Side story on the recent gun spree

**Surferbeetle** · 02-04-2013

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.

As a case study perhaps it would worthwhile to study/determine what happened to Maj. Gen. Sylvester T. Del Corso the Ohio TAG at the time of the Kent State shootings, as well as the officers in the chain of command at that time. I do not know the answer to this question, but have found a few links to help shed some light on historical precedent:

State adjutant general, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutants_general

Sylvester Del Corso, 85, Head Of Guard at Kent State Attack, By WOLFGANG SAXON Published: April 11, 1998, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/11/us...te-attack.html

**slapout9** · 02-04-2013

As part of Civil Disturbance Training in the 82nd Airborne Division you would be screened out of any deployment to your "home state" as part of Army policy. This was really serious stuff back then because of us(82nd) being involved with both Presidential Conventions (Miami,Fl)as part of the overall security situation because of what had happened at the 68 Democratic Conventions in Detroit.

**carl** · 02-04-2013

Originally Posted by Surferbeetle

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** · 02-04-2013

Originally Posted by carl

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** · 02-04-2013

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** · 02-04-2013

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** · 02-04-2013

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** · 02-04-2013

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** · 02-04-2013

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.