• 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.

Guard at the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier maintains proper decorum.

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
As it should be. Those who gave their lives for our freedom deserve all the respect we can offer.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
:cool:

Perfectly handled!!


Unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans don't just don't get it. I was at the Veterans Cemetery on Memorial Day; there was a special service for a recently buried vet; some others visiting the cemetery were very noisy and interupted the ceremony. One of the color guards went over and asked them to tone it down. Fortunately, they did. :banghead:
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
I have seen them do something like that in person before. The person was not paying attention and looked like they soiled themselves when they heard him pop like that. Priceless. If someone still was causing problems I am sure there are enough troops in the back to handle it.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Not to mention the steel plate on the butt of his weapon. Getting that in the face tends to focus one's attention quite well.

The Third Infantry Regiment of the United States Army is the oldest continuously serving unit in the Army. Its members must meet rigid height and weight standards, pass a PT test with a minimum score, and have been awarded the 11B, Combat Infantryman, military occupational specialty. Those who guard the Tomb are an elite within the elite. Only after passing even more rigid examinations is a member of the Old Guard allowed to guard the Tomb. His first tours of duty are when the public is not present.

Yes, I was a soldier and I'm still very proud of that fact since you ask.:lol:
 

Justman1020

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
155
Location
Washington
We just received a new sgt to my unit, who served at the tomb for a year and 1/2. He said he loved it, because it was such an honor.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I hate to be the odd man out, but as a former Marine I have standing to comment.

The First Amendment is not suspended at shrines.

Giggling and joking is far, far from deliberate, calculated disrespect, such as, say, the preacher who was going around to military funerals saying dead soldiers were God's wrath for America's tolerance of homosexuals.

It is one thing for the guard to request--which he did. And, the noisy ones shut up. But, they could just as well have continued--and we would be very wise to support their right to do so.

Majority opinion and majority speech needs no protection in a democratic republic.

Who is the government to decide to seize our tax dollars under threat and then assert that all must be silent and respectful at the locations it chooses?

Especially when the demanded respect helps glorify the dead the government helped get killed? Glorification, honoring the dead? These play right into the hands of the sociopaths who lie us into war, I suspect. Below is a link to a very interesting video--a clip from an old movie. When taken together with Gen. Smedley Butler's (USMC) book, War is a Racket, the clip is definitely food for thought.

So, while we may or may not be personally affronted by the giggling and laughing, I would recommend against supporting too strongly the government (guard) shutting up the "offenders"


The mother has been pretending her husband and son are still alive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIeYppX-lRg&feature=related
 
Last edited:

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Those guys are trained to stand there for ( I dunno how many ) hours like a statue. I have no doubt about their dedication and sense of restraint since I've never heard of any hippie oxygen thieves getting the buttstroke to the groin they deserve. I can't even believe the genepool has been so badly corrupted that there are people so vapid that one of these guys has to break off and chastize a gaggle of disrespectful bed wetters.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
I hate to be the odd man out, but as a former Marine I have standing to comment.

The First Amendment is not suspended at shrines.

Giggling and joking is far, far from deliberate, calculated disrespect, such as, say, the preacher who was going around to military funerals saying dead soldiers were God's wrath for America's tolerance of homosexuals.

It is one thing for the guard to request--which he did. And, the noisy ones shut up. But, they could just as well have continued--and we would be very wise to support their right to do so.

Majority opinion and majority speech needs no protection in a democratic republic.

Who is the government to decide to seize our tax dollars under threat and then assert that all must be silent and respectful at the locations it chooses?

Especially when the demanded respect helps glorify the dead the government helped get killed? Glorification, honoring the dead? These play right into the hands of the sociopaths who lie us into war, I suspect. Below is a link to a very interesting video--a clip from an old movie. When taken together with Gen. Smedley Butler's (USMC) book, War is a Racket, the clip is definitely food for thought.

So, while we may or may not be personally affronted by the giggling and laughing, I would recommend against supporting too strongly the government (guard) shutting up the "offenders"


The mother has been pretending her husband and son are still alive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIeYppX-lRg&feature=related

In public hearings, courts and events officials have always had the authority to regulate unruly behavior. The government has the authority to enforce respect and silence at memorials by a mandate from the majority of people who understand what is and is not tolerable in a civilized society.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
In public hearings, courts and events officials have always had the authority to regulate unruly behavior. The government has the authority to enforce respect and silence at memorials by a mandate from the majority of people who understand what is and is not tolerable in a civilized society.

Uh-huh. Suuuuuuure.

Thanks for giving some thought to the rest of what I wrote, too.
 
Last edited:

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Uh-huh. Suuuuuuure.

Thanks for giving some thought to the rest of what I wrote, too.

If they build a memorial to obozo, marx and john lennon with rules against acting like an ass I would simply avoid it rather than put myself in a position where I would get chastized by someone charged with guarding it. It's public property bottom line, and all of the public should have the right to visit such property without being disturbed by people who have no common sense. Whether you like it (or believe it) or not, the government gets it's authority to exist, enforce regulations, tax, imprison, wage war, steal and redistribute wealth depending on what the majority of the public demands or tolerates.

I would stick with the clear majority that holds disrespectul (*&%*'s in contempt.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
It is requested that everyone maintains a level of silence and respect

He_Mad.jpg
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
The First Amendment is not suspended at shrines.

...

So, while we may or may not be personally affronted by the giggling and laughing, I would recommend against supporting too strongly the government (guard) shutting up the "offenders"
You are correct, of course, even though I joked earlier about the pointy end of the boomstick.

I strongly supported the people who showed up at the Jefferson Memorial --Thomas Jefferson, mind you!-- to dance silently at midnight to celebrate TJ's birthday. There was no noise, no disturbance, but the Park Police swooped in like they'd caught bin Laden and arrested the dancers. They did the same thing again some time later, when a daylight silent dance was held in protest of the earlier arrests.

Those weren't even protests; there were no signs, no one speaking, no noise at all. It was simply some couples and/or individuals whose body language suggested "dancing" to the officials who believe the spirit of Thomas Jefferson requires somber repose.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
If they build a memorial to obozo, marx and john lennon with rules against acting like an ass I would simply avoid it rather than put myself in a position where I would get chastized by someone charged with guarding it. It's public property bottom line, and all of the public should have the right to visit such property without being disturbed by people who have no common sense. Whether you like it (or believe it) or not, the government gets it's authority to exist, enforce regulations, tax, imprison, wage war, steal and redistribute wealth depending on what the majority of the public demands or tolerates.

I would stick with the clear majority that holds disrespectul (*&%*'s in contempt.

Uh huh.

You understand it wasn't all that many years ago that OCers were the target of very similar--shall we say--rationale?

It was thoughtless to OC--cause it made people nervous. It was within the government's legitimate sphere to seize (detain) and investigate lawful OCers because, well, they might be up to something. And, (gasp!) they were doing something "intolerable"--carrying a gun. Or, so the "rationale" went.

What you have written about government power and majority is called legal Positivism. It holds, among other things, that any law is legitimate because laws are all man-made. Positivism is the antithesis of natural rights, Natural Law--whether called the law of God or Nature. The concept of a Natural Law and natural rights holds that man-made laws, in order to be legitimate, must abide by or align with the law of Nature or God. Meaning, there is a higher law than man-made laws--the law of how the universe works, and how Man's mind and spirit work.

Positivism. Natural Law. Natural rights. I'll let you all figure out which seems to take into account more truth. And, which you would prefer to live under.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Uh huh.

You understand it wasn't all that many years ago that OCers were the target of very similar--shall we say--rationale?

It was thoughtless to OC--cause it made people nervous. It was within the government's legitimate sphere to seize (detain) and investigate lawful OCers because, well, they might be up to something. And, (gasp!) they were doing something "intolerable"--carrying a gun. Or, so the "rationale" went.

What you have written about government power and majority is called legal Positivism. It holds, among other things, that any law is legitimate because laws are all man-made. Positivism is the antithesis of natural rights, Natural Law--whether called the law of God or Nature. The concept of a Natural Law and natural rights holds that man-made laws, in order to be legitimate, must abide by or align with the law of Nature or God. Meaning, there is a higher law than man-made laws--the law of how the universe works, and how Man's mind and spirit work.

Positivism. Natural Law. Natural rights. I'll let you all figure out which seems to take into account more truth. And, which you would prefer to live under.

I can't argue with your premise. My (admittedly knee jerk) reaction to this behavior would provide the government with the authority to bash heads, and this would not advance collective freedom. I still maintain my assertion however that the authority ( in this case a soldier with a bayonette on his rifle) has the power to enforce codes of conduct on public property he has been commissioned to protect. This is a trivial issue (people acting like idiots at a memorial) compared to government authorities attempting too supress civil rights enshrined in the founding laws of the nation (OC). I see the parallel, but I think it's somewhat lacking.

Furthermore when you speak of "natural law" are private property rights, self defense, speech, or any other rights those of us blessed enough to live in western civilization (are smart enough too) revere upheld as "God's Law" in places like China or the middle east? If there is a "higher law than man-made-laws" (which I believe there is, but there are a $#!tload of people who have their own laws which conflict with these and they insist these laws are also divine) who gets to decide these laws overide the sensibilities of the population in question?

I prefer to live under a republican form of government, where what are supposed to educated people who's time and attention are devoted too public service get elected to positions of power in order to serve in the best interestes of their constituencies create laws (or just screw off and play golf but don't screw us) that promote prosperity and liberty.

Just to ruffle your feathers I'll say Ron Paul would most effectively promote that agenda, but his foreign policy ignorance (or maybe pandering) make him unelectable.
 
Top