Thank you liberals, thank you very much [Archive]

SicEmBaylor

5/5/2007, 11:45 PM

The rest will come around when they realize that it is the right that protects all of the others.
That's correct, and I understand not wanting to come across as a nut and all but there needs to be more emphasis on the fact that gun ownership isn't JUST about basic home protection and hunting. It's about the people being able to secure their own liberty should government stop doing so.

rufnek05

5/5/2007, 11:46 PM

your welcome.

from the gun carrying liberal

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 05:27 AM

Heh, I was pretty surprised to read that Laurence Tribe supports the individual ownership theory. The only thing more shocking, perhaps, would have been Dershowitz taking the same position.

I met Tribe at a legal symposium in Tulsa last month. We chatted briefly about this. I told him I was delighted he had come over to the light on this subject. He blinked a lot and replied that he doesn't support gun rights personally, but believes the individual gun rights interpretation is the most accurate. I could have hugged his scrawny liberal neck.;)

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 07:20 AM

The rest will come around when they realize that it is the right that protects all of the others.

Only if you accept the premise that the people could mount a successful resistance. Which I'm less and less certain of as the military gets stronger and stronger.

Far more important, IMO -- and I know it's not a right, but it's still the most important thing in my eyes -- is the tradition established in Article II by the President's oath of office:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The fact that this tradition has come down and become part of the induction oath (in slightly different words, but same meaning) of all members of the military, and the fact that the officer corps understands, heeds and truly believes in it is far more important than 2nd Amendment. Again, IMO.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 07:23 AM

As an addendum, I will say that the 2nd Amendment was the most important thing right up until we established the custom of keeping a large standing military like the one we have today. After that happened, that portion of the oath took over as the most important thing. (Again, IMO...)

Widescreen

5/6/2007, 07:48 AM

Only if you accept the premise that the people could mount a successful resistance. Which I'm less and less certain of as the military gets stronger and stronger.
Tell that to our military in Iraq.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 07:55 AM

Tell that to our military in Iraq.

If it ever gets bad enough over here that the military is fighting against a popular revolt, odds are, they'll be in a state of mind to discard any notion of limited war.

Guys with rifles aren't going to do so well when the military goes no holds barred.

Jerk

5/6/2007, 08:01 AM

Tell that to our military in Iraq.

Exactly. Unless the U.S. government is willing to use Stealth Bombers, Apache Helicopters, and M1 Abrams tanks against American citizens in American neighborhoods, even they would have a tough time going house-to-house with nefarious purpose. The ultimate real estate agent is a man with a rifle who knows how to use it. The technology advantage becomes more irrelevant in urban warfare and close-quarters situations- like your typical American 3 bed and bath home. Add the fact that the Military and police would be very divided, and you have the recipe for a blood letting.

Jerk

5/6/2007, 08:03 AM

If it ever gets bad enough over here that the military is fighting against a popular revolt, odds are, they'll be in a state of mind to discard any notion of limited war.

Guys with rifles aren't going to do so well when the military goes no holds barred.

Yeah, you just go to a veteran and ask him if he would kill American citizens in their own homes by order of a despot and see what kind of reaction you get.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 08:03 AM

Exactly. Unless the U.S. government is willing to use Stealth Bombers, Apache Helicopters, and M1 Abrams tanks against American citizens in American neighborhoods, even they would have a tough time going house-to-house with nefarious purpose.

Well, my belief is that if it ever gets to the point where the government feels the need to deploy active duty military against the civilian populace, they'll be willing to do exactly that.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 08:05 AM

Yeah, you just go to a veteran and ask him if he would kill American citizens in their own homes by order of a despot and see what kind of reaction you get.

Duh. That's my point.

The military culture is such that such a thing occurring is beyond belief for me. A big part of which, IMO, is sourced in the attitude that the oath reflects and engenders.

If it ever gets to the point where you have active army willing to do that sort of thing, then dropping cluster bombs on neighborhoods is no big deal.

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 08:10 AM

Yeah, you just go to a veteran and ask him if he would kill American citizens in their own homes by order of a despot and see what kind of reaction you get.

It might not be as simple as that. Think about the record of some Federal soldiers who hailed from southern states who nevertheless enlisted for the union cause during the Civil War. Heck, MG George Thomas (The Rock of Chickamauga hisself!) was a Virginian.

Speaking as a professional military guy, I repectfully submit that ideology is key. If the soldiers believed in the cause in which they fought and that they were on the side of right, the vast majority of them would have no problem leveling a house with an armored vehicle. Or bombing it. Makes no diff if the enemy happens to be an American citizen.

Exhibit A:
http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/16600/2000614424639484831_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2000614424639484831)
Granted, this was against whack-jobs, but the targets were Americans, and this occurred on American soil.

Jerk

5/6/2007, 08:10 AM

Duh. That's my point.

You're trying to argue that the 2nd is antiquated due to the technology possessed by our government. Or am I reading this wrong?

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 08:14 AM

You're trying to argue that the 2nd is antiquated due to the technology possessed by our government. Or am I reading this wrong?

In practice, it has become less important as compared to the military oath (and culture) swearing to protect and defend the Constitution.

If the American military ever gets to the point where it feels that it is free of that obligation, it then becomes deployable -- effectively -- against the American populace.

And the weaponry a citizens revolt would have would be nothing before the full might of the military -- something which the military in this scenario would likely be willing to bring to bear. If the military ever degenerates to the point where they don't give a **** about the Constitution anymore, they're not going to worry overmuch about leveling cities and killing civilians.

(... just ask the Romans. Once the legions were beholden to the generals and not the Senate, it was all over for the Republic...)

Jerk

5/6/2007, 08:16 AM

It might not be as simple as that. Think about the record of some Federal soldiers who hailed from southern states who nevertheless enlisted for the union cause during the Civil War. Heck, MG George Thomas (The Rock of Chickamauga hisself!) was a Virginian.

All that to say that ideology is key. If the soldiers believed in the cause in which they fought and that they were on the side of right, the vast majority of them would have no problem leveling a house with an armored vehicle.

Exhibit A:
http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/16600/2000614424639484831_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2000614424639484831)
Granted, this was against whack-jobs, but they were Americans, and this occurred on American soil.

Yes, and the reaction was so bad that the government hasn't done this sort of thing since. It wouldn't be hard to press a group of soldiers to go after a 'cult' and a 'child molestor,' but when this starts happening to average american 'hoods, I firmly believe that the military will start in-fighting.

The Davidians killed 4 ATF agents during the initial raid. If the ATF wants to disarm the American populace, they're going to have to do so much more efficiently than this.

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 08:18 AM

In practice, it has become less important as compared to the military oath (and culture) swearing to protect and defend the Constitution.

If the American military ever gets to the point where it feels that it is free of that obligation, it then becomes deployable -- effectively -- against the American populace.

And the weaponry a citizens revolt would have would be nothing before the full might of the military -- something which the military in this scenario would likely be willing to bring to bear. If the military ever degenerates to the point where they don't give a **** about the Constitution anymore, they're not going to worry overmuch about leveling cities and killing civilians.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but, Joe fights for two reasons. First, he fights because he's ordered to fight. Second, he fights because he doesn't want to let down the guy in the foxhole next to him and because he wants to do his part for his comrades.

Defending the Constitution doesn't even enter in to it.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 08:20 AM

How about the officer corps?

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 08:24 AM

Yes, and the reaction was so bad that the government hasn't done this sort of thing since. It wouldn't be hard to press a group of soldiers to go after a 'cult' and a 'child molestor,' but when this starts happening to average american 'hoods, I firmly believe that the military will start in-fighting.

The Davidians killed 4 ATF agents during the initial raid. If the ATF wants to disarm the American populace, they're going to have to do so much more efficiently than this.

But Jerk, it happened in "average American 'hoods" all over the country between 1861-1865. No tanks, but there was no compunction about bringing the full might of the extant military technology to bear against the civil populace. Ever been to Charleston SC? The residential areas were bombarded mercilessly for the better part of three years by US ships and siege works contructed in a continuously tightening ring around the American city.

Jerk

5/6/2007, 08:25 AM

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but, Joe fights for two reasons. First, he fights because he's ordered to fight. Second, he fights because he doesn't want to let down the guy in the foxhole next to him and because he wants to do his part for his comrades.

Defending the Constitution doesn't even enter in to it.

So, you think if you take your average Marine or Army infantry division, and order them to start seizing all private property in Broken Arrow, OK, and force the population into camps for 're-education,' and shoot all resistors, that they would obey?

Sure, It's a big hypothetical, but you really believe that the average soldier would do whatever he's told to do?

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 08:28 AM

How about the officer corps?

Officers are taught they should resist an unlawful order, but trust me, the average lieutenant or captain at the pointy tip of the spear isn't too up on Constitutional law. The field graders will have had a few hours instruction in it in staff college, but at the end of the day, obedience to orders will generally follow a "time-out" for a quick discussion about an orders' legality if there is any ambiguity. Bottomline: if the guy commanding says "press on!," you can bet that press they will.

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 08:31 AM

So, you think if you take your average Marine or Army infantry division, and order them to start seizing all private property in Broken Arrow, OK, and force the population into camps for 're-education,' and shoot all resistors, that they would obey?

Sure, It's a big hypothetical, but you really believe that the average soldier would do whatever he's told to do?

Based on having worn a uniform since I was 18 up until a couple years ago, yes. absolutely.

That's the way you want them indoctrinated. Our guys wouldn't be half as good if we had to sell them on the notion before we ordered them to sieze an objective or accomplish a mission.

I'm telling you, when you become part of the culture, your first allegiance is to the guys with whom you serve. Everything else becomes pretty unimportant. If that unit took fire from the community you describe in your hypothetical and especially if some of its guys were hit, that place (even if it's BA, OK) is going down until they are ordered to cease fire.

The good news is, we have civilian control of our military under the Constitution. That does, however, mean it is very important who the folks elect as commander-in-chief.

Jerk

5/6/2007, 08:32 AM

But Jerk, it happened in "average American 'hoods" all over the country between 1861-1865. No tanks, but there was no compunction about bringing the full might of the extant military technology to bear against the civil populace. Ever been to Charleston SC? The residential areas were bombarded mercilessly for the better part of three years by US ships and siege works contructed in a continuously tightening ring around the American city.

Yes, and 500,000 Americans died. They had a moral cause to rally for so they kept fighting.

We can't fight a war today and not have over half the population give up and want to surrender before loosing 3,000 troops. I don't mean to de-value even one life, but there were many island hopping expeditions in the Pacific Ocean back in the 1940's that cost us more KIA than many Iraq's put together. The American people don't have that same will today unless they are motivated by a 'grand cause' (i.e., ending slavery).

What kind of rallying cry could be used today? Most Americans are too pre-occupied with American Idol to really give a sh*t. And the idea of a long and hard fought struggle equates to making it through a season of 'Survivor'

Widescreen

5/6/2007, 08:32 AM

So if guns are no match against the might of the US military then there should be no problems with owning them. It's no different than having sticks or rubber bands.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 08:34 AM

Jerk

5/6/2007, 08:38 AM

Based on having worn a uniform since I was 18 until a couple years ago, yes.

You, as a former officer, are probably not used to seeing more than a 'yes sir' giving to you by an 18 year old Airmen.

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 08:48 AM

My opinion here was informed by what was passed down from my family, many of whom were officers in the early and middle parts of the last century. What I described mattered greatly to them, which is why they beat it into me as a kid. And they were all junior officers.

Bubble burst, and my esteem is greatly diminished.

I dunno. The thing is, war is hell. Period. For example, we murdered prisoners during WWII. We conducted unrestricted submarine warfare during WWII. We conducted carpet bombing of civilian areas during WWII. We put American citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps. This was all done by these guys you reference, or at least their generation. The main reason no Allied leader was tried as a war criminal was because we won.

Google-up the "Bonus Army" riots if you want to see what young American men can be ordered to do against American civilians, even veteran civilians. MacArthur and Ike were in the thick of it too.

Look, American GI's do a pretty good job following orders and won't stray too far from the straight and narrow. That said, when GI's get p1ssed...that's when real, no kiddin' combat leadership is required to put a lid on things. Some officers are capable of that. Some aren't. That's why atrocities happen IMHO. That is also why I personally hate war.

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 08:53 AM

You, as a former officer, are probably not used to seeing more than a 'yes sir' giving to you by an 18 year old Airmen.

My friend, everyone has a boss. Lieutenants have lots of bosses. As a young officer, I followed many more orders than I ever gave.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 08:54 AM

Trust me, I understand -- admittedly in the abstract -- that war is hell. And I understand -- again, admittedly in the abstract -- that when the bullets start flying, sometimes you have to do things to survive that you may not be proud of later.

But what you're saying suggests to me that little more than lip service is paid to a value that I was taught is core to the military belief system -- that SHOULD be core to the military belief system. And frankly, if I'm understanding you correctly and it's true, it is, to put it bluntly, shameful.

It's one thing to have to throw it out the window when your life is on the line, but quite another to make it -- de facto or de jure -- SOP.

EDIT: And, FWIW, I think you edited your post to add that last paragraph; I didn't see it the first time through. I think my response might have been different if I had seen it. Yeah, I really don't expect the average enlisted to refuse a direct order. While they're supposed to, you really don't demand the level of judgment required for that sort of thing from say, a private or an airman. But you should demand that level of judgment from an officer -- even an O-1. And in the case of when the GI's get ****ed as you described, you should demand that level of leadership -- even from an O-1.

I know it can't always work out in practice. But it should be demanded.

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 08:58 AM

Trust me, I understand -- admittedly in the abstract -- that war is hell. And I understand -- again, admittedly in the abstract -- that when the bullets start flying, sometimes you have to do things to survive that you may not be proud of later.

But what you're saying suggests to me that little more than lip service is paid to a value that I was taught is core to the military belief system -- that SHOULD be core to the military belief system. And frankly, if I'm understanding you correctly and it's true, it is, to put it bluntly, shameful.

It's one thing to have to throw it out the window when your life is on the line, but quite another to make it -- de facto or de jure -- SOP.

I'm not saying for a second that GI's aren't restrained generally by the way they were raised, but, we simply don't train people to be reluctant about following orders...except under extremely extenuating circumstances.

That is also why our leading military scholars have for years maintained that a unit can either be trained for peacekeeping or combat. But not both. The two missions are fundamentally too different.

Jerk

5/6/2007, 09:03 AM

My friend, everyone has a boss. Lieutenants have lots of bosses. As a young officer, I followed many more orders than I ever gave.

Yeah, I'd just like to know how the young airman of the year 2019 AD would react to an order to go to Bixby,OK and coordinate CAP with the Marine Corps as they supress a revolt of the population who rose up against a 75% across the board tax rate, suspension of civil liberties, and a massive property re-distribution program. The President, who has declared Marshal Law and suspended elections, wants to make an example of the residents of Bixby, OK to prevent future revolts. So, the order is basically to use severe force and level the town on live TV.

I would like to think that the Airman would say "yes sir" to such an order and then shoot the officer in the back as he walked away.

Jerk

5/6/2007, 09:12 AM

BTW - Vaev, I know exactly what you're saying. The Federal Government of the United States is the most powerful man-made entity that has ever existed on the face of the planet...by far. If it ever decided to use unlimited force to enslave its own population, and had the support of the military and police, yes, you're right, they would roll through grandpa and his 30-30 like a steam-roller over dog poo.

In this situation, I've always believed that it would be far better to die on my feet rather than live on my knees. I can take a few with me and they can recover my dead body out of a (hopefully) large pile of brass.

At what point do we reach this? I dunno. I would think that suspension of private property rights and the abolishment of the US constitution would be a decent "oh sh*t" moment in our history. Could it even happen? I dunno.

royalfan5

5/6/2007, 09:15 AM

Jerk

5/6/2007, 09:18 AM

Maybe the airman got a bad ice cream cone in Bixby once, and was secretly excited to wipe it out.

More likely to be p*ssed-off about some crappy Bermuda grass turf that had alot of weeds in it.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 09:25 AM

I'm not saying for a second that GI's aren't restrained generally by the way they were raised,

Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here.

(working off of two hours of sleep here ;) )

but, we simply don't train people to be reluctant about following orders...except under extremely extenuating circumstances.

That is also why our leading military scholars have for years maintained that a unit can either be trained for peacekeeping or combat. But not both. The two missions are fundamentally too different.

Well, it's probably that I'm an idealist, but I don't think you have to train them to be reluctant to follow orders, just to know what an egregiously unlawful order looks/smells/tastes like -- and reflexively reject it. And out of combat, to be able to reflect and recognize an unlawful order (at the time, or at a minimum later) and have a deep understanding that as much as any other duty they have, it is their duty to reject the unlawful order and to have the courage to do it.

Take for example Lt. Watada, the guy who refused orders to deploy to Iraq. While I can't truly speak to his motivations, if I assume that he honestly believes that the orders are unlawful, I can have nothing but the utmost respect for his refusing to follow them. (And at the same time, I can wonder where he ever got the idea that a mere deployment order like this one can be unlawful...)

And yeah, I understand that this could potentially result in... chaos. Which is why I admitted on the front end that I'm an idealist ;)

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 09:34 AM

In this situation, I've always believed that it would be far better to die on my feet rather than live on my knees. I can take a few with me and they can recover my dead body out of a (hopefully) large pile of brass.

Yeah, well, that reminds me of something I once heard -- "Those who died were the lucky ones."

In such a scenario, I would see it as my duty to resist and do it in the most effective way possible. Going down as a martyr in a pointless gesture just doesn't seem to fit the bill. Sometimes, it's more effective to effect change from the inside. (Do you think some random dude with a rifle could have done to the Soviet Union what Gorbacev did to it, for example?)

Jerk

5/6/2007, 09:37 AM

Yeah, well, that reminds me of something I once heard -- "Those who died were the lucky ones."
(Do you think some random dude with a rifle could have done to the Soviet Union what Gorbacev did to it, for example?)
No, of course not. But when the NKVD went to the Ukraine, knocked on farmer's doors, and said "your land and your crops now belong to the state," it would have been nice if a few of them could have made it interesting. Instead, they were shot on the spot if they didn't comply.

AlbqSooner

5/6/2007, 09:40 AM

I'm telling you, when you become part of the culture, your first allegiance is to the guys with whom you serve. Everything else becomes pretty unimportant. If that unit took fire from the community you describe in your hypothetical and especially if some of its guys were hit, that place (even if it's BA, OK) is going down until they are ordered to cease fire.
My experience is that when the bullets start flying it is virtually non-existent for a military man to ponder the intricacies of the Constitution. You simply make every effort to kill ever person who is trying to kill you or your buddy in the next foxhole. If civilians do, or may, support that guy trying to kill you, you kill them too. Not a lot of cerebral input. You just do as you have been trained.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 09:40 AM

Yeah, well, the first time a farmer makes it interesting in that case, and the next time, a battalion of tanks rolls em over and kills em all.

Interesting for the one farmer. Not so much for the rest.

Jerk

5/6/2007, 09:41 AM

Last thing, and then I'm off to a productive day.

If anyone doesn't believe that small arms can't be used effectively against a superior force in an urban setting, then you need to google

" warsaw ghetto uprising "

You have only a knife. You stick it in an an official's gut and take his pistol. You take the pistol and you stick it in someone's ear holding a machine gun. You use the machine gun to get the rocket launcher. You use the rocket launcher to get the tank.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 09:42 AM

Truly, I understand, which is why I say I don't need a gun, I only need to know where the nearest armory is ;)

(but again, once the military decides they don't care at all about collateral damage, none of that matters.)

Okla-homey

5/6/2007, 01:56 PM

Take for example Lt. Watada, the guy who refused orders to deploy to Iraq. While I can't truly speak to his motivations, if I assume that he honestly believes that the orders are unlawful, I can have nothing but the utmost respect for his refusing to follow them. (And at the same time, I can wonder where he ever got the idea that a mere deployment order like this one can be unlawful...)

And yeah, I understand that this could potentially result in... chaos. Which is why I admitted on the front end that I'm an idealist ;)

For the record, I think Watada is a putz. Has he been tried yet? He knew what he was getting into when he sought his commission. I hope he does at least 15 years at Ft Leavenworth.

Deployment orders are virtually inherently lawful, and no one with a functioning brain could reasonably conclude otherwise. All they consist of is "pack your stuff, report here for embarkation, then get on the flippin' airplane when your name is called."

If they haven't tried Watada yet, I bet they will apply an objective standard based on what a reasonably prudent officer would do under the same circumstances. If that fictional guy would conclude the order was lawful and must be obeyed, that will mean Watada goes down. IOW, it doesn't much matter what Watada personally believed.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

5/6/2007, 02:38 PM

The good news is, we have civilian control of our military under the Constitution. That does, however, mean it is very important who the folks elect as commander-in-chief.UH OH!

Jerk

5/6/2007, 02:45 PM

UH OH!

Some day someone will get elected who believes that 'the ends justify the means' and it will happen.

You can book it.

1stTimeCaller

5/6/2007, 03:36 PM

I would like to add in my $0.02. IMO, junior Army officers care about a few things: Becoming a tactically proficient leader, ensuring their troops are being trained by their NCOs, their troops' general welfare and ensuring that the orders they have been given are being carried out but their troops.

The closest to combat I have ever been was when a wasp kept buzzing me in the motorpool on a drill weekend. American soldiers, NCOs and officers are famous for their cowboy mentality and that gets them out of trouble and into it as well.

SicEmBaylor

5/6/2007, 03:47 PM

Yeah, I'd just like to know how the young airman of the year 2019 AD would react to an order to go to Bixby,OK and coordinate CAP with the Marine Corps as they supress a revolt of the population who rose up against a 75% across the board tax rate, suspension of civil liberties, and a massive property re-distribution program. The President, who has declared Marshal Law and suspended elections, wants to make an example of the residents of Bixby, OK to prevent future revolts. So, the order is basically to use severe force and level the town on live TV.

I would like to think that the Airman would say "yes sir" to such an order and then shoot the officer in the back as he walked away.

I'd like to think that as well, but like Homey, I'm not nearly as trusting of them. As you said before, they didn't hesitate in the past to dispense with the constitutional rights and invidividual liberties of American citizens (and in the case of the WONA that even goes for people that were on their damned side!).

At any rate, the reality is that we'd have a tough go of it to take back our country should tyranny continue to prevail throughout this land. We're not allowed to have parity of firepower with the Feds, so there'd be very little hope of success unless the military itself revolted and then I'd be more afraid of a military style junta/dictatorship than the government we were initally revolting against.

Vaevictis

5/6/2007, 09:35 PM

Deployment orders are virtually inherently lawful, and no one with a functioning brain could reasonably conclude otherwise. All they consist of is "pack your stuff, report here for embarkation, then get on the flippin' airplane when your name is called."

That's pretty much my interpretation of the situation. Which is why I had to put the "if I assume..." part in there.

There's really a few things going on there on a few different levels for me:
1. I don't believe he honestly believes the order is unlawful.
2. If he does, it's probably better that he's never put in charge of soldiers anyway. It reflects poor judgment.
3. But if he honestly does believe that it's unlawful -- I can in spite of his error in coming to that conclusion have respect for his willingness to refuse it and take the consequences. (He didn't say, run off to Canada.)