• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Lawmakers want to deploy the Nat'l Guard in Chicago

Felid`Maximus

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,714
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
imported post

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

Destroying the lives of vast numbers of innocent people is not be what I call an improvement. Not to mention that a civil war would be starting before sunrise.

Crime in the city would plummet to zero over night if you simply nuked the city. That doesn't make it an improvement.

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 who behave badly -- individually or collectively -- in my neighborhood or even my country. If you disagree, you are cordially invited to leave with them. That way, YOU can live in their future neighborhood/country (which they will trash out also).

Enough said to you...
Click to expand...

A person is his or her own representative. Speaking of wrongly being judged collectively, I don't want racists on gun boards helping to provide people with an incorrect stereotype that all of us are racists.
 
Brimstone Baritone

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
imported post

Can I ask a few stupid questions here?

Why is the NG in the middle east? Aren't they the "National Guard"? Weren't they created by the Militia Act of 1903 to act as the state militia to protect the homeland in time of emergency? Step 1, get the NG back home where they belong.

Why would you want to bring in the Guard to police Chicago? Wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to hire more LEO? If things are really bad enough to require a State of Emergency, then why do people still live there? If bringing in more guns is the answer (the Guard) then why not just arm the people? Step 2, Arm the citizens of Chicago. Suspend the gun restrictions, or deputize citizens or whatever you have to do.

There you have my easy 2 step process for making Chicago a safer place. Bring home the National Guard so they can get back to guarding the nation, and arm the citizens and make them responsible for their own safety. Is that so hard?:banghead:
 
F

fully_armed_biker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
463
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
imported post

While all this banter is at least mildly entertaining...the #1 thing Chicagoans can do to make Chicago safer is...get rid of Daley! He is a crook, a criminal...how do you kill a monster? Cut off its head...end of story!
 
V

Viorel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
66
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post

Why is the NG in the middle east? Aren't they the "National Guard"? Weren't they created by the Militia Act of 1903 to act as the state militia to protect the homeland in time of emergency? Step 1, get the NG back home where they belong.
Click to expand...

Basically there are two types:

-Regular National Guard (can be activated)
-State Defense Forces (also federally recognized state militia - can NOT be activated)
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

rather than deploying the national guard, they should deploy some open carriers!
 
W

WheelGun

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
276
Location
Delaware County, New York, USA
imported post

Viorel wrote:
Basically there are two types:

-Regular National Guard (can be activated)
-State Defense Forces (also federally recognized state militia - can NOT be activated)
Click to expand...

State Defense Forces came into being when the National Guard was first deployed overseas during World War I. States realized theystill needed a minimal staff to keep thelocal armoriesopen and to protect facilities such as municipal water supply reserviors and power plants.

For the National Guard, deployment overseas in a war zone was never the original purpose of 'federalization.'

Federalization of the National Guard was in case the federal government had to use military force to defend the nation, it could do so with a cohesive, well organized force, instead of using a collection of individual state units.

Federalizing the National Guard and sending them overseas was, and continues to be, a loophole in the law to augment the regualar military forces without a draft.

State Defense Forces have been working side by side with the National Guard units that remain in the States. They do light security work, and assist with legal paperwork and other clerical tasks.

Some state soldiers operate military vehicles on base and construct training facilities such as shooting ranges.
 
GLOCK21GB

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

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?).Raze any public housing/tenements/run-down low-life apartments/crack-house neighborhoodsto the ground and never rebuild them. End result: Things would be a lot more peaceful, safe (even at night) and no more additional cops would be needed, and certainly no National Guard. Chicago would be a NICE place to live afterwards after all the trash was gone and you could see the potential.

After that was done (or concurrently would be better)it's time for my 'prison reform' plan...no more new prisons would be needed and many of them would bevacant and therefore available forrehabbing/remodeling for other uses.

Of course that won't happen, but tell me that would not have a HUGE impact on crime and turning things around literally overnight. It would in ANY city in this country where there are problems (even here where I live).

Oh, I almost forgot: Get rid of sorry Mayor Daley, all his cronies and anyone else who share his liberal PC socialist 'vision' because we can't have them still there or it'd start all over again. House-cleaning on thisscale should only need to be done once.

-- John D.
Click to expand...
+1 it's the only way to be sure.:)
 
GLOCK21GB

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Although, the Mayor wants NG troops deployed to quell the violence....SOUNDS LIKE MARTIAL LAW TO ME. Would this be a prelude to civil war / revolution ?
 
C

canadian

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
165
Location
, ,
imported post

McX wrote:
rather than deploying the national guard, they should deploy some open carriers!
Click to expand...

No, they can't do that. You see, crime is out of control in Chicago, and men with guns won't deter crime. That's why they need men with guns to deter crime.

Don't worry, it doesn't make any sense to me, either.
 
C

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

Glock34,

IMO, no...I can't even imagine the average American taking to the streets for anything so important...they seem to have the patience of Job so they can be pushed and pushed with no fear of any reaction...or much of one.

Butthey DO get out in the streets protesting negative things happening to their pocketbook...but not more abstract things such as civil rights. Not anymore.So I think nothing would motivate them to act. I mean if it doesn't lose them any money, or impact them making them MORE money, they don't care.

Besides, martial law (ML) is allowed for legally speaking, so as long as it didn't last TOO long, I think the people would just obey, shut up, move along and behave. Of course, guns pointing at you by guys in uniforms tends to encourage this sheepish response. ;-)

We almost had that here on the island after Hurricane Ike and although I was armed, I was NOT going to get into a shootout with the Army, I'd just have to leave as ordered. Fortunately, ML was not declared and I stayed.

The patriot spirit of Colonial times isn't alive and well today. Neither is the 'rugged individualism' of Teddy Roosevelt's era 100 years ago. Maybe the 1960s protests were the last time people flocked to the streets en masse (e.g., civil rights marches and anti Vietnam War protests)...but still no revolution took place...aside of some SDS Weathermen stuff here and there! ;-)

Now you see flag-waving Hispanics in the streets protesting tougher immigration laws, but there are few counter-protestors. Seems like MOST Americans won't protest anything, let alone get out on the street to do it. CERTAINLY not taking up arms.

-- John D.
 
D

DMWyatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
66
Location
Celina, OH, ,
imported post

Wouldn't it make much more sense for lawmakers to use their authority to repeal laws, such as a handgun ban, which create a heavy bureaucratic and enforcement load to save money and be able to reallocate funds and manpower to violent crime enforcement and deterrence?

Of course not... that would be well within the scope of power and influence they already have. As usual, it's pure politics over substance. Chicago wants to feel special. I wish I could live my own life so recklessly and disregard the thought of any responsibility or consequences for my own actions.
 
GLOCK21GB

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

cloudcroft wrote:
Glock34,

IMO, no...I can't even imagine the average American taking to the streets for anything so important...they seem to have the patience of Job so they can be pushed and pushed with no fear of any reaction...or much of one.

Butthey DO get out in the streets protesting negative things happening to their pocketbook...but not more abstract things such as civil rights. Not anymore.So I think nothing would motivate them to act. I mean if it doesn't lose them any money, or impact them making them MORE money, they don't care.

Besides, martial law (ML) is allowed for legally speaking, so as long as it didn't last TOO long, I think the people would just obey, shut up, move along and behave. Of course, guns pointing at you by guys in uniforms tends to encourage this sheepish response. ;-)

We almost had that here on the island after Hurricane Ike and although I was armed, I was NOT going to get into a shootout with the Army, I'd just have to leave as ordered. Fortunately, ML was not declared and I stayed.

The patriot spirit of Colonial times isn't alive and well today. Neither is the 'rugged individualism' of Teddy Roosevelt's era 100 years ago. Maybe the 1960s protests were the last time people flocked to the streets en masse (e.g., civil rights marches and anti Vietnam War protests)...but still no revolution took place...aside of some SDS Weathermen stuff here and there! ;-)

Now you see flag-waving Hispanics in the streets protesting tougher immigration laws, but there are few counter-protestors. Seems like MOST Americans won't protest anything, let alone get out on the street to do it. CERTAINLY not taking up arms.

-- John D.
Click to expand...
The patriot spirit of Colonial times isn't alive and well today. I agree, actually The Patriot Spirit is DEAD as is America. :( Very well thought out response, Cloud.
 
F

fully_armed_biker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
463
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
imported post

From WGN's weg site:
CHICAGO - Sunday, two state representatives called for the National Guard to come in and help stabilize Chicago communities plagued by daily violence.
State Rep. John Fritchey, from the north side, and Rep Lashawn Ford, from the south side urged Gov Quinn to deploy the Guard in Chicago.

The state reps aren't talking about having National Guard troops with tanks in the street or taking over neighborhoods or walking around with machine guns. They say the Guard's presence alone will go a long way.


Superintendent Weiss, who served six years in the military, would rather see stricter gun laws and the street "code of silence" broken down. Although he said he is willing to discuss the possibility on the Guard's presence if Mayor Daley is willing to.
Click to expand...
Yeah....because some of the strictest gun control laws in the country are working so well for you!

From an atricle in the Chicago Sun-Times:
Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue was less diplomatic. He warned that National Guard troops "don’t have the training that Chicago Police officers do," nor do they have the same respect for civil liberties.
"It’s making a statement that your Constitutional rights may be diminished," he said.
Click to expand...


WTF?!?!?! Who in the hell does he think he's kidding? The government of the City of Chicago has NO regard for Constitutional rights...to them, the Constitution is nothingmore than toilet paper.

Let's face it...we are dealing with IDJITS!! And as we all know, you just can't fix stupid...ignorance can be fixed with education...stupid; however, is forever!
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

so if they deploy the guard. what will their orders be? Like the 'blue helmets', don't shoot, just stand there and watch, and be targets? maybe we can get some U.N. troops?
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

fully_armed_biker wrote:
From WGN's weg site:
CHICAGO - Sunday, two state representatives called for the National Guard to come in and help stabilize Chicago communities plagued by daily violence.
State Rep. John Fritchey, from the north side, and Rep Lashawn Ford, from the south side urged Gov Quinn to deploy the Guard in Chicago.

The state reps aren't talking about having National Guard troops with tanks in the street or taking over neighborhoods or walking around with machine guns. They say the Guard's presence alone will go a long way.


Superintendent Weiss, who served six years in the military, would rather see stricter gun laws and the street "code of silence" broken down. Although he said he is willing to discuss the possibility on the Guard's presence if Mayor Daley is willing to.
Click to expand...
Yeah....because some of the strictest gun control laws in the country are working so well for you!

From an atricle in the Chicago Sun-Times:
," nor do they have the same respect for civil liberties.
"It’s making a statement that your Constitutional rights may be diminished,"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well they really don't. They're trained to handle different situations, and take different approaches.
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Military training does not include search warrants, Terry stops, civil rights, etc.

Law enforcement training does.

If that is not sufficient support, by all means, move on. I will too.

Again, this statement was not meant to be an insult. It is a practical recognition that the training given to military and law enforcement are different--which is why freedom-loving people do not want the military doing law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Actually what I hope for are peace officers enforcing the law, not law enforcement officers.

Law enforcement officers are trained to be occupation forces - light. the military in our streets is occupation forces - heavy.
 
F

fully_armed_biker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
463
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
fully_armed_biker wrote:
From WGN's weg site:
CHICAGO - Sunday, two state representatives called for the National Guard to come in and help stabilize Chicago communities plagued by daily violence.
State Rep. John Fritchey, from the north side, and Rep Lashawn Ford, from the south side urged Gov Quinn to deploy the Guard in Chicago.

The state reps aren't talking about having National Guard troops with tanks in the street or taking over neighborhoods or walking around with machine guns. They say the Guard's presence alone will go a long way.


Superintendent Weiss, who served six years in the military, would rather see stricter gun laws and the street "code of silence" broken down. Although he said he is willing to discuss the possibility on the Guard's presence if Mayor Daley is willing to.
Click to expand...
Yeah....because some of the strictest gun control laws in the country are working so well for you!

From an atricle in the Chicago Sun-Times:
," nor do they have the same respect for civil liberties.
"It’s making a statement that your Constitutional rights may be diminished,"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well they really don't. They're trained to handle different situations, and take different approaches.
Click to expand...
My point being this idiot having the ball$ toclaim, "It'smaking a statement that your Constitutional rights may be diminished," as if the city of Chicago is some stall worth of a constitutional government...it's laughable. Daley and his cronies need victims of crimes to justify their existence...and they will trample over any body's rights they have to, to make sure it stays that way. Forget the Constitution, the unalienable right, given to us by our creator (whom ever you believe that to be)to life and liberty...and hence the right to use any means necessary to protect that life and liberty...like I said, "IDJITS!"
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Military training does not include search warrants, Terry stops, civil rights, etc.

Law enforcement training does.

If that is not sufficient support, by all means, move on. I will too.

Again, this statement was not meant to be an insult. It is a practical recognition that the training given to military and law enforcement are different--which is why freedom-loving people do not want the military doing law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Actually what I hope for are peace officers enforcing the law, not law enforcement officers.

Law enforcement officers are trained to be occupation forces - light. the military in our streets is occupation forces - heavy.
Click to expand...
I might be an idiot today, but I always thought "Peace Officer" and "Law Enforcement Officer" were synonymous with one another. What exactly would define the role of "keeping the peace", if it's not enforcing the law? Just curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top