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

Citizen · Nov 11, 2011

PrayingForWar said:
SNIP 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?

You should look up natural rights and Natural Law. No gun rights or rights activist should be without the foundation.

We enjoy the rights we do today precisely because the Founders understood Natural Law and natural rights, grasped the truth of them, and were willing to recognize them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

How well did people understand this at that time? Later in life, John Adams remarked that there was nothing new in the second paragraph of the Decl. of Independ. The words were trite (his word).

These ideas are the very foundation of natural rights and Natural Law. Whether one calls it God or nature, its laws are the fundamentals of the universe. An example would be the law of gravity is.

You might start with looking up John Locke. In his Second Treatise on Government 1689, he explains at length. Very, very useful information. In that Locke wrote his piece almost ninety years before the American Revolution, it is easy to see why the ideas were somewhat commonplace by the time of the Revolution. Remember, the colonists that fired upon Gen. Gage's troops at Lexington and Concord were not Americans fighting Brits. They were Brits fighting Brits, demanding their rights as Englishmen. And, their idea of their rights was by then heavily influenced by Locke who was himself an Englishman. Side note: In Thomas Jefferson's private papers is an invoice for some books he ordered from England as a young man. Listed on the invoice is Second Treatise.

An easy-to-read source on natural law and rights is the chapter on the same in Andrew Napolitano's book, Its Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong. The entire book is very good. I found his explanation on natural rights to be a fast, easy to grasp explanation that did not require the commitment reading Second Treatise does. Plus, the book is an eye-popper on certain rights. For example, I had an instinct that the right to petition for redress of grievances was fair and righteous. I think we all do. Napolitano explains how it fits into a natural law and natural rights framework and into the framework of government. He does the same for due process.

And, that is the key: understanding how to relate any given right to natural law. Once you grasp that, things really start falling into place for you.

My purpose in relaying all this is not to slap you down, PFW. It is to arm you with something even bullets can't beat. Something of which every tyrant is afraid--ideas. Particularly these ideas.

DrakeZ07 · Nov 11, 2011

Just to add in my own personal opinion about the whole confrontation, and while I may be natural rebellious, yet submissive, I can help but to point out some things.

I agree that the laughing in the crowd was a bit distasteful, especially when at a monument honoring our fallen soldiers. But, as someone pointed out, that is covered in our right to free speech. It's like public racism. Is it distasteful? yes, is it wrong, and harmful? perhaps. But as a Poly Sci teacher once said when I had a political history class at MSU; "You have a right to be offended, just as much as someone has a right to offend. You may not like it, but it's covered in our bill of rights."

Now, seeing it be said that a soldier with a bayonet has the authority to enforce a trivial code of conduct, etc... So, that soldier has a right to suppress free speech because he may have been taught, and trained that respect and silence are superior? Hmm, why does that remind of a certain group of people, with state granted 'authority' to enforce a 'code of conduct' while wearing black uniforms adorned with skulls, and certain Norse runes?

So, it's fine for a LEO to use their authority to enforce a 'code of conduct' in the form of policy, to supress a persons second amendment right to bear arms, just because a certain large numbered group of people deem OC to be distasteful, wrong, and such? I believe someone already made that point, but it doesn't hurt to help urge said point, does it?

Oh wait, I forgot, I'm being very distasteful to compare that soldier's actions to those of the evil Waffen-SS, and how dare I compare the soldier to certain LEOs, right?

Hey, if I was in the crowd, I'd have challenged the soldier's "authority", test to see how far he would have taken it, and if his lil uniformed buddies would have joined in to help curtail my free speech. Because I'm a left-wing socialist "hippy oxygen theif" who likes to challenge unlimited government authority, and their so called right to enforce baseless laws, and codes of conduct.

So, did the soldiers at Kent State in ohio, have the authority to enforce a code of conduct on anti-war protestors by firing live rounds on then, in an effort to quell a legal protest and stop the legal usage of the right to free speech?

Yep, just more wonderful reasons why we should submit to the government on every single thing, and every single issue, because they know what's best for us, and should help learn us on when to and when not to be respectful, and when we can and cannot use our Rights.

okboomer · Nov 11, 2011

He wasn't curtailing or denying anyone the right to free speech, he was insisting on courteous and respectful behavior at one of our nation's most somber memorial. As an Honor Guard, he is providing a standing, unbroken watch at the tomb of a fallen soldier who gave his life for the preservation of our way of life.

Sometimes, people need to be reminded of their manners ... they were being disrespectful to the nation, our military, all our fallen, and themselves.

As a Color Guard RIC, I was proud to care for the Regiment's colors ... with respect and dignity. I have also supplied a case of new flags to the local VFW after a massive wind storm last spring (70mph winds, gusts to 85). Within 3 days we had all the flags replaced in town.

Daylen · Nov 11, 2011

Citizen said:
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

All he did was make a request.

MilProGuy · Nov 11, 2011

okboomer said:
He wasn't curtailing or denying anyone the right to free speech, he was insisting on courteous and respectful behavior at one of our nation's most somber memorial. As an Honor Guard, he is providing a standing, unbroken watch at the tomb of a fallen soldier who gave his life for the preservation of our way of life.

Sometimes, people need to be reminded of their manners ... they were being disrespectful to the nation, our military, all our fallen, and themselves.

As a Color Guard RIC, I was proud to care for the Regiment's colors ... with respect and dignity. I have also supplied a case of new flags to the local VFW after a massive wind storm last spring (70mph winds, gusts to 85). Within 3 days we had all the flags replaced in town.

Thanks for a well-stated position on this discussion; and for reminding us that manners and respect for one of our nation's most revered traditions should never go out of style.

There is, indeed, a time and a place for everything. The Book of Ecclesiastes clearly teaches this.

Brass Magnet · Nov 11, 2011

Citizen said:
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

Daylen said:
All he did was make a request.

And Citizen mentioned that. I underlined it above.

I think he is hypothesizing on if it wasn't a mere request.

I agree one should maintain respect and may feel disgusted if some chose not to but I'm not for curtailing their rights to do as they chose so long as they aren't violating anyone else's rights.

Uber_Olafsun · Nov 11, 2011

Dumb question. Isn't Arlington considered a military institution that's open to the public or what is it considered? If you were to protest on Andrews AFB during the air show you would most likely be kicked off the base. I know that Arlington falls under the dept of the army so what is it considered?

altajava · Nov 11, 2011

Uber_Olafsun said:
Dumb question. Isn't Arlington considered a military institution that's open to the public or what is it considered? If you were to protest on Andrews AFB during the air show you would most likely be kicked off the base. I know that Arlington falls under the dept of the army so what is it considered?

Arlington National Cemetery is not a base of any sort. It is, a national cemetery, DOD property. Federal rules on carrying a firearm apply. The cemetery, operation there of, is run by the Veterans Administration. The tourist aspect of it is run by the National Park Service.

Citizen, I must correct you. There is no such thing as a former Marine.

Citizen · Nov 11, 2011

Daylen said:
All he did was make a request.

Well, in a manner of speaking. I was earlier willing to frame it as such, for the sake of discussion.

But, lets face it. When a very business-like soldier stops walking, turns, comes to port arms with a rifle that may or may not be loaded, but is definitely affixed with a bayonet, and then uses that tone of voice---it ain't a request.

Did anybody think they were likely to be shot or bayonetted over this? Prolly not.

But, that is one hell of a show of authority in the context of 4th Amendment jurisprudence.

Daylen · Nov 11, 2011

Citizen said:
Well, in a manner of speaking. I was earlier willing to frame it as such, for the sake of discussion.

But, lets face it. When a very business-like soldier stops walking, turns, comes to port arms with a rifle that may or may not be loaded, but is definitely affixed with a bayonet, and then uses that tone of voice---it ain't a request.

Did anybody think they were likely to be shot or bayonetted over this? Prolly not.

But, that is one hell of a show of authority in the context of 4th Amendment jurisprudence.

He even said something along the lines of "it is requested"! Making a strong request is not the same as issuing an order. Tone doesn't matter, nor does him being armed. He had no threatening behavior. Being armed does not force a person to be meek and never speak. He has every right to make a request when armed as the next person.

Citizen · Nov 11, 2011

okboomer said:
He wasn't curtailing or denying anyone the right to free speech, he was insisting on courteous and respectful behavior at one of our nation's most somber memorial. As an Honor Guard, he is providing a standing, unbroken watch at the tomb of a fallen soldier who gave his life for the preservation of our way of life.

Sometimes, people need to be reminded of their manners ... they were being disrespectful to the nation, our military, all our fallen, and themselves.

Uh-huh. Suuuuuure. "It is requested that everyone maintains a level of silence and respect!" (bold emphasis added by Citizen)

Explaining how the government can demand silence and not curtail or deny freedom of speech should be an entertaining exercise in textual gymnastics, altered meanings, and careful omissions. But, I'm ready to be entertained. Lay it on me. (rhetorical)

And, let me make really sure I understand your assertion. The best way to honor the sacrifice of the Unknown is for the government guard to deny one of the very rights the Unknown died for?

Listen, we appreciate your patriotism. God knows there are plenty of socialists and worse in this country. But, lets keep it in perspective. Patriotism is for support of rights. Not the other way around. To say otherwise is to say that patriotism is more important than the rights for which we feel patriotic.

Citizen · Nov 11, 2011

Daylen said:
He even said something along the lines of "it is requested"! Making a strong request is not the same as issuing an order. Tone doesn't matter, nor does him being armed. He had no threatening behavior. Being armed does not force a person to be meek and never speak. He has every right to make a request when armed as the next person.

Suuuuuuure. There was no show of authority. Right. Oh, I'm so relieved.

And, transitioning to port arms a rifle with bayonet affixed while making that sort of statement is not a form of brandishing when done by a military guard, but can be when done by a civilian with or without statement. Glad to hear it. Boy, I was really worried something like thought and examination had crept into the forum.

/sarcasm

Citizen · Nov 11, 2011

Daylen said:
He even said something along the lines of "it is requested"! Making a strong request is not the same as issuing an order. Tone doesn't matter, nor does him being armed. He had no threatening behavior. Being armed does not force a person to be meek and never speak. He has every right to make a request when armed as the next person.

Yeah! You'd better tell the authors of US vs Mendenhall. Somehow they were not as careful in their thinking as you.

/sarcasm

US v Mendenhall: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html

MilProGuy · Nov 12, 2011

OC for ME said:
In the context of the OP:

Those nitwits knew they stepped in it and shut their ill-mannered, disrespectful pie-holes. Hopefully they turned, their tails rightly between their legs, and high-tailed it outta there....dumb-azzes.

As to that....load-o-crap.

Unless you got some kid of syndrome for uncontrolled giggling/joking, like a form of Tourette's syndrome, then it was deliberate disrespect. Straight up plain and simple. Other folks in the video seemed capable of being respectful and quite, but not those mental midgets.

If ill-mannered dill-weeds think their little piss-ant feelings got hurt because 'da man' infringed on their 1A right, cuz they was displaying their room temperature IQ's in the wrong place and at the wrong time, then they need to take their whiny ill-mannered butts to a judge and complain.

Of course majority speech needs protection, all speech needs protection. Just cuz the speech that typically gets trampled is minority speech does not make the minority more precious than the majority. It is bassakwards logic such as this that is used to justify 'reasonable restrictions on speech'...

You positively rock! :banana::banana::banana::banana:

I LOVED the "...room temperature IQs..."!

KBCraig · Nov 12, 2011

Citizen said:
Yeah! You'd better tell the authors of US vs Mendenhall. Somehow they were not as careful in their thinking as you.

You beat me to it.

The entire body of case law about when the 4th Amendment applies makes it quite clear that "tone" does matter, as does being armed, as does being in uniform or displaying a badge or other symbol of authority.

"If a reasonable person believes..." is the key phrase. All the "please" and "request" and "thank you" in the world doesn't matter if a reasonable person believes they must comply or face repercussions from the government or its agent(s).

Citizen · Nov 12, 2011

KBCraig said:
You beat me to it.

The entire body of case law about when the 4th Amendment applies makes it quite clear that "tone" does matter, as does being armed, as does being in uniform or displaying a badge or other symbol of authority.

"If a reasonable person believes..." is the key phrase. All the "please" and "request" and "thank you" in the world doesn't matter if a reasonable person believes they must comply or face repercussions from the government or its agent(s).

Thanks. I think this is just a side-argument, and not really central to the discussion. I think the important elements have already been discussed, and almost all the important aspects already highlighted--for example my point that patriotism is supposed to be in support of liberty, not the other way around. In this discussion about a request, we're really just proving for resistant readers something that should already be obvious--the nature of the so-called request.

However, side discussions can be fun! So, lets have some!

I think the authors of US vs Mendenhall said it very nicely:

We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer'srequest might be compelled. (bold emphasis added by Citizen)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html

So, a display of a weapon can contribute to compulsion. And, when we review the OPer's video clip, we plainly see the sentry transition his bayonetted rifle from left shoulder to "port arms" and hold it there while addressing the tourists. Looks like a pretty noticeable display of a weapon to me.

Clearly the sentry's tone of voice meant business. Had he really intended a genuinely consensual request, his tone would have been much warmer.

The compulsory nature of the communication is inescapable.

Citizen · Nov 12, 2011

A couple random observations. Just to keep the conversation going.

1. The sentry is armed with a bayonetted rifle. Presumably to prevent physical desecration of the grave.

There is a big wide difference between physical desecration and mere transitory laughter.

Does a shrine really need an armed sentry to prevent disrespectful unsilence? Are the sentry's supporters really prepared to say that mere words or laughter can actually desecrate the stone of the tomb? Much less penetrate inside and physically disturb some tiny fragment of the remains? Does a sentry really need a bayonet to spear the laughter sound waves before they reach the tomb?

2. Of course, there is the bad manners and lack of respect for other viewers behind the velvet rope. But, the discussion and the laughter are merely transitory. Are we really willing to say that an armed sentry is needed to solve the problem, and empower him to violate 1A speech rights, when a non-infringing solution is for any offended viewers to just wait a moment until the unrespectful ones leave? And, wouldn't it be better to just put up a sign reminding clueless visitors that silence is appreciated by other visitors?

altajava · Nov 13, 2011

Citizen said:
a non-infringing solution is for any offended viewers to just wait a moment until the unrespectful ones leave?

What if the unrespectfull ones don't leave in a reasonable amount of time, or at all like the Occupy protesters?

Gunslinger · Nov 13, 2011

DrakeZ07 said:
Just to add in my own personal opinion about the whole confrontation, and while I may be natural rebellious, yet submissive, I can help but to point out some things.

I agree that the laughing in the crowd was a bit distasteful, especially when at a monument honoring our fallen soldiers. But, as someone pointed out, that is covered in our right to free speech. It's like public racism. Is it distasteful? yes, is it wrong, and harmful? perhaps. But as a Poly Sci teacher once said when I had a political history class at MSU; "You have a right to be offended, just as much as someone has a right to offend. You may not like it, but it's covered in our bill of rights."

Now, seeing it be said that a soldier with a bayonet has the authority to enforce a trivial code of conduct, etc... So, that soldier has a right to suppress free speech because he may have been taught, and trained that respect and silence are superior? Hmm, why does that remind of a certain group of people, with state granted 'authority' to enforce a 'code of conduct' while wearing black uniforms adorned with skulls, and certain Norse runes?

So, it's fine for a LEO to use their authority to enforce a 'code of conduct' in the form of policy, to supress a persons second amendment right to bear arms, just because a certain large numbered group of people deem OC to be distasteful, wrong, and such? I believe someone already made that point, but it doesn't hurt to help urge said point, does it?

Oh wait, I forgot, I'm being very distasteful to compare that soldier's actions to those of the evil Waffen-SS, and how dare I compare the soldier to certain LEOs, right?

Hey, if I was in the crowd, I'd have challenged the soldier's "authority", test to see how far he would have taken it, and if his lil uniformed buddies would have joined in to help curtail my free speech. Because I'm a left-wing socialist "hippy oxygen theif" who likes to challenge unlimited government authority, and their so called right to enforce baseless laws, and codes of conduct.

So, did the soldiers at Kent State in ohio, have the authority to enforce a code of conduct on anti-war protestors by firing live rounds on then, in an effort to quell a legal protest and stop the legal usage of the right to free speech?

Yep, just more wonderful reasons why we should submit to the government on every single thing, and every single issue, because they know what's best for us, and should help learn us on when to and when not to be respectful, and when we can and cannot use our Rights.

Your "free speech" ends when it violates the rights of others. Your post is so full of crap, it makes me want to puke. You would have "challenged" nothing, as the only balls you show is on an internet site, I have no doubt. The veterans in the crowd, not the honor guard, would have shut you up very quickly. You are the archetypal 'sunshine patriot" spouting about your "rights" while disrespecting those who have fought and died for them.

Gunslinger · Nov 13, 2011

Citizen said:
A couple random observations. Just to keep the conversation going.

1. The sentry is armed with a bayonetted rifle. Presumably to prevent physical desecration of the grave.

There is a big wide difference between physical desecration and mere transitory laughter.

Does a shrine really need an armed sentry to prevent disrespectful unsilence? Are the sentry's supporters really prepared to say that mere words or laughter can actually desecrate the stone of the tomb? Much less penetrate inside and physically disturb some tiny fragment of the remains? Does a sentry really need a bayonet to spear the laughter sound waves before they reach the tomb?

2. Of course, there is the bad manners and lack of respect for other viewers behind the velvet rope. But, the discussion and the laughter are merely transitory. Are we really willing to say that an armed sentry is needed to solve the problem, and empower him to violate 1A speech rights, when a non-infringing solution is for any offended viewers to just wait a moment until the unrespectful ones leave? And, wouldn't it be better to just put up a sign reminding clueless visitors that silence is appreciated by other visitors?

The sentry is a member of the "Old Guard." The bayoneted rifle is part of the honor guard uniform. It has nothing to do with protecting the tomb. The memorial is the most sacred to every veteran in this country. Distrespectful behavior is an insult to 'all' of us who served, and know many who 'gave all.' That it would come from, or be defended by any non-veteran makes that person's "opinion" on the 1st Amendment a farce. I'm surprised at your post, Citizen. Would "transitory" laughter be ok at a grave side while the person is being interned? This site is hallowed ground to me and every veteran. Disrespect should be at the perpetrator's risk.

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

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member