Side story on the recent gun spree

[carl]

Carl,

What you are suggesting goes against everything an officer is trained, educated, and stands for.

An officer who would be likely to do such a thing would be run out (and rightfully so) early in his/her career.

I know the ethos of the officer corps in the US is pretty strong, but everything can be broken down. If the civilians were to select higher officers with a certain criterion in mind and do that over the years, that would have an effect.

Two examples, Tim Lynch at Free Range International told a story of the USMC commandant or some next to God guy coming to an officer training class in the 90s and challenging all there to tell him how a woman couldn't do anything a man could do and adding that if he did, he didn't belong in "my" Corps. So he taught everybody there to lie about things the seniors wanted lies told about.

And Gen Dempsey recently said this about women in combat jobs and standards “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Which means of course standards are nothing when compared to politically desirable numbers.

Those two guys were selected by the civilian leadership partially because they were going to toe the politically correct line and, make other officers toe the politically correct line. The big question is, is answering agree on question 46 part of the politically correct line, or will it be?

[Surferbeetle]

I know the ethos of the officer corps in the US is pretty strong, but everything can be broken down. If the civilians were to select higher officers with a certain criterion in mind and do that over the years, that would have an effect.

The US officer corps is a fairly cohesive, quantifiable, and predictable tribe.

Political parties on the other hand are defined by their volatility and stochastic behavior.

I would be more inclined to bet upon on a political party fracturing and perhaps reshaping/reallocating scarce resources to efforts more representative of the populace it hopes to represent.

There are historical precedents for the latter scenario.

Progressive Party (United States, 1912), From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...tates,_1912%29

[Stan]

Carl,
In general, I would argue that if a unit and its leadership have task cohesion such breakdowns rarely occur.

Social cohesion or interaction certainly causes breakdowns, but I doubt they would affect a unit's task cohesion.

I used to watch our detection dogs and teams under stressful situations and free time, as if they were merely switched on (duty) or off (free time).

[jmm99]

The moral of the story is never do something else in the last 7 minutes of that kind of Super Bowl.

The correct pdf 01a (pp.196-197 of survey) is attached.

I'm not as gratified. The 1 E-7 still is col. 1 (strongly disagree); so also, the O-2. But, the O-3 is col. 5 (no opinion).

Thus, still Gene Sharp, MLK, etc.

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

Marine PAO ask on camera about Gun Confiscation. To include a Marines right to refuse an unlawful(unconstitutional order).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hERZjI

[Fuchs]

It's quite telling how much you guys are obsessed here with discussing a possible hostile / illegal action of the government.

This is the old "government is the problem" attitude, and I suppose you know that's some 30ish years old propaganda and those who use it to ride to power afterwards either disregarded their own propaganda or ensured incompetent government agency leadership in order to prove their point.

[carl]

Fuchs:

Since the US was established in reaction to hostile illegal actions of the government, it isn't surprising that we are very concerned with possible hostile/illegal actions of the government.

There are quite a few people here who have first hand experience with government as a problem. I talked to a guy yesterday who may have to close his two small convenience stores because of increased taxes. A woman I know had a very successful small business, one woman, that she could have easily expanded. She didn't because the government paperwork required to do so seemed overwhelming. And here's a nice little story about an 11 year old being accosted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for rescuing a woodpecker.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-20088063.html

You know when you say something about us Americans is quite telling, you should step back for a second and consider what it might tell other than we are primitives not up to the level of Europeans.

[carl]

The moral of the story is never do something else in the last 7 minutes of that kind of Super Bowl.

It was quite a game. I am not a fan anymore but I thought is was vastly entertaining and interesting.

[Kiwigrunt]

There are quite a few people here who have first hand experience with government as a problem. I talked to a guy yesterday who may have to close his two small convenience stores because of increased taxes. A woman I know had a very successful small business, one woman, that she could have easily expanded. She didn't because the government paperwork required to do so seemed overwhelming. And here's a nice little story about an 11 year old being accosted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for rescuing a woodpecker.

I’m not sure if that is an issue with elected govt or with the established and snowballing bureaucracy. It appears that in all Western countries that bureaucracy has outgrown the reach of govt. and grown a life of its own. As a side story of the side story of the side story, I’ll raise you this one.

[carl]

Kiwigrunt:

I figure it is both, but the legislation passed by legislators comes first.

We have recently subjected ourselves to Obamacare. That piece of legislation comes in at over 2,000 pages. All of that is going to result in policies, procedures and interpretations that will be inflicted on us by bureaucrats. There will be thousands and thousands of pages on top of the law itself. But they could not have been created unless the law passed first.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs:

Since the US was established in reaction to hostile illegal actions of the government, it isn't surprising that we are very concerned with possible hostile/illegal actions of the government.

Yeah, tell the world when your country mentally made it to the 19th century. later on, we'll surely encourage you when your country mentally reached the 20th century and so on.

Seriously, the Irish have had much more of a struggle with oppressive government and their attitude is not this dysfunctional. The U.S. is clearly in the global top three regarding popularity of paranoia.
So yes, it is 'surprising' that a country with a 200+ years record of kind-of-democracy, gazillions of nukes and gatrillions of military spending is still so paranoid about both domestic and foreign threats. There are countries facing actual threats which are totally relaxed by comparison.


A government is an institutional tool to address a societies' troubles (by setting and enforcing rules and providing public goods). The less support this idea has, the lesser will no doubt be government's ability to do its job.

[carl]

A government is an institutional tool to address a societies' troubles (by setting and enforcing rules and providing public goods). The less support this idea has, the lesser will no doubt be government's ability to do its job.

Ah yes. That is a fine idea. Doesn't always work out in practice though. And it is those examples of it not working out in practice, and the tens of millions of people killed by governments in just Europe in the 20th century when it didn't work out, that make us...let's see if I can get all this in...dysfunctional, paranoid, backward Americans with a 200 year record of kind-of-democracy very suspicious of government.

As far as the Irish go, that's easy. Most of the smart ones came here.

[Fuchs]

Ah yes. That is a fine idea. Doesn't always work out in practice though. And it is those examples of it not working out in practice, and the tens of millions of people killed by governments in just Europe in the 20th century when it didn't work out, that make us...let's see if I can get all this in...dysfunctional, paranoid, backward Americans with a 200 year record of kind-of-democracy very suspicious of government.

Yeah, sure. Slavery, Native Americans, joining a World War needlessly after everyone else understood it's a folly, having had a messy civil war, torture, wars of aggression, oppressing Latin America for a century, propping up evil dictators abroad by the dozens ... all was fine in the U.S..


Look, the problem is the American society is simply not working well, and paranoia as well as a huge susceptibility to distraction from what's important why fantasy and unimportant stuff is part of the mess.
Keep your military from developing stuff like this, disband militarised SWAT teams, repeal the Patriot Act if you want to be cautious about the government.
Don't get locked into power fantasies like assault rifles being what keeps the government from turning to Stalinism.

Guns are not decisive against an evil government (if there's one). Relevant is whether this government has the required support and tolerance from the people. If it has not, soldiers will allow civilians to plunder weapons depots and there are the real guns. The Romanians and Syrians did not need lots of AR-15s under their beds to turn violent against their dictators.
The U.S. is pushing more than any other country the development of technology that lowers the threshold for required support (by making surveillance that much easier and more effective) and it's the world leader in pushing for acceptance (tolerance) of evil government practices, such as torture.

On top of this, it has developed the approach for how to capture a large share of a population in a bubble of fantasyland where the people don't listen to dissenting news sources any more, think their president is a foreigner, think Iraq had WMD and so on. Until this development, it was much harder if not unknown to create such an encompassing fantasyland without the propaganda means of a dictatorship.


Yeah, but you guys think having an AR-15 under your bed is an insurance. Ridiculous.

[carl]

Yeah, sure. Slavery, Native Americans, joining a World War needlessly after everyone else understood it's a folly, having had a messy civil war, torture, wars of aggression, oppressing Latin America for a century, propping up evil dictators abroad by the dozens ... all was fine in the U.S..

Well I could respond to this in kind, about Europe in general and some European countries in particular, but that would serve no real purpose so I won't. No, I won't. Oh no. Like hell I won't. Joining WWI may not have been viewed with favor by Germany but France and Great Britain thought it a fine idea.

Look, the problem is the American society is simply not working well, and paranoia as well as a huge susceptibility to distraction from what's important why fantasy and unimportant stuff is part of the mess.

Oh.

Keep your military from developing stuff like this, disband militarised SWAT teams, repeal the Patriot Act if you want to be cautious about the government.

All modern militaries with the wherewithal are developing technologies such as the one linked to. SWAT teams with military appearing equipment have their uses, though there are probably far too many. But that is sort of the police dept equivalent of keeping up with the Jones'. Repealing the Patriot Act or large portions thereof is a good idea. But we ain't perfect, just better than most European countries in most ways.

Don't get locked into power fantasies like assault rifles being what keeps the government from turning to Stalinism.

This is a bit of a surprise coming from a guy like you. In many or your past posts you have displayed a very well developed sense of the human factor in things and yet you miss the psychological importance that having a weapon has to a human. A human with a weapon, especially a serious one, is much more likely to think of themselves a person with some control over their life. Humans can't fight sans weapons. A human without a weapon in a society where other humans are permitted weapons, is a servant, a person of no real worth or stature in that society. The import of being actually able to defend yourself if need be, isn't in the technical comparison of a having a rifle vs an infantry platoon with MGs and small mortars, the importance is that you are a person who, if they are to be taken, can at least make a fight of it, and also a person whose personhood merely in and of itself gives the right to defend themselves and possess the means to effectively do so.

Besides if 'assault rifles' aren't all that important, why do you care so much that us Yanks have them?

Guns are not decisive against an evil government (if there's one). Relevant is whether this government has the required support and tolerance from the people. If it has not, soldiers will allow civilians to plunder weapons depots and there are the real guns. The Romanians and Syrians did not need lots of AR-15s under their beds to turn violent against their dictators.

If weapons aren't decisive, why do people try so hard to get them when trouble comes? Because you can't fight without weapons.

Whether that evil gov has the required support and tolerance from the people?! I think it is more a matter of how strong the apparatus of the police state is. You have talked to some former East Germans about what it was like there I hope. Well developed police states are extremely difficult to overthrow from within.

Of course with us backward Yanks, we prefer to keep weapons available to the people to discourage the development of a police state. It may not be a foolproof thing but the Founders thought it would be helpful and might have a dissuasive effect. So do I.

The U.S. is pushing more than any other country the development of technology that lowers the threshold for required support (by making surveillance that much easier and more effective) and it's the world leader in pushing for acceptance (tolerance) of evil government practices, such as torture.

Tech has nothing to do with the efficacy of a police state. The history of the 20th century proves that. There are lots of European examples to choose from.

We had a brief and horribly shameful flirtation with torture in the early 2000s. It is a blot on our national honor and will be there forever. But I would note, that we officially gave up that tool of the weak and twisted years ago and I pray to God we don't go back. It is interesting, and disturbing, that the prime pusher of torture in the US now is the entertainment industry, an industry that marches almost in political lockstep with the superzip establishment.

On top of this, it has developed the approach for how to capture a large share of a population in a bubble of fantasyland where the people don't listen to dissenting news sources any more, think their president is a foreigner, think Iraq had WMD and so on. Until this development, it was much harder if not unknown to create such an encompassing fantasyland without the propaganda means of a dictatorship.

Translation: Fuchs disapproves of Fox News and figures it has mind melded with most of the Americans and brainwashed them.

Yeah, but you guys think having an AR-15 under your bed is an insurance. Ridiculous.

I'll tell you what. You come over here, live in a place somewhat remote or maybe not so remote that it will take 20, 30 or 45 minutes to an hour for the cops to show up after you call them (if they can find the place) and you tell me it might not be such a bad idea to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a good optic propped in the corner.

Besides, having that about will save the trouble of breaking into an armory if the need arises.

[Fuchs]

This is a bit of a surprise coming from a guy like you. In many or your past posts you have displayed a very well developed sense of the human factor in things and yet you miss the psychological importance that having a weapon has to a human. A human with a weapon, especially a serious one, is much more likely to think of themselves a person with some control over their life. Humans can't fight sans weapons.

This particular 'importance' is none. I'm not a particularly fearful guy, and I feel safe without a gun.
Besides, I CAN fight without a weapon. Not having a weapon and still being ready to fight means to have the advantage of surprise.

If weapons aren't decisive, why do people try so hard to get them when trouble comes?

You didn't get what 'decisive' means.
Enough popular support for rebels = government is doomed, the means to complete its demise will be found.
Not enough popular support for insurgents = government will massacre the rebels, doesn't matter how well they're armed.
The armament of rebels is a superficiality.

Tech has nothing to do with the efficacy of a police state. The history of the 20th century proves that.

A sample without the agent cannot disprove the agent's effectiveness.
What you meant to say was that a police state does not needs high tech. Well, I agree, but what I really said was that a police state needs less support (by people) with labour-saving surveillance high tech.

Translation: Fuchs disapproves of Fox News and figures it has mind melded with most of the Americans and brainwashed them.

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

I'll tell you what. You come over here, live in a place somewhat remote or maybe not so remote that it will take 20, 30 or 45 minutes to an hour for the cops to show up after you call them (if they can find the place) and you tell me it might not be such a bad idea to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a good optic propped in the corner.

An optic for home defence? Tacticool has taken over.
Seriously, your reply was to a quote which spoke against weapons as insurance against evil government (context!). That is ridiculous.

[slapout9]

Good Job Carl!!!!This thread is a good example of why logic,college degree-ism, and empty euro-trash philosophy are the ultimate threats against mankind. Criminals-Terrorist don't care about any of the logical arguments as to why you should or should not own guns. All they care about are WHO has the force and Who has a counter-force. And that is why Europe had to be bailed out by the Superior American Philosophy 3 times in the last century, probably more if you count the entire cold war. They are incapable of any kind of Free thinking based upon reality as opposed to thinking along the lines of some dead German guy they were taught about in school. They don't understand Freedom and Responsibility and the Force that is required to protect such brilliant Philosophy.

[Steve Blair]

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

Of course you don't. You get your news through a set of filters, which in turn colors your perception. News is far more concerned with ratings than truth, and that's a given no matter which country you happen to be in.

[Fuchs]

The prominence of a loud minority which has gone of the rails is not a universal symptom, though.

It's in my opinion a society's essential requirement to keep dangerous people from power (not from voting, of course). Many Western countries are much less about to fail spectacularly in this regard.
Just look at the current firearms regulation debate:
The NRA's leadership which represents a minority of NRA members (in regard to its stance concerning universal background checks, loopholes etc.) who are in turn a minority of the citizens effectively plays the role of representing one half (side) of the debate. It does even so after an obvious record of fearmongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.

A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.


It's dysfunctionality that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.


Sadly, this dysfunctionality extends to foreign policy and eve the question of war or not war. This is where it becomes important to foreigners.

[M-A Lagrange]

Good Job Carl!!!!This thread is a good example of why logic,college degree-ism, and empty euro-trash philosophy are the ultimate threats against mankind. Criminals-Terrorist don't care about any of the logical arguments as to why you should or should not own guns. All they care about are WHO has the force and Who has a counter-force. And that is why Europe had to be bailed out by the Superior American Philosophy 3 times in the last century, probably more if you count the entire cold war. They are incapable of any kind of Free thinking based upon reality as opposed to thinking along the lines of some dead German guy they were taught about in school. They don't understand Freedom and Responsibility and the Force that is required to protect such brilliant Philosophy.

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

[J Wolfsberger]

It does even so after an obvious record of fear mongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.

On this I agree with you. Despite all of the things you cite coming in a never ending stream from Democrats and other Leftists, the NRA is still a very widely respected organization. Incidentally, part of your confusion is due to the fact that many more millions of people look to the NRA to protect their rights than actually join. (Of which, last I heard, they were getting close to 5 million members [1 million new in the past couple of months]. Hats off to Obama for running such a successful membership drive on their behalf.)

A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.

I realize that growing up in the old DDR makes it difficult to understand what a lot of terms mean. A "society working well" does, in fact, pay a lot of attention to the leadership of organizations that represent sizable portions of its membership. What I think confused you is the hard Left definition of "society" as "the properly indoctrinated Leftists" who make noise out of all proportion to their membership in that society.

It's dysfunctional that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.

Likewise with your use of the term "dysfunction." It does NOT mean "refuses to rubber stamp the majority opinion." What dominates in the U.S. is a dynamic tension between different points of view. That does, indeed, make it very difficult for one side to impose its will on the other. Again, given that you grew up in the DDR it's understandable you'd be confused about this.

Incidentally, I read one of those constitutions you recommended as a modern, responsible constitution. They "granted" the citizens the "right" to food, clothing shelter, jobs, health care, etc. (I suspect a right to free puppies was in there somewhere, but I didn't look.) They also "granted" government the "right" to levy taxes. I was underwhelmed.

I think you need to work on understanding the distinction among the concepts of "right," "privilege" and "desires." One thing you could try that might help along those lines would be to put some effort into understanding the 2000+ years of philosophical and theological reasoning that underpins the U.S. Constitution (with particular attention to Plato, Cicero, St. Thomas, Spinoza, and a whole library of English and French philosophers). Another would be to understand why that "modern" constitution looks, to this U.S. citizen, to lie somewhere between infantile and childish.