian" includes military AND police as the dividing line.

 

 

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

The point here is what happens when they put the uniform on, put the badge on, whatever.

 

They have a job to do, and the job has a boss, and that boss has his own, and they give orders, and if you don't follow those orders you are subject to punishment, possible loss of job.

 

So those orders are usually followed, regardless to the consequence.

 

At the end of the day, who do they work for? Me? The guy who's got a foot on my neck or a gun pointed at me? No. Not me at all.

 

(Please don't be offended as if I think every cop, or member of the military is a bad guy, I know cops, I know people in the military, at least when they aren't working I can't be there when they are. They are really nice people.)

[Fist 666]

You're right, orders are orders and they come from the top, not the bottom. And they've been used to justify atrocity.

 

A conversation that recurred several times during my service was the scenario about US soldiers and guardsmen being used to take the arms from the people. (There is a lot of paranoia about obama letting the UN take our guns, and a whole lot of other alex jones bologna floating around our service members minds.) A point I tried to instill in my soldiers is that they can and should disobey an order that is unlawful, Though I don't agree with them completely, Oathkeepers is a decent group within the military.

 

Edit: they now encompass police and firefighters as well.

[TAXMAN79]

MORE KINDLING FROM MY FAVORITE SITE;

Why do all these gun nuts keep saying the Second Amendment is there to protect us from a tyrannical government? It's not like American citizens have had to take up arms to defend their rights in the last century...except that one time they did

 

http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2013/01/freaky-factual-tale-friday-battle-of.html

[shai]

The point here is what happens when they put the uniform on, put the badge on, whatever.

 

As long as you don't leave your brain and your conscience at the door, I'm cool with that.

 

Imagine being in the radical community and treating cops and vets like humans with real feelings. It's kind of an interesting litmus test for my peers...if they're really about changing the world and peace and love, who do you think you need to engage with that attitude first? Well, let's just say a lot of people around me have begged to differ right up to the point of calling me names...it's not my problem if they confuse decency with collaboration.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I've seen enough stories from soldiers to know that orders come down, and after the fact because of those orders given, innocent people paid the ultimate price. Not only did those people suffer, and there families, but the soldiers who followed said orders were traumatized as well, and will most likely never be the same.

 

I agree 100% about Oathkeepers.

[RIPS]

what amaze me is that some of you are ready to give full power to the government.

 

if the patriot act and all the same type of recent civil rights restrictions does not clearly indicate you the way we are going to... I don't know.

 

Maybe it's the obama effect?

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1

[Fist 666]

who has said a thing about full power to government?

[morton]

The concept being that any regulation or registration of arms is a total forfeiture of all constitutional rights.

 

The most relevant example of arms being used to protect citizens from the government as intended in the second amendment would be that of the Black Panthers whom armed themselves in self defense. While there was some success in this program, there was also failure and the police used the presence of firearms to justify killing brother Fred Hampton in his sleep.

[shai]

My friend was in the apartment the night Fred Hampton got killed. It's a pretty heavy story to hear from someone who experienced it first hand.

 

I don't really care what the government does because I don't recognize it as being the authority that controls my life. When I obey the law it's not because some arbitrary third party said so and I fear the consequences, it's because it works within the framework of what I consider morally correct and logical...outside of that, I do what needs to be done with the understanding that I might have to take responsibility for my actions. When laws are convenient and unobtrusive people seem to love them, but when they start to apply to their actions they'll do just about anything but take responsibility...it's kind of like the old saying, "It stops being funny when it starts being you."

 

Personally I don't really care about security. At best it's a con, at worst it's a nightmare. Despite all evidence to the contrary people still buy into the con..then when they realize there's no money left in their savings and the cops aren't their friends, they start doing weird shit like occupying parks and public spaces because they don't know what else to do.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[RIPS]

[Fist 666]

Do you think that was a good interview?

[RIPS]

Yes

[RIPS]

http://youtu.be/miSjgv1MH7s

[Realism]

Uh-oh, Obama said something about guns, get in your bunkers...

[RIPS]

[Fist 666]

It wasn't.

[Fist 666]

[Guest]

People used to cone to San Diego for spring break and summer vacation to have a good time. They still do but not as many. One spring break a few years ago, maybe five, some guys from Arizona were getting a little too drunk and were getting has led by a police officer on the beach. Things were getting pretty heated between the police and the beachgoers.a bystander who was probably pretty drunk himself had an idea and thought it would be funny. He pushed the cops ATV into the ocean and got a cheer from the large crowd that had gathered around the incident.

 

The police officer didn't think it was so funny. He called for back up and began to arrest the man. The crowd didn't think that was too funny and started to defend the drunk man. Somewhere along the line what was reported as a "riot" developed. I would call it more of a brawl myself.

 

A month it two down the line city councel (if I remember right. Maybe mayor?) Propesed a 6 week (may be wrong on length possibly month) "temporary" ban on alcohol on the beaches of San Diego. It net little resistance as the beach riot was all over the local news and I'm sure a lot of people agreed SOMETHING should be done.

 

Well, the six weeks went by and no incidents occurred on the beach during that time. Even though it wasn't beach season and they are pretty abandoned for during the off season... well the coubcel decided that since this "temporary" ban worked SO well, it should become permanent. If I remember right there was an initiative on a ballet of some sort, as some time. But I don't remember ever seeing it when I voted. I don't know anyone who voted for it. And have never heard of anyone else knowing someone who voted in favor of it.

 

So the initiative gets passed and no drinking on any beach in San Diego under any circumstance.

 

Then it became any waterfront. So the fishermen couldn't drink on the piers or jetti etc

 

Then it became parks. So you couldn't drink while having a family BBQ or playing baseball etc

 

Then it became canyons, mountains, and trails.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These days if you go to a popular beach in San Diego during beach season police walk around checking beverages. They even have sensors to put over your big gulp cup.

 

 

 

Now ask me why I won't give these guys an inch so they can take a mile when it comes to defending my life and constitutional rights.

[Mr. Incognito]

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

 

This is a good point, and it should strike Republicans at their core.

 

However just because you are a conservative (very vague term) or someone who is perhaps someone who believes in the Constitution, doesn't mean you are a member of this very hypocritical party. I am not, and I'm sure a lot of people who defend their right's aren't either.

 

I'm not sure if that story that BOATS N HOES posted is true or just some sort of analogy, however I agree 100% with the point made.

 

Give an inch, take a mile.

[Mr. Incognito]

I consider myself to be pretty conservative on most levels, but don't line up too well with modern day republicans. in other words, that wonka meme has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs.

 

 

This place is starting to bum me out.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Right.

 

Why is this place starting to bum you out? I post on Reddit, this forum, and of course on Facebook, and out of all of these places this forum is the best place for open discussion, at least without certain people who in the last few pages haven't made there appearance. So the discussion stays civil, even if there are disagreements.

 

Those other venues are heavily biased, and you get down voted or ganged up on, without even logic taken into account. I'll be on this forum until it's down, or I don't have access to the internet.

 

Just wish this annoying logout/login bug would get fixed. C'mon Raven.

[Realism]

Reddit...if you're not a gay Bill Nye enthusiast with 12 cats and a retarded sibling who makes mediocre macaroni crafts related to videogames and sings in a bluegrass band...you're gonna have a bad time posting your political opinions or using humor.

 

Now, that said. Do you folks really think there is a direct parallel between drinking in public and gun control? Are the two actually comparable issues? That sounds ridiculous to me. MOST people are going to view public drunkenness as an annoying problem, and drinking in public is logical predecessor/root cause. You will not have lobbyists complaining about the ban in Washington. Political money will not be pulled because of it. It isn't allowed in the Constitution, and if you ask generally anyone on the street what they think of it, they would most likely respond neutrally or negatively. Note that the SF ban is implemented especially in family environments and places people will likely have to drive to get to and from. A ban like that pisses off very few people, and disappoints or annoys more than anything.

 

How exactly would banning a certain magazine, increasing the regulation of private sales, or something of that nature be even remotely comparable? Guns will never be taken away; you're paranoid and foolish to think so. Not to mention the fact that, again, using a ban on public drinking and the "give an inch, take a mile" angle is a completely different thing. Regulating public drinking decreases public nuisance and maybe a case of harassment/assault/DUI here and there. Regulating firearms (again, NOT taking them away, which will never happen) aims to chip away at the mess of gun violence in this country. And don't sit there with a straight face saying it's not a problem.

 

For the millionth time, apples and fucking oranges. The two issues are not comparable. It's alarmist and silly to think that because you can't get shitfaced on the beach anymore that not being allowed to own a hundred round drum of ammunition is going to lead to the government eventually melting down your Glocks. There is zero chance that the two issues would or will unfold in the same way.