soldiers who would disarm us [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

View Full Version : soldiers who would disarm us

Bob A

12-09-2002, 11:48 AM

I know how some of the moderators want us to remain on topic, but this came up in the court decision thread.

I'd like to hear from veterans of the Army and Marine Corps specifically, since they are the most likely to be ordered to do something like this, but finding out what the uninitiated think would be interesting also.

Would the average grunt follow an order to disarm the average citizen?

Would the average citizen go along with the orders from authorities?

What about the officers and NCOs?

What do you think we could end up having as unintended consequenses?

This ought to be good. BTW, somebody in the other thread suggested that the average E1 to E3 Marine is mindless and basically taught to obey orders like Pavlov's dogs. As a graduate of the PI school for misguided boys, I can say firsthand what a crock that is.

People interpret things differently, so I can't speak for every Private or Lance Corporal, but most are smarter than they are given credit for. Beside that, they are not in charge. They are led by Corporals. And Lt's, Capt's, and Col's. Some of the Generals are iffy, but they'd probably do the right thing, I think.

Speaking of troops, what about the every day uniformed patrol cop? On this forum, that should probably be its own thread also.

[ 12-09-2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Bob A ]

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 12:12 PM

What do you mean by "disarm". If you mean govt. going door to door taking away peoples guns then WHO CARES. IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. It's silly to even talk about it.

Oregon Mike

12-09-2002, 12:52 PM

I agree with Wiggum that it'll never happen in this country. We have too many gunowners, and as we watch the rest of the world's quality of life get flushed down the toilet, we're only going to get more conservative.

But just for the heck of it, I'll say that as a current Army NG officer (getting commissioned on Friday!) and a soon-to-be LEO, there is no way I would start confiscating guns in either capacity. Most soldiers and cops I know would not either.

Mike

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 07:18 PM

If it were to ever happen, this is how it would happen, IMO. THis was a post on another topic, but it can apply to military as well:

This is not meant to flame the police, but, and it's a big butt , If the police were told to go out and confiscate weapons, I'm sure many would refuse/resist doing that. But in reality, unless they are prepared to be fired, or quit their job, I can't see how they could not confiscate.

What I mean is this: Joe Officer does not think the government has the authority to confiscate weapons from privately owned citizens because the constitution gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms. He doesn't want to do it and will not.

Bill The Cop doesn't see a need for people to be armed, and has no problem going house to house taking firearms for their own good.

Now here is where it gets tough. As I see it, it involves the way police work. If the police were going to collect firearms, they would know that some people are going to refuse to turn them in, and may even become violent and try and shoot first. So, the police would naturally go house to house in groups of more than one officer, right? Most likely four or five?

So the problem comes about when Bill The Cop sees Joe Officer refuse to do his job by not taking a citizens gun and tells on him. Joe either has to comply with is orders or face charges or resign, and give up his guns. And that's tough to do when you have a family.

In reality, I don't think this will ever happen, but that's how it would happen, in my opinion.

Bob A

12-09-2002, 07:30 PM

Never happen here? I learned a long time ago to never say never.

a few points...

1. The good citizens of Nazi Germany probably thought it would never happen there also. I mean, the Gov't only wants to take the guns away from the evil Jews. Here, the gungrabbers only want to take the guns away from evil doers also.

2. If that example is too far back in history to seem relevant, look at the USSR, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. All modern countries who have faced gun bans. All are used by every anti-gun group out there as examples as to how to model our own gun laws.

3. Every session of Congress presents a new opportunity for the gov't to take our laws. Right now there are many people who own guns. As lawsuits against gun mfg's become more common, so will large jury awards. These things and economic pressures in the market will combine to drive some mfg's out of business. Ditto for the dealers, who have far less money to defend against these suits.

4. Liberals are generally very patient. They ask for a little, knowing it won't be enough. Bit by bit, they take more and more until they have it all. Look at all the positions they support from abortion to welfare.

I realized the effect of this the first time I saw a 65 mph speed limit. 55 was the nationwide limit since I was a small kid. Suddenly it occurred to me that I had no objection to 55 because it was all I could remember. So it will be with guns as they become less common. My children will not object to not having 15 round magazines because of the same incremental approach.

5. Do not forget the useful idiots in our national media. Many of them have an agenda and support gun control. It almost seems as if they create controversy where it doesn't exist, and I've witnessed numerous cases where facts were distorted or omitted altogether to create a certain impression.

One day watching news coverage of the Paducah, KY, school shooting with my kids my daughter made the observation that guns were bad. It seems that this was the only thing she was able to get from the ensuing circus, aside from that innocent people were killed. I asked her "how many guns were used in OK City and were those people less innocent because sombody used fertilizer and fuel?"

6. Most importantly, do not make the arrogant mistake of thinking that just because you can't conceive of something happening, it can't happen. Most people could not have conceived of an attack such as that of September 11, 2001 either.

Just as virtue is its own reward, freedom also has a price: vigilance.

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 07:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Suddenly it occurred to me that I had no objection to 55 because it was all I could remember. So it will be with guns as they become less common. My children will not object to not having 15 round magazines because of the same incremental approach.<hr /></blockquote>Just look at the schools. Zero tolerance.

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 08:38 PM

<a href="http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/index.php?section=IN+THE+CROSSHAIRS%3A" target="_blank">This is mostly what I think.</a>

Bob A

12-09-2002, 09:22 PM

Except for this part Afraid to do what they should be doing, rallying Americans to revolt against these unconstitutional laws, I agree.

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 09:25 PM

Revolting does not have to mean violence, unless of course you say I am revolting! :D

Chopshopcop

12-10-2002, 08:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
If it were to ever happen, this is how it would happen, IMO. THis was a post on another topic, but it can apply to military as well:

This is not meant to flame the police, but, and it's a big butt , If the police were told to go out and confiscate weapons, I'm sure many would refuse/resist doing that. But in reality, unless they are prepared to be fired, or quit their job, I can't see how they could not confiscate.

What I mean is this: Joe Officer does not think the government has the authority to confiscate weapons from privately owned citizens because the constitution gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms. He doesn't want to do it and will not.

Bill The Cop doesn't see a need for people to be armed, and has no problem going house to house taking firearms for their own good.

Now here is where it gets tough. As I see it, it involves the way police work. If the police were going to collect firearms, they would know that some people are going to refuse to turn them in, and may even become violent and try and shoot first. So, the police would naturally go house to house in groups of more than one officer, right? Most likely four or five?

So the problem comes about when Bill The Cop sees Joe Officer refuse to do his job by not taking a citizens gun and tells on him. Joe either has to comply with is orders or face charges or resign, and give up his guns. And that's tough to do when you have a family.

In reality, I don't think this will ever happen, but that's how it would happen, in my opinion.<hr /></blockquote>There's a few problems with this scenario. One, just because the govt. issues an order does not make it lawful. The police and military are both bound by law and duty to refuse to obey an unlawful order. I truly believe that the number of refusals would far outweigh those that wouldn't.

Two, even if such an order came down from the govt., the Supremes, whatever, it would be immediately challenged with all kinds of lawsuits, countersuits, injunctions, not to mention just plain old kiss-my-azz refusal by a lot of people, including police and military.

Three, the police are bound by law and duty to prevent acts known to be unlawful from occurring in their presence. See also #1.

Last, even though it may cost me my job, I have other skills besides police work. I wasn't born a cop, I have other life and work experiences. Sometimes you just have to stand on principle, and defend the difference between right and wrong, even at great personal cost. Besides, the eventual settlement would make it worthwhile, see also #2.

Something like this could not come to pass overnight, at least in America. If it could, it would've already happened. The only thing a politician fears is not getting re-elected, how many will commit political suicide by endorsing this? It's one thing to regulate gun ownership, it's another thing entirely to try and take that right away.

It would take an amendment to the Constitution to lawfully accomplish this and there's no way enough states would ratify this. The single biggest obstacle is the fear that by losing one enumerated right, is that we could lose others by the same process, like the 1st, the 4th, etc.

Some people just don't give this nations police or military credit for common sense, independent thinking and courage to stand up for themselves. Every member of the nations military, or of every US law enforcement agency that I know of, took an oath to defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe that if the time comes, most every member will live up to that oath.I was one of those faceless Marine E-3's, but I can assure everyone, I'm no automatan, neither were any of the Marines I served with.

[ 12-10-2002, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: Chopshopcop ]

Mike Tx

12-10-2002, 07:01 PM

ChopShop, I understand, but my greatest fear is the young people coming of age today. Just look at what they are being taught. Zero tolerance, and if you even mention the word gun, your in trouble. It's THOSE cops and soldiers that I worry about. Not todays.

Sparky

12-10-2002, 08:42 PM

I think many young people may have a far better understanding of the foolishness of "zero tolerance" than most adults.

It's the kids who are getting kicked out of school for having a pair of nailclippers (zero weapons tolerance) or some aspirin (zero drug tolerance) in their purse.

yaknowhatimean?

Mike Tx

12-10-2002, 08:49 PM

Hope is a good thing. Maybe you are right.

Bill R

12-10-2002, 09:54 PM

Chopshop,
Some people just don't give this nations police or military credit for common sense, independent thinking and courage to stand up for themselves. Every member of the nations military, or of every US law enforcement agency that I know of, took an oath to defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe that if the time comes, most every member will live up to that oath.I was one of those faceless Marine E-3's, but I can assure everyone, I'm no automatan, neither were any of the Marines I served with.

I certainly would hope things would go as you and others have said. I do have faith that if the Constitution was violated badly enough and suddenly enough our military and police would stand up for the Constitution. Realistically, those that desire such things are smart enough to move slowly enough that many accept the infringements. If you were to ask someone from 100 years ago what they thought of our current gun laws they would probably think they were blatantly un-Constitutional. At present we have police officers enforcing laws that many would consider un-constitutional. If rights are eroded slowly enough what will be the trigger for revolt?

retired

12-10-2002, 10:15 PM

Bill,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill R:
Chopshop,
Some people just don't give this nations police or military credit for common sense, independent thinking and courage to stand up for themselves. Every member of the nations military, or of every US law enforcement agency that I know of, took an oath to defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe that if the time comes, most every member will live up to that oath.I was one of those faceless Marine E-3's, but I can assure everyone, I'm no automatan, neither were any of the Marines I served with.

I certainly would hope things would go as you and others have said. I do have faith that if the Constitution was violated badly enough and suddenly enough our military and police would stand up for the Constitution. Realistically, those that desire such things are smart enough to move slowly enough that many accept the infringements. If you were to ask someone from 100 years ago what they thought of our current gun laws they would probably think they were blatantly un-Constitutional. At present we have police officers enforcing laws that many would consider un-constitutional. If rights are eroded slowly enough what will be the trigger for revolt?<hr /></blockquote>I wouldn't count on the present military doing anything other than obeying Bush. If he told them to conficate our guns, I believe they would. And maybe they should follow orders.

Chopshopcop

12-11-2002, 08:24 AM

(previous replies snipped for brevity)

Why would Bush order the military to disarm America? For what reason? Especially when his appointed Attorney General Ashcroft has specifically come out and publicly stated that this administration endorses the unequivocable individual right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment?

Again, some seem to think that this disarming is a sudden event that will occur and that squads of police and military will break your doors down. Now apparently a similar plan was in place in the UK when they disarmed, but as we all know, that's a different culture and according to the UK cops on here and other boards, the mass population over there did not mind giving up their weapons.

(see thread, History on British gun banning, quote from Soho Bandit --- "Originally posted by Soho bandit:
Who do you mean 'gunownership'?

We don't 'round' people up either, the Nazis did that. When the handgun ban came in I took my guns to the local police station and handed them in within the time period that was set. Police firearms teams were ready to go and get them by force if anyone wanted to get silly over it . No one did. That's how it happens over here.)"

The quickest way to start another civil war in America would be for the govt. to start kicking in doors on a massive, nationwide scale of law-abiding gun owners, and confiscating lawfully owned guns. And what of those that resist? Will they be executed on the spot, will they be arrested, where will they be held, hell, we ain't got no jail space now. Are these govt. goon squads gonna build concentration camps to house everybody? Do you honestly believe that everyone serving this nation will go along with that? How many family members of the police & military own guns? I'm sure that they'll stand for their own families being rounded up, oh boy, you betcha.

Retired, maybe I'm missing something here, but in one (unrelated)thread, you berate the govt. because they'll violate the Constitution if someone displays a cross, Christmas tree or something similar on govt. property that offends your atheistic views, yet in this you seem to endorse the military following unconstitutional orders... <blockquote>quote:<hr /> I wouldn't count on the present military doing anything other than obeying Bush. If he told them to conficate our guns, I believe they would. And maybe they should follow orders. <hr /></blockquote>Maybe you could clear this up for me?

I do agree that the incremental approach is more effective and that it already has been. I do agree that we have many unnecessary and unconstitutional gun laws. I do agree that we need to concentrate more on the criminal that uses a firearm rather than Joe Citizen that happens to like guns and owns a dozen or more.I just don't believe that the majority of our nations military and police will carry out such orders. If it does happen, then the politician that makes such an order is most likely the AntiChrist, Armeggedon is upon us and it won't matter anyway.

retired

12-11-2002, 04:36 PM

ChopshopCop,

I always berate the government when they violate the constitution by displaying a religious cross, symbol etc on government property, because the SC has ruled that the practice is unconstitutional.

The SC has not ruled to my knowledge that it would be unconstitutional for the military to follow orders by Herr Bush to confiscate our weapons. And I distinctly said, "maybe" I didn't say they "shall" follow orders! I don't read in anything I said that I endorsed the military following unconstitutional orders. Quite the contrary, I would be appalled , not surprised if Bush gave the order.

In regards to atheistic views, I am not offended by the displays themsel, I am offended by the violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment by the government.

I hope that clears things up for you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Regards,

Chopshopcop

12-12-2002, 08:13 AM

Well Retired, I guess it must be in your phrasing.

You said first: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't count on the present military doing anything other than obeying Bush. If he told them to conficate our guns, I believe they would. And maybe they should follow orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This indicates your belief that the military would blindly follow any order given by Bush, including unconstitutional orders. This is reinforced by the phrase, If he told them to conficate our guns, I believe they would.

The phrase " And maybe they should follow orders. " on the heels of your other statements tends to indicate to me that you're OK with it if they did follow such an unconstitutional order.

There just seemed to be a conflict there between what parts of the Constitution you'd be willing to support. I still don't understand why you believe "Herr Bush" would try to take away guns. We came closer to that step with "Czar and Czarina Klinton" more than anyone else. But I'm glad to know that you'd be appalled if any American President tried to violate the Constitution by taking away the right of citizens to bear arms, etc.

I believe the Supreme Court has not ruled that it would be unconstitutional for Bush or any other president to issue a disarmament order for the same reason I stated earlier, it would touch off a civil war. The 2nd Amend. is an individual right as much as all of the others from the same document. Why else would the Supreme Court have sidestepped the issue over and over since, what, the 1920's or 30's? (not sure)

If the disarming of American citizens could be done lawfully on a a mass scale, without a Constitutional amendment, using the military and police, and the individual right to bear arms completely scrapped from the Constitution, it would have already been done. The Sarah Brady's, Barbara Streisands, and all the others would have seen to that by now.

retired

12-12-2002, 11:52 AM

[ 12-12-2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: retired ]

Deputy757

12-12-2002, 04:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bob A:

BTW, somebody in the other thread suggested that the average E1 to E3 Marine is mindless and basically taught to obey orders like Pavlov's dogs. As a graduate of the PI school for misguided boys, I can say firsthand what a crock that is.
<hr /></blockquote>That would have been me. I never said or implied that every marine fresh out of PI was mindless. I believe I said "your basic". Poor phrasing on my part perhaps, but there is no denying that many that depart from PI have the mentality that all orders are good and proper orders and they must be obeyed. I've met these people time and time again. All of the services have people that never should have donned a uniform, just as many law enforcement agencies do. These are the people that I think of when the question that this thread started off with is asked.
That aside, as a law enforcement officer, I would not obey an order to disarm citizens and like Chopshopcop said, I have a few other skills that would earn me a (probably better) living anyway.
The SCOTUS is going to have to make a ruling on the 9th Circuits ridiculous decision at some point and that's when things should become much clearer!!

Bob A

12-12-2002, 07:26 PM

That would have been me. I never said or implied that every marine fresh out of PI was mindless. I believe I said "your basic".

757, I copied and pasted the language from the other thread. Your quote was...

They are faceless, mindless AND the best America has but they are not allowed to think.

This is exactly the quote I had in mind when I started this thread. You make a good point, I just disagree with the word mindless. There are some truly useless people in the Armed Forces.

I personally thought too much. It was what constantly got me in trouble. I was smarter than nearly all of the people I worked with and we all knew it.

The do what they are told and they would be the one's most likely to follow that hypothetical order.

You are correct that these young Marines are the most likely to follow this type of order. However, officers are usually pretty smart, and most GySgts have been around for a while. Even accounting for the "ticket punchers" I think it is unlikely that the grunt Lance Corporal will even get an order like this.

I just wanted to see how people with a military background would react to the scenario of being given this type of order. Ditto for the beat cop. It seems to me that the majority of the people (military and LE) have a basic understanding of what makes something right and wrong. The dilemma comes from having to choose between following a lawful order which is morally wrong, even if legally right.

Jim Burnes

12-12-2002, 07:52 PM

OK, this thread is going to tick my off! The ordinary Marine rifleman, the ordinary Army soldier, the ordinary Navy salior and the Airman are a smart group of people. They are always in training mode, and legal matters are a part of that training. Take it from me, those guys are going to know what a lawful order is, and what is not.

What's being inferred here is that the Marine is not up to civilian standards of intelligence, of normal enough perception that he would actually obey such an immoral and illegal order. Well, take it from me, from my expirence it's the common enlisted man who asks the hard questions as to why an order is issued.

There are plenty of jokes about the intelligence leve of the military, and their lack of otherwise useable skills, funny jokes but totally without basis. These are smart people, extremely dependable and have been taught (and are the type of personality) that will continue a fight even when the NCOs and Officers are dead. And that ain't theory: It happened in every war.

They are not mindless, not faceless. They are the basic gogs in the machine.

And even with all the bright, shiny gadgets they get to lug around (and which will become useless 10 minutes into war), all they need is a rifle and water. A mindless fighter would be lost.

Put a little trust them. :mad:

Jim Burnes

Deputy757

12-13-2002, 05:32 PM

BobA, yes..like I said, poor phrasing on my part. By "they", I didn't mean to include them all. Again, I'm sure there are exceptions, as there are in everything.
Jim, I know that I made you mad (not intentionally, I assure you) by what I said previously. As I said before, I phrased it poorly and I apologize. However, with the exception of the Marines, the training that your basic recruit receives now is no where near as intense as it was just 20 years ago. Recruits now have "blue cards" that they can produce when a DI is leaning just a little to heavy on them and the DI must cease and desist. What has really saved our a** in the last 10 years is that technology has advanced to such a degree that our weapon systems do most of the fighting for us.
I agree that the majority of servicemen have the intelligence to make the proper distinction between right and wrong and would do the right thing. I also think that there are many that would simply do what they were told to do regardless of what they learned in a high school civics class.

Bill R

12-14-2002, 10:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jim Burnes:

What's being inferred here is that the Marine is not up to civilian standards of intelligence, of normal enough perception that he would actually obey such an immoral and illegal order.<hr /></blockquote>Jim, I guess I've taken it a little different. The inference that I have seen is that an 18 year old fresh out of a public school education where most of the teachers are liberals has had little time to mature and form their own proper opinion of what is Constitutional and what is not. I don't think anyone is trying to infer that young people in the service are less intelligent than anyone else.

Bob A

12-14-2002, 02:32 PM

I don't think anyone is trying to infer that young people in the service are less intelligent than anyone else.

Oh boy. My kids often ask me how come something happened that they did not anticipate. I usually tell them because you were stupid and we all usually have a laugh, especially when they turn it around on me.

I've gone to a lot of trouble and effort to impress on my kids (18 and 16, no luck with the 14) that the hardest thing they need to recognize is what they don't know. I point out things we all do that, in hindsight, we would do differently.

The point is that most people under 25 are stupid. Not on an intellectual level, but they are naive. Think about all the dumb stuff you've done in your life and you are likely to find that most occurred when you were young. Hence the expression: Young and dumb.

Oregon Mike

12-15-2002, 05:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Deputy757:
However, with the exception of the Marines, the training that your basic recruit receives now is no where near as intense as it was just 20 years ago. Recruits now have "blue cards" that they can produce when a DI is leaning just a little to heavy on them and the DI must cease and desist.<hr /></blockquote>Army basic training is certainly easier than it was during Vietnam, and even easier now than it was just a few years ago. But the "stress card" is a nasty rumor that is absolutely not true. I don't know about any other services, but I doubt that they've gotten this stupid.

Mike

Deputy757

12-15-2002, 07:46 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Oregon Mike:
 But the "stress card" is a nasty rumor that is absolutely not true. I don't know about any other services, but I doubt that they've gotten this stupid.
<hr /></blockquote>Well, I won't comment on how stupid the Army has gotten, though images of all those new recruits wearing black berets springs to mind, but the cards are a reality. At least they are (or where) in this part of the land. I can't say that it wasn't perhaps a base commanders idea and not a new policy of the Army, but I saw them.

Jim Burnes

12-15-2002, 05:17 PM

Stress cards are used in the basic training portion of the Army. I was an instructor in the MP School, Ft McClellen, AL during 1980s, on various ranges and in classrooms. As the Drill Instructors would march their charges onto a range, almost always there would be some one or two characters who would present their little cards to the Drill, and then get to set off by themselves for 5 minutes...relaxing :p . Pretty sad.

It was a local idea, that spread out to all basic training centers. But it's use goes against the prime reason behind military basic training, so in time, the stress card too will fade out.

Jim Burnes

Chief Wiggum

12-16-2002, 05:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bob A:
Never happen here? I learned a long time ago to never say never.

a few points...

1. The good citizens of Nazi Germany probably thought it would never happen there also. I mean, the Gov't only wants to take the guns away from the evil Jews. Here, the gungrabbers only want to take the guns away from evil doers also.

2. If that example is too far back in history to seem relevant, look at the USSR, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. All modern countries who have faced gun bans. All are used by every anti-gun group out there as examples as to how to model our own gun laws.

3. Every session of Congress presents a new opportunity for the gov't to take our laws. Right now there are many people who own guns. As lawsuits against gun mfg's become more common, so will large jury awards. These things and economic pressures in the market will combine to drive some mfg's out of business. Ditto for the dealers, who have far less money to defend against these suits.

4. Liberals are generally very patient. They ask for a little, knowing it won't be enough. Bit by bit, they take more and more until they have it all. Look at all the positions they support from abortion to welfare.

I realized the effect of this the first time I saw a 65 mph speed limit. 55 was the nationwide limit since I was a small kid. Suddenly it occurred to me that I had no objection to 55 because it was all I could remember. So it will be with guns as they become less common. My children will not object to not having 15 round magazines because of the same incremental approach.

5. Do not forget the useful idiots in our national media. Many of them have an agenda and support gun control. It almost seems as if they create controversy where it doesn't exist, and I've witnessed numerous cases where facts were distorted or omitted altogether to create a certain impression.

One day watching news coverage of the Paducah, KY, school shooting with my kids my daughter made the observation that guns were bad. It seems that this was the only thing she was able to get from the ensuing circus, aside from that innocent people were killed. I asked her "how many guns were used in OK City and were those people less innocent because sombody used fertilizer and fuel?"

6. Most importantly, do not make the arrogant mistake of thinking that just because you can't conceive of something happening, it can't happen. Most people could not have conceived of an attack such as that of September 11, 2001 either.

Just as virtue is its own reward, freedom also has a price: vigilance.<hr /></blockquote>All good points. Still never gonna happen.

Chief Wiggum

12-16-2002, 05:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Deputy757:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Oregon Mike:
 But the "stress card" is a nasty rumor that is absolutely not true. I don't know about any other services, but I doubt that they've gotten this stupid.
<hr /></blockquote>Well, I won't comment on how stupid the Army has gotten, though images of all those new recruits wearing black berets springs to mind, but the cards are a reality. At least they are (or where) in this part of the land. I can't say that it wasn't perhaps a base commanders idea and not a new policy of the Army, but I saw them.<hr /></blockquote>DON'T get me started on the black beret.

Watchman

12-16-2002, 07:08 PM

All good points. Still never gonna happen.

NEVER is a long long time. Its when people are quite sure that things will NEVER happen that things start to happen.

[ 12-16-2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Deputy757

12-17-2002, 10:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:

NEVER is a long long time. Its when people are quite sure that things will NEVER happen that things start to happen.<hr /></blockquote>Good point. Who would have thought that Spanish would be so close to becoming the primary language in America?

Chief Wiggum

12-17-2002, 08:52 PM

Watchman

12-17-2002, 09:10 PM

How close is it?

If you live in California its pretty danged close.
They already have bilingual signs in Southern Cal. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Chief Wiggum

12-17-2002, 09:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
How close is it?

If you live in California its pretty danged close.
They already have bilingual signs in Southern Cal. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Do you mean business signs or street signs put up by the city/state?

Watchman

12-17-2002, 09:20 PM

Both.

Bill R

12-17-2002, 10:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
How close is it?

If you live in California its pretty danged close.
They already have bilingual signs in Southern Cal. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Yeah, but they're not all Spanish/English. Try going to Garden Grove somtime <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Spanish is easy compared to the various asian languages.

retired

12-18-2002, 01:13 AM

Bill,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill R:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
How close is it?

If you live in California its pretty danged close.
They already have bilingual signs in Southern Cal. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Yeah, but they're not all Spanish/English. Try going to Garden Grove somtime <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Spanish is easy compared to the various asian languages.<hr /></blockquote>Garden Grove---Vietnamese
Westminster----Vietnemese
Buena Park-----Korean
LaPalma--------Korean

The rest of Orange County--Spanish and English

Bob A

12-18-2002, 11:46 AM

NEVER is a long long time. Its when people are quite sure that things will NEVER happen that things start to happen.

I hope you're right and I hope you're wrong.

I keep saying I'm [b]never[/i] going to win the lottery. If you're right I should be rich any day now. :cool: Never happen, but some damn fool wins the lottery about every week.

I also work outside and whenever there's lightning, I head for the barn. My wife says I'm never going to be hit by lightning. I think she may hope you're right. :D

I don't think for a second that Hillary is not going to run for prez in 2008. And she may win. Half of the country are women and lots will vote for her just becuz she is. Almost all blacks will, and a lot of liberal men will. Get a liberal congress, and Hillary as prez? Never happen? God knows I hope the chief is right.

huff317

12-26-2002, 03:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> DON'T get me started on the black beret <hr /></blockquote>True enough. I earned MY Air Force blue beret. All that happened with the Army beret thing is an idiot General by the name of Shinseki who thought it would promote unity/build morale......"make" the soldier. Yeah.

Out

Watchman

12-26-2002, 10:26 PM

Make no mistake...

Hillary is the biggest threat to freedom this country has ever seen. IF she wins enough votes to win the presidency then the idiots that elected her will get exactly what they deserve.

Just a few of her "pet peeves"

home schooling,(an educated population is hard to control}

gun ownership (if I was her I'd be afraid of gun owners too)

socialized medicine (she was unsucessful the first time, dont think for a second she has forgot about it)

reduction of the military (she loathes the military and makes it obvious to all around her)

hate crimes

She LOVES the United Nations and sees it as the saviour of the worlds problems...she sees national sovereignty as an outdated concept that will only stand in the way of progress(read one world government)

She is a dangerous and very evil woman.