Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: A chance to speak to Generals

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    A chance to speak to Generals

    Article: One Year After The Fort Hood Rampage.

    WHEN will the Generals of our great country start acting on their oaths of office to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" by obeying our Supreme Court-recognized right to keep and bear arms? It's utterly insane that I can protect and defend myself and my family in nearly all our 50 states via either open carry or concealed carry, yet I, a retired member of the military sworn to uphold and defend the same Constitution as have the generals who set military base policy, am barred from protecting or defending myself and my family on the same military bases I've served close to half my life.

    WAKE UP!

    Please forward this to each and every one of your representatives, as well as the commander in chief of our troops.
    Last edited by since9; 11-05-2010 at 03:39 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    I'd have to agree, I never understood the idea of not allowing the same men we trust with the worlds most powerful military technologies/weapons to carry their own private weapons on base.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  3. #3
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990

    Unarmed Victim Zone

    I completely understand. 21 yrs in the military, and our stateside bases are the largest UVZ in the US. (notice heavy breathing). Not saying anymore for security reason.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Private property laws folks... Thats how they get away with it...

    The federal "government" is actually a corporation, and as such, all its property has the same rights as any other corporation--including banning private carry of firearms by law abiding citizens.

    And as employees you're "rights" can be limited just like any other corporate employer...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    58
    Name another company that forces you to 8 years of services if you want the job, involuntary call up and jail time if you do not comply.
    Don't get me wrong I loved the service but so much BS associated with it.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The military ain't General Electric.

    They must know that the folks that they "hire" will follow orders--even those that will almost surely result in their deaths.

    GE doesn't quite need that level of commitment from their employees. Comparisons between the military and employers are inapt.

  7. #7
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    As Sergeant Major, (retired) I have often wondered how we can trust our soldiers our soldier/airmen and marines to use and carry the deadliest weapons and munitions and cannot allow them to safeguard themselves at home. My son is a DoD uniformed officer that guards the gates of Ft Riley. He's told me on several instances that he has had to detain soldiers and confiscate weapons that most thankfully were in the proper carry method. Usually they just send them to the Provost Marshall for a temporary registration so they can get their Commanders to sign off on them. Just to have to put them in the Arms Room.
    While stationed in Germany in 79-82 I lived off the military installation in Post Quarters. I had cleared my quarters in February of 82, and just below my bedroom window was the entrance to the boiler room. Had I still been in quarters I would have been able to prevent a murder. A soldier forced a young woman down those steps and slashed her throat. You cannot know how hard it is to live with that. I had moved out just two days prior.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    You cannot know how hard it is to live with that. I had moved out just two days prior.
    You're right. I can't. I encountered a similar situation back in 1991, but nothing approaching anything quite this extreme.

    I'm sorry for the loss, KM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97

    Not Private Property

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Private property laws folks... Thats how they get away with it...

    The federal "government" is actually a corporation, and as such, all its property has the same rights as any other corporation--including banning private carry of firearms by law abiding citizens.

    And as employees you're "rights" can be limited just like any other corporate employer...
    Apples to oranges.

    Federal installations are far worse than a private employer when it comes to RTKBA. A private employer can only fire you for carrying against policy, and in most states you might get a misdemeanor trespassing charge if they decide to press charges and the local DA wants to take the case. You can get another job and keep your guns. But do the same on a federal installation and it'll be a felony charge, a stay at club fed, and loss of firearms rights.

    So NO, a private employer cannot limit your rights like the feds can.

    Plus, government property is not private property. It's public property. You and I are the owners, they are our servants. NOT the other way around. If anything they should require that all base personnel be armed, from the general right on down to the janitor at the PX in case of another Ft. Hood incident or worse.

    If we can't trust them with guns, why do we trust them with the safety of the United States?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Military personnel 'are' in essence 'Government Property'. Any concern for your health and welfare ultimately centers around your ability to function as an 'effective' in the military mission. You've all heard 'The needs of the service come first?'

    Quote: "Plus, government property is not private property. It's public property. You and I are the owners, they are our servants. NOT the other way around." Hehehe... yeah, OK... source law: Public Law 81-831 begat DOD Directive 5200.2 DoD PERSONNEL SECURITY PROGRAM for starters. I don't have access to the resources that I used to (IHS does a much better job of that than the GPO or DoD.)

    Personally... I think personal sidearms should be issued to select Senior NCO's/Petty Officers, Warrant Officers and Officers on duty, but NOT everybody willy-nilly unless directly in performance of military duties. Not all milpersonnel are saints, on or off-station.
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 11-16-2010 at 11:29 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    Military personnel 'are' in essence 'Government Property'. Any concern for your health and welfare ultimately centers around your ability to function as an 'effective' in the military mission. You've all heard 'The needs of the service come first?'

    Quote: "Plus, government property is not private property. It's public property. You and I are the owners, they are our servants. NOT the other way around." Hehehe... yeah, OK... source law: Public Law 81-831 begat DOD Directive 5200.2 DoD PERSONNEL SECURITY PROGRAM for starters. I don't have access to the resources that I used to (IHS does a much better job of that than the GPO or DoD.)

    Personally... I think personal sidearms should be issued to select Senior NCO's/Petty Officers, Warrant Officers and Officers on duty, but NOT everybody willy-nilly unless directly in performance of military duties. Not all milpersonnel are saints, on or off-station.
    Yet MOST of them are citizens; just like you and I. Why deny their Rights, based upon some arbitrary paygrade level or other metric of your chosen discriminatory practice?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Military personnel cannot be "government property."

    What a degrading and horrible thing to say. They are (I was) people who hold all the rights that all people do. They have (I had) agreed voluntarily to suspend our exercise of certain rights for a period of time in exchange for the pay and benefits offered. That is simply a contract. We all enter into contracts where we agree to give up choices we have a right to make in favor of a promise to take a certain course of action that we have the right not to take. Of course, the enlistment contract is probably the starkest example of voluntarily agreeing to submit to the authority of others.

    Some entered into this contract solely for the pay and bennies, for a job. Some did because of a sense of duty to the Republic that they loved. To refer to those who choose to serve as essentially slaves is inexcusable and disgusting.

    Shame.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    After being retired now for just over a year, I've had some decent time to look back and reflect a little.

    Some of these rules and regulations people see (or live with firsthand even) seem silly and ignorant but the problem is, many of these regulations came about as a result of a problem in the past. The sad fact is that most of these regulations were the result of idiotic behavior at one time or another. I was never big of mass punishment on any level while serving, but there are times when leaders have to make decisions that affect the whole in an effort to stem a small tide of bad behavior.

    SO while today it seems asinine to restrict military member's carrying options on post, I can bet that, at some point in time, the restrictions were much more lenient until such time as a few morons had accidents which caused others to die. As a result, Post Commanders restricted the carrying and use of POWs on post.

    The vast majority of military members would probably never have an incident while carrying, but those highly publicized idiots who do are going to be the ones you hear about. And worse, they will be the ones commanders react to every time.

    I have no hard numbers to post here, but I have to think that many regulations we see these days came about as a result of bad behavior. While punishing those who acted wrongly, commanders also took steps to reduce future incidents through what I would call "mass implementation" policies designed to mediate unplanned incidents.

    So what does all this mumbo jumbo mean? Simply put, many regulations that apply to everyone on post or base are probably the result of some ass-monkeys who messed it up for everyone. You can look at it a couple ways. From one side you can see how it's needlessly restricting good members of the military who would be responsible while carrying on and off duty. On the other hand, you can also see (based on bad behavior in the past that military commanders and communities had to deal with) why commanders would take steps to reduce adverse incidents.

    Simply place yourself in the Post Commander's position for a moment. You get the annual report of accidental shootings and you don't like the numbers. You've tried to take steps in the past to curb them such as training, supervision at the lowest levers, etc, yet you are still having these problems.

    What do you do?

    Again, while it does seem restrictive and unwarranted at first glance, there's probably a decent reason why such a policy is currently in place. That. of course, is not to say that a legitimate review shouldn't be in order from time to time. Maybe it's time they look at the subject again?

  14. #14
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Military personnel cannot be "government property."

    What a degrading and horrible thing to say. They are (I was) people who hold all the rights that all people do. They have (I had) agreed voluntarily to suspend our exercise of certain rights for a period of time in exchange for the pay and benefits offered. That is simply a contract. We all enter into contracts where we agree to give up choices we have a right to make in favor of a promise to take a certain course of action that we have the right not to take. Of course, the enlistment contract is probably the starkest example of voluntarily agreeing to submit to the authority of others.

    Some entered into this contract solely for the pay and bennies, for a job. Some did because of a sense of duty to the Republic that they loved. To refer to those who choose to serve as essentially slaves is inexcusable and disgusting.

    Shame.
    De Jure you are correct, De Facto you are incorrect. If a private goes on liberty/leave, etc., and does something that causes him to be unfit for duty, you can bet your sweet bippy that he will be given a minimum of an article 15 for rendering government equipment (him/herself) unfit for use and could be brought to court martial for the same. If hurt bad enough to qualify for a medical discharge you can bet on the court martial and a dishonorable or an other than honorable discharge with zero VA benefits.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    De Jure you are correct, De Facto you are incorrect. If a private goes on liberty/leave, etc., and does something that causes him to be unfit for duty, you can bet your sweet bippy that he will be given a minimum of an article 15 for rendering government equipment (him/herself) unfit for use and could be brought to court martial for the same. If hurt bad enough to qualify for a medical discharge you can bet on the court martial and a dishonorable or an other than honorable discharge with zero VA benefits.
    Yes, I have heard that myth. Care to cite a case where that line of reasoning has actually been used in a proceeding? In my 20 years, the myth was repeated often, but no one could ever cite a single case where it happened.

  16. #16
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808
    I have seen Article 15s handed out but I've yet to see this go to anything higher. Either the soldier doesn't challenge it, or it falters before going to trial.

    Oh by the by, the Article 15s I saw was for 1 broken leg during a race and one was for a soldier getting a sunburn "Destruction of Government Property." He wasn't destroyed, just crispy or temporarily crippled. I nearly crapped a brick. People can't be property, but NJP goes through like this, or did in 2000.

    It'd NEVER float in trial

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Goose View Post
    I have seen Article 15s handed out but I've yet to see this go to anything higher. Either the soldier doesn't challenge it, or it falters before going to trial.

    Oh by the by, the Article 15s I saw was for 1 broken leg during a race and one was for a soldier getting a sunburn "Destruction of Government Property." He wasn't destroyed, just crispy or temporarily crippled. I nearly crapped a brick. People can't be property, but NJP goes through like this, or did in 2000.

    It'd NEVER float in trial
    I call BS. You are going to tell me that you can't, but here goes anyway. Cite?

    In my twenty years, I don't know of a single case. It's a myth. One that, for credibility and to impress those around them, is often accompanied with the insistence that the teller knows someone who knows someone who this actually happened to! Really!

    Bull.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    All this 'cite' stuff is B.S. You do something to yourself on purpose or thru some dumb stunt that renders you unfit for duty in the military and you'll get written up. 'On Report'. Show up drunk... stoned or been in a barroom brawl 'n beat up... 'Don't matter. Get some STD (the clap) more than a few times and you'll be restricted to the ship or station where you can't do that anymore.

    There are places posted off-limits where you cannot go. You cannot go further than anywhere in a 50 mile radius on liberty w/o written permission. On duty days... you must remain in off-base quarters if not actually on watch or one place with a phone number on station (such as the club, gymn or hobby shop). You will conform to the Uniform of the Day... no matter what it may be. You can be written up for being out of uniform if you don''t comply. There are certain articles of civilian attire that cannot be worn on or off station/ship. If you have certain levels of security clearance, there are places and people you cannot associate with. Any off-duty civilian part-time employment must be approved before you can take the job. Anything that interferes with your military duties or ability to perform those duties is forbidden. The military is one of the only types of employment where you can go to jail for not showing up for work or 'quitting'. Now... tell me again you're not considered 'Government Property'?
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 11-18-2010 at 12:54 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97

    Off Topic

    I think we're getting off topic.

    Whether military personnel are government property or not is largely irrelevant. Our most sensitive areas are huge victim disarmament zones. They've done nothing to prevent another Ft. Hood incident, and probably never will. You see, they'd rather have the soldiers disarmed and vulnerable at home than risk giving them the means of self-defense. That ain't right.

    Keep in mind that there are many civilians working on base these days. They are absolutely not government property, and are denied RTKBA. Many of them had to pass intensive background checks to get clearance, so we can trust them with our nation's most secret secrets, but not with a firearm?

    And let's not forget that these people commute in, sometimes over great distance, to get to work.

    So now we have hundreds if not thousands of people every day who are knowledgeable of classified information driving back and forth disarmed. The enemy (whoever they are) can hijack these people freely knowing they are disarmed and beat them with a wrench until they give up the secrets.

    Does any of this seem like a good way to run things?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    [QUOTE=DustoneGT;1403891]I think we're getting off topic.

    Whether military personnel are government property or not is largely irrelevant. Our most sensitive areas are huge victim disarmament zones. They've done nothing to prevent another Ft. Hood incident, and probably never will. You see, they'd rather have the soldiers disarmed and vulnerable at home than risk giving them the means of self-defense. That ain't right.

    Keep in mind that there are many civilians working on base these days. They are absolutely not government property, and are denied RTKBA. Many of them had to pass intensive background checks to get clearance, so we can trust them with our nation's most secret secrets, but not with a firearm?

    And let's not forget that these people commute in, sometimes over great distance, to get to work.

    So now we have hundreds if not thousands of people every day who are knowledgeable of classified information driving back and forth disarmed. The enemy (whoever they are) can hijack these people freely knowing they are disarmed and beat them with a wrench until they give up the secrets.

    Does any of this seem like a good way to run things?[/QUOTE]

    Of course not. The military is always doing a balancing act between practicality and control... based on percieved mission necessity. The emphasis is usually on control. Individual desires are secondary or not a consideration, depending upon circumstances. There is 'no good way' that will satisfy all concerned. As a single senior enlisted, i lived off station... but I also lived aboard ship. Suffice to say... I made do with inventiveness concerning my personal weapon(s).

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97

    Control

    The second generation French model of absolute control was obsolete by World War II. Germany used the third gen approach where officers were rewarded instead of punished for disobeying orders if the officer was showing strategic initiative to accomplish the mission's goal.

    The only reason they lost WWII was the sheer number of Soviet bodies thrown at them. US and British forces were largely a historical footnote in any honest appraisal of the war.

    Now cartels, terrorist groups and others are pushing things into the fourth generation.

    It boggles my mind that US forces are still largely stuck in 2G strategy and thinking. Our forces will continue to be deprived of the best and brightest until they change their ways.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Most personnel in the military react just the same to "authority threats", as the regular citizens of this country do.

    I have to disagree about the "property of the US government" comment. While this is thoroughly beaten into your head, the truth of the matter is that command individuals leverage this mentality to get you to do things you would not normally do.

    Let me back up for a second and say that I understand the absolute need for soldiers who follow orders. Let me also state that I have some pretty unique run ins with command individuals who will run willy-nilly all over you if given the opportunity.

    I'll share a story to demonstrate (Sorry, this may be lengthy):

    After deploying for the invasion during OIF I, I found myself tasked to various TDY and other unit oriented tasks (DPC/"Purple Ramp" etc.). Our unit was very "Hooah" about everything, and every task that came down from USAREUR, we volunteered for.

    When the dust finally settled, I arranged a dental appointment over on another close post. I'm a sanitary dude, but I hadn't had my teeth looked at in over a year and half, so it was about that time.

    Around this time I was seeing some ridiculously hot blonde. You know, all the right curves in all the right places, green eyes, huge ...you know. What was also hot was she was a 52D...a generator mechanic.

    Well, around the time I was suppose to be at the dentists office, I ended up bumping into her in the hall. Somehow I ended up in her room, etc.

    Missing an appointment without canceling in advance is pretty messed up, since medical resources were thin on our post, and just slotting to get in was difficult because of the ratio of patients to doctors.

    2 days later, during a weekend field exercise, top (A term for a First Sergeant) calls me in.

    "Why did you miss your dentist appointment?" he asked.

    "No excuse First Sergeant, I knew I had the appointment and I neglected to cancel it before no-showing", I replied.

    "You're going to go ahead and buff my floor in the battery area for the next week. Every morning before first formation, and every night after final formation."

    "I understand top. Sorry for missing my appointment.".

    This is proper "corrective training". I smiled and did what I was told to do when I was told to do it. I was the one who screwed up, and this is part of individual integrity.

    The Battery floor was so polished for the next week that just before I was supposed to be done with my corrective training, First Sergeant came out and said, "You going to miss any other dental appointments?".

    I said, "No top".

    He says, "This floor looks great and has looked like you put personal pride into it all week. You're released from special duty, be gone.".

    "Hooah First Sergeant".


    This is a common type of corrective scenario. This is the way things should be conducted.

    In another scenario that personally happened to me and members of my unit, a new First Sergeant was ignoring orders from a 4 star general (General B.B. Bell at that time), and retaining soldiers during periods of time wherein he was ordered to release them. In fact, the order was so stringent, Sgt. Major would hop into his van to ensure we were released during this period of time, by ordering if necessary, all First Sergeants, to release their units.

    Our new First Sergeant would hide us in our heavy-doored motor pool with smoked glass, and order us not to sound off, in order to evade Sergeant Major.

    In the end, after my personal challenge to him (I was only a Specialist at that time) since none of the NCO's would step up, IG fired him out of a cannon.

    There were also other things going on on post, that caused our post to be "#1 in USAREUR for mischief". A title earned by command elements, not the soldiers themselves.

    Our Sgt. Major had a flask of Whiskey and smelled of alcohol all day.
    Our battalion commander was on to "bigger, better things", and clearly, running the unit was behind him.
    Our post was 200k from any sizable command element.

    Point is, the actions on behalf of the First Sergeant were improper. My bringing it to his attention irregardless of rank, was absolutely proper, so long as I attempted to follow the chain of command first. I did just that.

    Had I not challenged this First Sergeant, this type of unscrupulous behavior would have gone on.

    For the record, and to accent my point. IG (That's the Inspector General for those who don't know) came out and fired probably 1/8th of the command group. One commander had imprisoned his soldiers in a 8 foot by 10 foot room for over two weeks at one of our field exercise locations, because they could not pass their MOS qual tests.

    IG sent out a full-bird, who started lopping heads. I don't think I have ever seen an officer so disgusted with command conduct in my tenure.

    Now. Let's parallel this, so you civvies can understand:

    It seems while in the service that things are more "cut and dry". Sometimes, nothing could be further from the truth. As I am sure the higher ranking veterans here could attest to, things are intensely political at times. Generals and Colonels wanting to look good, and approaching this with the same practices that say a representative or governor would.

    Political posturing, "gun free zones", and other BS factors heavily into their decision making process.

    In the civilian world, you could address this personally if you like, by contacting your congressman, writing letter, or other forms of remedial persistence.

    In the military, this will get you hung. Not literally, but figuratively.

    So where does the pressure come from? Who pressures the changes?

    Realistically.

    Nobody.

    Reaching a General through the chain of command, is all but impossible. Then, even if you did reach said General, you have pissed everyone off along the way.

    Your squad leader.
    Your platoon sergeant.
    Your First Sergeant.
    Your Commander.
    Your battalion XO potentially.
    Your battalion commander.

    Somebodies doing extra duty, I promise that.


    So the pressure needs to come from somewhere, and the only place it can come from, are the freedom loving citizens of this nation who want their service members to have better lives.

    How can you guys concentrate on them though, when it's likely that your local government is all screwed up too, and there are so many problems in the regular political system, never mind the military political system.

    We're likely to figure out the DADT debauchery first.

    Isn't that sad?

    Your servicemembers died in a blaze of terrorist gunfire last year, but never fear...they almost have DADT figured out.

    That should solve it.

    Right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  23. #23
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Slowfive's got it on punchcard.


    Once upon a time... in a land far, far away... I wandered out of my hooch, squintin' into the sun... nursin' a hangover, wearing a beatup boonie hat, an OD t-shirt... my faded BDU pants 'n unlaced flight boots. I also had my ever present 1911A1 slung on a gunbelt ina WWII era flapped holster... and half a can of the hair of the dog PBR in hand. I ran smack into no less than COMNAVFORV ADM Elmo Zumwalt himself along with every heavy in TF-116 as well as my Skipper. I assumed as much of an attention posture as I could manage w/o dropping my beer can... 'n Zumwalt asks: "What's your job sailor?" I salute (shifting my beer to my left hand) "'Snuffin' gooks Sir!" (My skipper turns dead white... the rest of the entourage go all drop jaw...) The ADM says... "Good... you're the first sonofabitch I've met all day who knows what he's here for. Carry on sailor." "Aye, aye Sir... " Then I hear my skipper... 'That's Petty Officer ****, he's one of my fire pissers." Zumwalt says...: "We need more fire-pissers...." I continued on past some serious stink-eye from the assembled entourage... while holding a salute. "Good morning... gentlemen." Yep... it's all about politics.
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 11-19-2010 at 02:05 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    I want to state the following so that those who do not serve, can understand what the period was like wherein I was challenging the First Sergeant, and more specifically, "why" I challenged him. This will allow you to more clearly understand why this is such hassle, and you had better be committed to go all the way:

    #1. The multiple periods of retention, wherein the First Sergeant kept us beyond the time we were ordered to go, affected the lives of most of my squad (I was squad leader at the time). One soldier was supposed to meet his wife in Frankfurt, and appropriately scheduled during this downtime to do so. He did not make it due to this First Sergeants actions.

    His wife, who speaks no German, took over 6 hours after hopping multiple trains and being partially lost, to simply get to the housing area. Frankfurt was < 3 hours away.

    #2. During the period of inspection by IG, the new First Sergeant did all he could to make my life hell. Buffing, polishing, and any other excess duties he could dredge up to give me 0 free time, he assigned to me. I slept maybe 4 hours per night for two weeks straight. Thankfully my schedule of sleep from combat hadn't changed, so I wasn't necessarily uncomfortable with it.

    #3. The battalion XO caught wind of my IG complaint, and personally harangued me for over an hour, mostly expressing the awesome power at the behest of his golden leaf, and the insignificance of my dodo-and-shield. Unbeknown to him, I had already had a lecture from the new First Sergeant about how diamonds beat shields.

    C'est la vie.


    The point is, if you are going to press on with what you know is right, then do not be intimidated to simply do the right thing. I knew my life, for a brief period, was going to be hell.

    In the end though, I came out on top decisively, because I was on the side of right.

    This isn't always logical to some people. They consider their temporary hardship to be an unnecessary thing when brought on by doing the right thing.

    This gives birth to people who, well, simply refuse to do said right thing.

    Just sayin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    This gives birth to people who, well, simply refuse to do said right thing.
    Yep. It gives birth to people who just follow all orders, as opposed to only following lawful orders.
    Last edited by wrightme; 11-19-2010 at 02:34 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •