Lawmakers want to deploy the Nat'l Guard in Chicago

imported post

Ruger wrote:

eye95 wrote:

I thought you had moved on. Or, had you accepted my support for stating that the National Guard is less able to protect individual rights? That their training does not teach them about warrants, Terry stops, RAS, etc., while the training for LEOs does?

Click to expand...

eye95, I actually agree with you on this one. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to use your own words to point out what appears to be a double standard.

Click to expand...

It may "appear" to be a double standard. However, careful consideration clearly shows it is not. First, no insulting generalization about intentional bad acts was made. The superintendent pointed out (and I agreed) that the National Guard doesn't worry about protecting rights when enforcing the law. That is not what they are trained to do. Second, I provided verifiable support for my statements. LEOs are routinely trained in the protection of rights. National Guardsmen are not routinely trained in warrants, Terry stops, Fourth Amendment, RAS, etc.

I find your comparison in the statement I made and the support I provided to the statement to which I objected and its anecdotal and/or unverifiable "support" to be grossly insulting.

Whether or not you move on I will. Have a nice day, sir.

imported post

Ruger wrote:

I see that you agree with the superintendant's opinion of the military....

Can he support those remarks?  IMO, such broad, hateful statements should not be made unless they can be backed up.

Click to expand...

You don't want the national guard policing American cities, active duty could do it because we're professionals at our jobs, but not the guard.

I say that not out of disrespect for the guard, even though I don't respect them at all, I say it because it's a simple fact. The modern active duty soldier eats and breathes counter-insurgency tactics these days. We don't just run around blowing stuff up, we're taught how to engage the populous, get them on our side, and police themselves. Of course Afghans're allowed to own automatic AKs so forming a self policing/militia force there is a lot easier than a gun-control heaven like Chicago.

imported post

ABNinfantryman wrote:

Ruger wrote:

I see that you agree with the superintendant's opinion of the military....

Can he support those remarks? IMO, such broad, hateful statements should not be made unless they can be backed up.

Click to expand...

You don't want the national guard policing American cities, active duty could do it because we're professionals at our jobs, but not the guard.

I say that not out of disrespect for the guard, even though I don't respect them at all, I say it because it's a simple fact. The modern active duty soldier eats and breathes counter-insurgency tactics these days. We don't just run around blowing stuff up, we're taught how to engage the populous, get them on our side, and police themselves. Of course Afghans're allowed to own automatic AKs so forming a self policing/militia force there is a lot easier than a gun-control heaven like Chicago.

Click to expand...

The post that you quote was very much tongue-in-cheek. Go back & read my next post in the thread for context.

I don't want the national guard OR active duty military policing American cities.

imported post

Felid`Maximus,

Regardless, just answer the question: Would it improve things drastically overnight or not? It would. That's all I was saying.

As for race, we all represent our race whether we want to or not. Some respresent theirs presistently and disproportionally poorly. I don't want people whobehave badly -- individually or collectively -- in my neighborhood or even my country. If you disagree, you are cordially invited toleave withthem. That way, YOU can live in their future neighborhood/country (which they will trash out also).

Enough said to you...

-- John D.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

Felid`Maximus,

Regardless, just answer the question: Would it improve things drastically overnight or not? It would. That's all I was saying.

-- John D.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. There, of course, would be pockets of improvement. However, the unrest that would result would far outweigh any coincidental improvement. For one thing, I personally would stand along-side people who thought their rights were just horrifically and unjustifiably trampled.

imported post

It sure would...but you're either in denial or a sleepwalker.

Like many.

-- John D.

imported post

Ruger wrote:

The post that you quote was very much tongue-in-cheek.  Go back & read my next post in the thread for context.

I don't want the national guard OR active duty military policing American cities.

Click to expand...

I figured as much, felt like commenting anyway since there's so much BS floating around that the military couldn't effectively and justly police a city. I'm sure the Haitians were just happy to see the 82nd ABN leave to allow rapists and thieves run rampant. Who also helped stabilize New Orleans after Katrina? Oh, right, the 82nd ABN. What unit responded to Hurricane Andrew? Point is, we're quite capable at performing in a non-military role. Should we, no, because we have other more important issues to deal with, but don't say we can't while you attempt to turn us into boogiemen who will kick in the American public's face with a smile on our's.

imported post

Isn't it against U.S. Law to use them for Law Enforcement unless the Government's Executive calls for Martial Law?

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Isn't it against U.S. Law to use them for Law Enforcement unless the Government's Executive calls for Martial Law?

Click to expand...

Or a State of Emergency declared by the state Governor.

imported post

I think the crux of the problem re: the military getting involved (and also applicable to civilian LEOS) is this: Will they obey orders, even if 'wrong,' oppressive and/or unconstitutional? As applies to gun-owers, would they obey orders to godoor-to-door, confiscating all the guns & ammo they find?

I have no problem with troops dealing with criminals, such as the wholesale shooting looters,arsonists and pillaging mobs everywhere they are found, yet that issomething that clearly needs to be done. But what about orders that conflict with the 2nd Amendment/RKBA? Or even forcible evacuations -- lke dragging people out of their homes -- during some kind of disaster, natural or manmade?

And ifa 'situation' deteriorates furtherto whereMartial Law is declared,that suddenly and drastically changes normal civilian life -- and likely brings about the loss Constitutional/civil rights -- even if only temporarily.

I have no doubt the National Guard, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force (!) and Coast Guard can function in 'peacekeeping' roles. After all, they did a good job facing the HUGE challenge of doingthat in Japan and Germany after the chaos of WWII, didn't they? But I believe they (1) should NOT beabroad doing peacekeeping/nation-buildingand (2) are best used in foreign conflicts/wars (IF they are let loose to do so properly), or as we apparently NEEDNOW domestically, to protect our borders (since the Border Patrol isn't anywhere near large enough to do the job). Otherwise, civilian problems should be left to civilian entities.

As a veteran myself however (twice, Army and Coast Guard), I havenothingnegative to say about the troops themselves...just their top 'leadership!'And of course, thoselethal (to us only) "Rules of Engagement!"

-- John D.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

It sure would...but you're either in denial or a sleepwalker.

Like many.

-- John D.

Click to expand...

Did you notice that I was able to disagree with you without calling you names?

Moving on.

imported post

1. National Guardsmen are out there right with the Active component in the middle east. To suggest that the active guys would do a better job because of their experience is ignorant.

Surely something else can be found that faults the Guard besides them doing the same job the active duty folks are doing.

Let's not forget that the Guard has taken artillery folks and sent them to MP school to fit the needs of the region.

[line]At any rate, the use of the Guard would primarily be a force of deterrence. Just like the Guard when it came to airport security & the like, they work along side the LEO, not replace them when it came to dealing with the public outside military installations.

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

cloudcroft wrote:

If Chicago got rid of 38.6% of its population overnight, it'd be a WHOLE lot better there for everyone else crime-wise. After that, send another 26% packing to improve things further. Finally, mop-up among what's are left and sendthose loserspacking, too (can we deport them ALL to Canada?).

Click to expand...

Your comment reeks of racism which is thinly veiled. It is obvious that you are referring to the demographics of Chicago. To remove people specifically because of their race is abhorrent. It is an evil far greater than the criminals. Governments doing things like that have caused more bloodshed in the last 100 years than all gangsters combined. Instead, why not remove crime by giving people weapons to defend themselves. Legalize drugs and I bet 80% of all crime everywhere in the country goes down since most organized crime exists for and is funded by the illicit drug trade. Instead of targeting innocent people, just arrest all the corrupt politicians and violent criminals.

Click to expand...

im assuming you have never seen someone strung out on meth, heroine, or crack by your ridiculous statement. the only reason the drug war is still going is because we arent violent enough with the drug cartels and their henchmen in our country.

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

cloudcroft wrote:

If Chicago got rid of 38.6% of its population overnight, it'd be a WHOLE lot better there for everyone else crime-wise. After that, send another 26% packing to improve things further. Finally, mop-up among what's are left and sendthose loserspacking, too (can we deport them ALL to Canada?).

Click to expand...

Your comment reeks of racism which is thinly veiled. It is obvious that you are referring to the demographics of Chicago. To remove people specifically because of their race is abhorrent. It is an evil far greater than the criminals. Governments doing things like that have caused more bloodshed in the last 100 years than all gangsters combined. Instead, why not remove crime by giving people weapons to defend themselves. Legalize drugs and I bet 80% of all crime everywhere in the country goes down since most organized crime exists for and is funded by the illicit drug trade. Instead of targeting innocent people, just arrest all the corrupt politicians and violent criminals.

Click to expand...

im assuming you have never seen someone strung out on meth, heroine, or crack by your ridiculous statement. the only reason the drug war is still going is because we arent violent enough with the drug cartels and their henchmen in our country.

imported post

With all due respect to our brave men and women who serve in the National Guard, I don't trust them to enforce civilian law. I would much rather see more officers hired and the people of Chicago (or any American city) be allow to keep and carry handguns for self defense.

Case in point: the great gun confiscation of 2005 in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The National Guard failed SPECTACULARLY to uphold the most basic rights of its citizens, including breaking into private property without a warrant and confiscating the guns of law abiding gun owners. It will take time before I ever trust them in a civilian law enforcement role again.

For more on the great gun grab of 2005:
http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/10/defenseless-on-the-bayou

imported post

Viorel wrote:

1.  National Guardsmen are out there right with the Active component in the middle east.  To suggest that the active guys would do a better job because of their experience is ignorant.

Surely something else can be found that faults the Guard besides them doing the same job the active duty folks are doing.

Let's not forget that the Guard has taken artillery folks and sent them to MP school to fit the needs of the region.

[line]At any rate, the use of the Guard would primarily be a force of deterrence.  Just like the Guard when it came to airport security & the like, they work along side the LEO, not replace them when it came to dealing with the public outside military installations.

Click to expand...

Don't ever compare the national guard to active duty. The national guard is no where near as trained or as disciplined as active duty. We eat, sleep, and breathe the military and training for war, where as you show up for two days a month to "drill" which is essentially a weekend drinking party. Then before you deploy for eleven months you spend a month at JRTC to train for your eleven month deployment. What does your deployment consist of? Pulling security for large FOBs because we don't trust you enough with doing anything else. The national guard's not in Kunar, Helmand, Zabul, or Badghis providing infantry units, they're in Kabul sitting in a tower complaining about food. The national guard unit my unit replaced told us that nothing goes on in Western Afghanistan, and yet when we start patrolling and doing our jobs we cleared out an entire city and surrounding villages, we killed a priority target the guard had let exist, and oh yeah we restricted the flow of smuggling into the area. "Nothing goes on" when you don't do anything but sit on the FOB and complain about being there.

Or how about the guys from South Carolina I was with the last time I was in Assghanistan? The dudes who were more worried about getting their gear off because it was heavy instead of the guys who had been tracking us along a ridge our entire movement.

I get up at five every morning to go to work and do PT, then I train all day getting off at 1700 at the earliest to go home and see my wife. If I have a jump I'll be lucky to go home at a decent time. You're a security guard in ACUs and nothing more.

imported post

I've personally been in a unit that has performed better on tables than the active component counterparts. Not bad for party-animal weekend warriors, huh?

Your long-winded argument concerning competence is now invalid.

As far as discipline, now THAT I can agree with you.

Again, in the end, they'll work with LEO, not replace them.

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

against U.S. Law

Click to expand...

You ask that as if it matters.

imported post

canadian wrote:

Aaron1124 wrote:

against U.S. Law

Click to expand...

You ask that as if it matters.

Click to expand...

Good point..

imported post

Well, you know, there is a little thing called "Posse Comitatus" in a little document called the US Constitution that PROHIBITS the use of military for civilian law enforcement.

Someone in Chicago might want to think about that, before they get their pants sued off in an avalanche of Federal Civil Rights lawsuits...

You'd think that POTUS, being from Chicago and a Constitutional Scholar, would shut this sort of foolishness down with haste.