gangs serving in the military, using tactics after service


PDA






brighamr
March 7, 2008, 02:32 PM
i watched a show last night regarding gang members who served in the military. Apparently in Iraq, there is Norteno and SU13 grafiti. The show said that the military allowed gang members as long as they were "passive" members of the gang.

The thing that really got me thinking was that one of the gang members served in the marines. After he got out, he supposedly used marine tactics to murder a couple guys. (The show said he used suppressive fire while actively engaging and closing in on his target - something you could only learn by being in the armed forces :scrutiny: ). this example isn't exactly something you would only know by serving in the armed forces, but it got me to thinking:
1) why are gang members allowed in the military at all?
2) would the penalties be stricter for a post service member who commits murder?
3) I always thought the military firearms training (basic) taught using full auto MGs, suppressive fire, and accuracy. Obviously the gangs in US can't own Full Auto, so what else could they learn in the military that would serve them on the streets?

honest questions. I've never served and am interested why gangs would send there members to Iraq.

If you enjoyed reading about "gangs serving in the military, using tactics after service" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SsevenN
March 7, 2008, 02:41 PM
The tactics they will benifit from the most would be the ones utilizing teamwork. I don't think the firearms training is specifically the greatest advantage they walk away with, Its knowing how to lead under a combat situation and keep an organized, effective fighting force.

7

Eric F
March 7, 2008, 02:43 PM
good post and questions let me answer them for you.

1.because they need everyone they can get right now.

2.no

3.you can supress with semi-auto,Obviously the gangs in US can't own Full Auto why not murder is also illegal but they do it. Full auto weapons can be found on the streets from time to time. ambush explosives tactics ect ect survival there is alot they can learn an organized squad is far better than a crowd of untrained angry folks

BattleChimp Potemkin
March 7, 2008, 02:44 PM
I saw the same show.
1.)Dwindling recruitment numbers make for interesting methods to get people in (lessening the entrace requirements). Heck, a friend of mine was allowed into our logistics unit even though he had diabetes (a usual no-no before). Recuiter told him to just not tell anyone, until he needed insulin one day. Not fun :(.
2. No, in fact, Ive heard (not seen however, someone quote one or shut me up ;)) that military service is brought up as a reason to lessen service ("He was a good person, but circumstances went out of control" type of thing).
3. There are ways to convert things to full auto and a blackmarket industry built around this same desire (remember the two jerks at North Hollywood?). They can learn small unit tactics, physical fitness and leadership tactics. Maybe would not make improved gang lethality, however better personal lethality (as in the Morales? case mentioned above).

I dont think its a matter of gangs sending someone there, they just go of thier own accord to learn the tactics and maybe teach others? Not entirely sure. Its a little disconcerting about how individuals are made to be better criminals and enter wholesome service, lying through thier teeth the entire way about service and honor, then jumping police at a convienience mart. Pretty sickening. The guy was a bloody Marine, for goodness sake! Every Marine Ive met or worked with (except drunk ones ;)) were good, upstanding men who would do anything you needed and then some just to help you out.

brighamr
March 7, 2008, 02:47 PM
I should have mentioned the statement regarding "obvioulsy they can't own full auto" was sarcasm

the leadership and how to work in a team comment gives me some insight. It just really makes me think, our government is paying to teach gang members how to harrass the people of our nation. That's a little saddening.

WinchesterAA
March 7, 2008, 02:49 PM
not to detract from the scope of the subject, but suppressive fire isn't exactly a hard concept to understand without the military...

siglite
March 7, 2008, 02:49 PM
This strikes me as fear mongering. How many times has this happened? How many former military are being arrested in gang violence? Out of the millions of vets running around, how many are actually teaching fire/maneuver/MOUT to gangs?

My suspicion is that the number is negligible. But it sure makes for a scary, sensationalist story that might just tug at racist fears a bit.

sacp81170a
March 7, 2008, 02:50 PM
1) why are gang members allowed in the military at all?

If they don't have a criminal record, no way to really filter them out. Those that do have minor records are still accepted. Felonies were a disqualifier when I joined, but folks who are active duty on this board might be able to fill us in with more info.

2) would the penalties be stricter for a post service member who commits murder?

Nope, pretty much the same.

3) I always thought the military firearms training (basic) taught using full auto MGs, suppressive fire, and accuracy. Obviously the gangs in US can't own Full Auto, so what else could they learn in the military that would serve them on the streets?

Aggressive CQB tactics. The IAD(Immediate Action Drill) for a near ambush is a universally taught tactic. If you're ambushed from within 50 meters or so, turn and assault into the ambushers. By "assault" I mean running full tilt, firing, carrying through the target and running over the top of 'em and stomping them if they're still in your way.

honest questions. I've never served and am interested why gangs would send there members to Iraq.

So they can get high quality FOF training, experience under fire, and come back and teach the other gang members. I have personal experience as ex-military in FOF against other non-military law enforcement officers. They are universally shocked (the first time) when they get their butts kicked by guys who are prior service. They learn, but it's something they don't know until they experience what it's like to fight military trained folks. You don't realize until you're in that stress training environment how those old military drills stick with you. No hesitation, just instinct. It catches many of my LEO colleagues by surprise.

CountGlockula
March 7, 2008, 02:50 PM
Solution, get trained yourself.

J Lambs
March 7, 2008, 02:50 PM
At the end of the show they stated that in Dec 2007 Bush signed legislation that does not allow active gang members to serve in the military.

Tommygunn
March 7, 2008, 02:52 PM
While I doubt that the military is the only place to "learn" military tactics, like suppressive fire," it may be the best place to learn and practice them.
There are books available on these subjects anyone can buy.
The average gangbanger of course isn't going to buy them and doesn't even likely know of them.
Certainly a militarily experienced gangbanger would have a big advantage over others.
And it is rather scary that some of the "passive" ones are in the military.
They might NOT be passive when they're discharged . . . . . . . . .

BattleChimp Potemkin
March 7, 2008, 02:54 PM
Fear mongering? Yes. The percentages given of gang membership in the service are extremely low. Only one case was cited in the show regarding military service and gangs casuing an issue with police. However, with the increasingly weapons prolific and tactics practiced by criminals today, training is required to stay ahead.

J Lambs
March 7, 2008, 02:56 PM
The number of gang members in the military was less than 1%. But in perspective, that is over 10,000 troops. Which would equate to a very large military base. So if you think of it as an entire base of gang members, it is scary. Also, the marine that attacked the police was using armor piercing rounds. The cops were outgunned and not trained for that type of combat.

rocinante
March 7, 2008, 02:56 PM
how are they going to keep gang members out? As long as the recruit fits the requirements it is not like there is a gang banger membership database that says someone is guilty by association. The military does screen for felons I assume.

NG VI
March 7, 2008, 02:59 PM
I had one in another platoon in my Basic company, a judge sentenced him to either jail (I think it was about 5 or 8 years) or serving in the Army. I have no idea if he will change his lifestyle over the course of his time in, or if he's even still in, but he definitely didn't seem too remorseful or like he wanted to stay out of that life.

Also at one point in reception he had to be disarmed of a fork he had taken from the chow hall, "just in case". Idiot.

Old Dog
March 7, 2008, 03:00 PM
I recruited in SoCal ... I know I brought some guys into the service who'd probably been responsible for, or involved in, gang-related killings and a lot of gang crime. I always asked about gang affiliation, most times I got honest answers. But if they qualified, I brought 'em in -- but not before trying my hardest to DQ them -- goal be damned (fortunately, in my district, we usually always hit goal fairly painlessly).

Most gang members I recruited needed to get away from something (someone was after them, things were heating up) or -- and this was most of the time -- they honestly wanted to get away from the gang life, do something different, and for them, enlisting was more honorable in their culture than simply running away ...

Nowadays, the rules on tattoos screen a lot of gang members who are prospective recruits out. Only thing, if someone's never been convicted of a felony, the background checks aren't too deep unless the individual is been screened for a special program/school (e.g., advanced electronics, an intel rating/MOS, nuclear power program, etc.) with special requirements (i.e., limited prior drug use, higher ASVAB score requirements, a higher security clearance) right off the bat.

Prospective enlistees don't get polygraphed. Shorter period of time they're in DEP, less becomes known about 'em, less info comes out.

BattleChimp Potemkin
March 7, 2008, 03:04 PM
The show claimed armor piercing rounds. Wasnt certain manufacturers (Norinco, etc..) banned from importation under those same premises. The show was good, but still fell fault to the same problems sensationalism causes in today's media.

siglite
March 7, 2008, 03:05 PM
The number of gang members in the military was less than 1%. But in perspective, that is over 10,000 troops.

You used "less than 1%." That leaves room for it to be .9% all the way down to .0000000000001%. This indicates to me that the volume is completely negligible. It could be one person. That's less than one percent. But using your numbers, which is the absolute worst case, we get somewhere around 10,000, right?

10,000/350,000,000 = .00285% chance any given american is teaching gang members "military tactics."

This reeks of baseless fear mongering.

BattleChimp Potemkin
March 7, 2008, 03:05 PM
NG VI,
Was that during Vietnam? I heard that was very common during the drafts.

ilbob
March 7, 2008, 03:08 PM
As long as the recruit fits the requirements it is not like there is a gang banger membership database that says someone is guilty by association. At least a few states do keep a gang membership list. I suspect it is not something that is real up to date or accurate.

brighamr
March 7, 2008, 03:09 PM
wow, definitely a lot of info here. I have zero insight into the recruitment process, pretty interesting. It's off topic, but I assume all recruits are screened for drugs?

As for the gang members who would join to get out of the gang life, that's pretty noble. I just couldn't imagine going through basic, shipping over to Iraq and seeing your gang sign tagged on US army equipment.

ArmedBear
March 7, 2008, 03:09 PM
There's nothing stopping someone with a clean record, who then serves in the military, from becoming a criminal after getting out.

The military used to be considered a good way to get wayward young men to "shape up" and learn discipline -- those old stories about the judge offering a first-time young defendant "jail or the Army" are true.

The way I figure it, military service in Iraq would not be something that most gangbangers would choose to do, just to learn some tactics. You can learn a lot by playing Paintball, with the right coach. The military is hard work; are gangbangers really attracted to hard work?

pdowg881
March 7, 2008, 03:09 PM
you can learn supressive fire from xbox.

siglite
March 7, 2008, 03:09 PM
However, with the increasingly weapons prolific and tactics practiced by criminals today, training is required to stay ahead.

Please don't interpret my position that this is fear-mongering hogwash, with a touch of exploitation of race-based fear, as an advocacy of failing to train as much as you can. I find no fault at all with your statement above. Training = good.

Old Dog
March 7, 2008, 03:27 PM
I think ArmedBear has nailed itThe way I figure it, military service in Iraq would not be something that most gangbangers would choose to do, just to learn some tactics. You can learn a lot by playing Paintball, with the right coach. The military is hard work; are gangbangers really attracted to hard work?

In my experience, those who tried to maintain gang affiliation post-basic/individual training were usually weeded out within months; some may have lasted longer, but the bottom line, and the reality, is that active duty is hard work and deployments these days can suck ...

Guntalk
March 7, 2008, 03:40 PM
At a recent class, Clint Smith offered that as a result of gang members serving in the military to bring back training, he thinks we'll be seeing operations like bank robberies done with entry teams, high cover from neighboring buildings, etc.

We've already seen the use of night vision and body armor in home invasions.

BattleChimp Potemkin
March 7, 2008, 03:43 PM
Wasnt one of the guys in the North Hollywood shootout a former service member? While not a gang incident per sae, it did mark a turning point in police/personal training for many groups of folks.

trinydex
March 7, 2008, 03:45 PM
information is a valuable commodity... consultants are paid high dollars to teach and bring outside information/perspective into a an organization or community.

why would it be any less effective/valuable in gangs? these guys are going to teach and then the bar of technical gangbanging will be raised.

siglite
March 7, 2008, 03:46 PM
At a recent class, Clint Smith offered that as a result of gang members serving in the military to bring back training, he thinks we'll be seeing operations like bank robberies done with entry teams, high cover from neighboring buildings, etc.

I remember hearing similar stuff in the 80s and 90s. This FUD is nothing new. It hasn't happened on any scale worth mention.

Ithaca37
March 7, 2008, 04:04 PM
10,000/350,000,000 = .00285% chance any given american is teaching gang members "military tactics."

Your odds of being attacked by a terrorist in the USA 3000/301,000,000=0.000996%

Not trying to be a jerk, just pointing out the other fear mongering going on.

doc2rn
March 7, 2008, 04:17 PM
After my first float with the 2nd Mar Div from Lejeune, we got a blue bandana wearing gang member. He was fairly big, and thought he could push people around as an E-2. I asked to remedial him for his disrespect, and all the seargants came along just in case (I was the Doc).
I took him on a perimeter run, and he quit 2/3 of the way through near the beach. So all the Marines gave him a beach party, I had never seen so much sand flying but the staff said he would not give me anymore lip. He fell out of company PT the next day and asked to see the CO.
The CO gave him lawn duty as punishment for not completing the PT, he thought he would be smart and said it would cause his allergies to flare up. So the CO got him a full NBC suit and a pair of hand clippers to manicure the grass from 2/2 to Regiment HQ. He went AWOL after one day, and he missed ships movement when we deployed.
I transferred to the next deploying unit 2/8 and never heard anyone talk about him again. If they dont want you there, they will find a way to get you to leave.

jakemccoy
March 7, 2008, 04:18 PM
Merely the confidence of knowing that you can pull the trigger on a live human is a huge advantage, I'd imagine.

jakemccoy
March 7, 2008, 04:27 PM
J_Lambs wrote,
The number of gang members in the military was less than 1%. But in perspective, that is over 10,000 troops. Which would equate to a very large military base. So if you think of it as an entire base of gang members, it is scary. Also, the marine that attacked the police was using armor piercing rounds. The cops were outgunned and not trained for that type of combat.

What exactly is an armor piercing round?

Is that media's name for FMJ?

ckay
March 7, 2008, 04:34 PM
3) I always thought the military firearms training (basic) taught using full auto MGs, suppressive fire, and accuracy. Obviously the gangs in US can't own Full Auto, so what else could they learn in the military that would serve them on the streets?
If you think there are no F/A in the hands of gang, you are sadly mistaken.

sacp81170a
March 7, 2008, 04:53 PM
The CO gave him lawn duty as punishment for not completing the PT, he thought he would be smart and said it would cause his allergies to flare up. So the CO got him a full NBC suit and a pair of hand clippers to manicure the grass from 2/2 to Regiment HQ.

I love it! :evil:

R127
March 7, 2008, 07:50 PM
Gangs are something I know a lot about. Some are more serious than others but it is not uncommon to find members with a military background or who have been taught things by others who do. Many of the foreign gangs have foreign military experience as well. It is not exactly uncommon for them to study martial arts either or do a lot of other things just like real live human beings. A large number of them even have day jobs. Suprise suprise. And yes, full auto is not exactly hard to get your hands on if you want it. A lot of it at least where I have been comes up on the same shipments with the drugs and gets distributed from there. Other stuff is converted and there is a lot of stuff in circulation that is stolen from the police or military very often by guys on the inside. Yeah that means there are gang cops too but a lot more are just gang friendly having family friends neighbors of whatever in gangs.

The gangs are a much more real threat than the stupid terrorist boogeyman but at the same time it doesn't make sense to go into some kind of bird flu panic hysteria about it. The only thing in place right now that has any chance at all of countering these trends are concealed carry with stand your ground self defense laws. There is no other official action that will have any meaningful impact... see the "war on drugs!" :rolleyes: The two are actually completely connected. There would be no gang problem in our country if illicit drugs were not illicit. This is of course furiously denied by the same crowd who doesn't believe any other official policies could ever have obvious consequences either yet it remains the truth.

So how do you react? Well the reality is all we're talking about is team tactics. There are no supermen in real life. Gang members will not suddenly be bullet proof with the ability to fly and shoot lasers out of their eyes. You just have to get better yourself and try to be in the company of likeminded individuals. This of course goes directly back to the principles of the second ammendment and armed citizens being essential to providing security in a free state. You also want to take every advantage for yourself you can. If you already have a ccw then next time you want to buy another gun get yourself a concealable vest instead. Go IIA without side panels if you have to.

All this stuff will become a bigger and bigger issue as time moves forward. The patriot movement of the 90's saw the beginnings of a re-awakening of a competent militia but it was torn apart by the government in its infancy of course because they covet a monopoly on force. The government is and will continue to lose power and create a void. This void in large measure can be filled by existing militarized gangs or by armed citizens forming community militias. This sort of thing is going on in Brazil right now. The Brazilian government hates it of course because it threatens their monopoly(duh! :rolleyes:) and their way is probably a little different than what we'd do but similar problems yield similar answers and as you all know there is nothing really new under the sun anyway. It's interesting stuff and a view of things that lie ahead for us so here, you can read an article on what's happening in Brazel for yourselves.

http://www.stratfor.com/brazil_burgeoning_militia_governments_slums_rio

Cosmoline
March 7, 2008, 08:00 PM
As long as they're following orders in service and obeying the relevant codes of conduct what's the problem? Having tough SOB's in the service is a strategic asset and always has been. Remember we used Mafia connections of certain ethnic GI's to help take quick control of the countryside in Sicily and southern Italy.

Nomad101bc
March 7, 2008, 08:32 PM
I agree Militia's will be our best defense against gangs as they start to consolidate more power. Do you honestly think they will be happy controling the crappy area's of town forever? All we can do is buy the best equipment legaly available and hope for the best.

Gangs however at this point are self sustaining. No drug or welfare reform will stop them. Our only option is for the government to eliminate their leaders and hope they destroy each other in ensuing power vacumes. Deploying the National Guard in gang hot spots is not a bad idea either.

sacp81170a
March 7, 2008, 08:35 PM
Gang members will not suddenly be bullet proof with the ability to fly and shoot lasers out of their eyes. You just have to get better yourself and try to be in the company of likeminded individuals.

At the same time, keeping in mind that reactions are ingrained by training, there's an advantage in being able to recognize that your opponent has had some time type of training and what his reactions might be. That's one of the lessons learned by non-military folks training with ex-military. "Knowing thy enemy" is a really good idea. Being trained as well is even better.

As always, expect the unexpected, train like you fight, and have a winning mindset. Respecting your opponent means that you assume that he's as good or better than you are, so cheating is only fair. ;)

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 7, 2008, 08:49 PM
Your odds of being attacked by a terrorist in the USA 3000/301,000,000=0.000996%

Not trying to be a jerk, just pointing out the other fear mongering going on.

Save that topic for it's own thread, thanks.


I would think that once a young man earns success in the military and finds a new group of brothers, the enticement and sense of belonging they got from gangs would fade as time goes by.

siglite
March 7, 2008, 09:04 PM
I would think that once a young man earns success in the military and finds a new group of brothers, the enticement and sense of belonging they got from gangs would fade as time goes by.

I've seen that happen first hand.

R127
March 7, 2008, 09:29 PM
Gangs however at this point are self sustaining. No drug or welfare reform will stop them. Our only option is for the government to eliminate their leaders and hope they destroy each other in ensuing power vacumes. Deploying the National Guard in gang hot spots is not a bad idea either.

I largely agree Nomad, except two points, the self sustaining one and the NG one.

On the self sustaining one I think you are 99% right because it is now a cultural institution not just a poor career choice. The slight point of disagreement I have is that if the drugs were legal first off there is no way the street gangs could compete with CVS or ABC Liqour or any other corporate entity. Secondly it just would not be as lucrative and they would have their major source of funding cut off. The cultural institution of belonging to a gang would still exist but it would be cooled off from the level it is currently at.

The National Guard idea sounds great but then again what are they really going to do? Stand around and look tough? The cops and Guardian Angels already do that and it doesn't accomplish anything. I agree with the principle though. As long as we're talking about solutions that can't/won't really be implemented then I want a letter of marque and reprisal and I am well able to service it. I grew up in gang territory. All told I have twenty years of experience surviving in their territory and fighting them. Within a year's time I could have every gang member in a 50 mile radius rounded up. With the help of a couple solid men that time could be adjusted downward significantly. But, what to do with them? The authorities don't want them. I don't have the space for them and I certainly can't afford to feed them even if that was a possibility.

The fact that this problem is relatively easy and relatively quick to solve yet no real action has ever been taken to resolve the issue makes me wonder why?

What you said about the best equipment we can get is an interesting situation. An American even at this point in time can get better individual weapons and gear than any soldier is issued if you can accept no full auto, no explosives and other obvious differences that ammount to an adjustment of tactics. You should see what I've done with 6AL-4V ELI. We are the missing check and balance. We are the reason our system is broken. I've read your stuff and I suspect you already know that. The trick of it is that with over 300 million people covering a whole continent we have ZERO chance for the cultural unity required to take our proper place in the constitutional balance. For starters it would require overturning every law that has been created by the "authorities" to prevent the armed citizen's militia from working correctly. See previous comments about the Minute Men being hobbled down on the border. On top of that it would require the support or indifference of half the community. This won't happen until we go Brazil.

yokel
March 7, 2008, 09:52 PM
"Do any of you people know who Charles Whitman was? Private Cowboy?"
"Sir, he was that guy who shot all those people from that tower in Austin, Texas, sir!"
"That's affirmative. ...Anybody know who Lee Harvey Oswald was? Private Snowball?"
"Sir, he shot Kennedy, sir!"
"That's right. Do any of you people know where these individuals learned to shoot? Private Joker?"
"Sir, in the Marines, sir!"
"In the Marines! Outstanding!"

thebaldguy
March 7, 2008, 10:43 PM
My girlfriend and I watched the program last night as well. I can't really imagine some gangbanger adapting to military life. While there may be a few here and there, I think the numbers are very few.

bogie
March 7, 2008, 11:01 PM
Tactics are tactics... About 15-20 years ago, a friend was rehabbing in a marginal neighborhood... edge of a bad, edge of a good...

So, he's sitting in a window one evening, and the local street outfit walks past... About 15-20 of them... They had a guy out on point, they had another one on drag (spaced far enough out that they could check the side streets/alleys), and there was a guy carrying a bag phone next to the fellow who looked like the boss... Basic show of force for the population.

Sistema1927
March 7, 2008, 11:06 PM
Paranoia over gang bangers (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/ap_guardracism_070423/) led to the humiliation of a New Mexico National Guard unit while in Kuwait. They were all forced to strip so as to examine them for any gang tattoos.

chrlefxtrt
March 8, 2008, 12:04 AM
I had a former gang banger in my platoon in basic training. He had gotten in trouble when he was 16 and was sent to a state run boot camp. he liked the structure so much that when he was 17 his mom let him join the army. The guy was a natural born leader and if he hadn't been sent to the juvt boot camp he never would have realized his potential.

He had "gang tatoos but was very embarrassed about them.

bogie
March 8, 2008, 12:20 AM
Oh, and fwiw, I've got a friend who is a former hard-core St. Louis gangsta... Back about 20 years ago... He got popped with about 8 oz. of the white lady, and did some time.

Then he got a job. And another job, and another job, and now he's got a nice house in suburbia...

Gunnerpalace
March 8, 2008, 12:38 AM
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, this was the same thing that SPECOPS said in the infamous Gecko45 tales.

Kimchi Raven
March 8, 2008, 08:34 AM
When I was in Iraq a few years ago, on the US Army FOB nearest my location, every concrete barrier around the dining facility and PX was festooned with gang graffiti.

Here in Korea, we have fellows attired in the latest Pimp Daddy McThug attire strutting about during off duty hours, and the "M/F this, beyotch-ho that" music blares from the barracks. The chain of command doesn't seem to care, so I guess it isn't a problem.

JWarren
March 8, 2008, 08:50 AM
There's been a few tales of gang-members who "go straight on here." That is excellent... but...

I really don't think its relevant to consider a gang member's post-gang life. I'm really only concerned about what he is doing WHEN he IS in a gang.


And I should point out that leaving a gang does not magically erase deeds done while in a gang. They are still responsible. Possibly lives were ruined.

We hunted down Nazi War Criminals into their old age for what they did in WWII. I'd feel the same way with a gangbanger if they shot my sister.


This is one reason that I boycott anything Ice T is in. I read a quote from him that stated that he has killed when he was in a gang. I suppose that any regret he has for that wasn't great enough to take responsibility for it beyond using it to propel his "hard-core" image for movies and TV.


-- John

Rachen
March 8, 2008, 06:05 PM
It is really sad to see that we have such a liberal influence in all of American life.

If there is still a strong Conservative agenda, all gang members would be rounded up and executed.

"Why are gang members allowed to join the military?" That question is RIDICULOUS.

The real question is supposed to be "Why do we allow gangs to form in the US AT ALL?"

In China, criminal gangs are stamped out as soon as they appear. And western nations keep b*tching about our "human rights" while all we execute are criminals.

Code Monkey
March 8, 2008, 06:58 PM
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/3/8/rachenyoui128494904739531250.jpg

You talk about rounding up and killing people a lot...
What's your malfunction!?!?
:uhoh:

Flyboy
March 8, 2008, 06:58 PM
If there is still a strong Conservative agenda, all gang members would be rounded up and executed.... In China, criminal gangs are stamped out as soon as they appear. And western nations keep b*tching about our "human rights" while all we execute are criminals.
Yes, well, here in the civilized world, we have principles like "freedom of assosciation," "innocent until proven guilty," and "proportional punishment."

So we can't just execute people for hanging out together. They have to actually commit a crime, and then we can only punish them proportionately. And you're right, that's a very Liberal idea--one might even say Jeffersonian.

sacp81170a
March 8, 2008, 08:20 PM
In China, criminal gangs are stamped out as soon as they appear.

You're right! I saw it happen on TV. I think it was that thing in Tianamen Square a few years back. Man, that was awesome! That punk who was standing in front of the tank, man when they opened up on the crowd with automatics and crew served weapons that was so cool! Oh, wait... :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, I forgot about those Faolun Gong guys. Boy did they ever deserve what they got! Punks! :rolleyes:

(/sarcasm off)

Nomad101bc
March 8, 2008, 09:12 PM
I heard from a Chinese student wh owas getting his education at my University; that the total death count of Tianamen square is closer to almost 20k people. He points out there was a massive rural relocation after likely to bury the bodies. His uncle watched and fortunately the Chinese did not see him or he would have been executed.

On a happier note that squirrel looks just like the one my hunting buddy popped on thanksgiving break. I say popped cause we were using .22 magnum rifles google exploding squirrel if you need further details. Squirrel taste and looks remarkably like buffalo wings...kinda off topic lol.

trinydex
March 8, 2008, 09:29 PM
if you legalize drugs there will still be gangs, and why not, they'll either still be selling drugs or selling other stuff to stay alive.

if you legalize drugs there will still be illegal drugs just like there's still illegal bootleg alcohol.

if you legalize drugs there will still be a black market. remember goodfellas, the best way to make money is to sell stolen goods.

jrfoxx
March 8, 2008, 09:36 PM
1) why are gang members allowed in the military at all?

Actualy, I could swear I remmber you having to sign documents swearing that you WEREN'T affilated with any gangs or gang activityas part of enlistment, and it WAS a disqualifier. (admittedly, being asked to sign a piece of paper does absloutely nothing to actually stop the problem, just give them the ability to kick you out, if they somehow found out the truth, whch is unlikely unless you go around advertising the fact, and somemoe who cares hears about it, and can then prove it, or it comes out during background/security clearance checks, whch it obviously doesnt often enough). Does anyone who was a "regular" infantry guy in the Army or Marines know if they even do ANY background/security clearance checks for that rate/MOS? I would have to guess not, or this issue wouldnt really come up.Also, based on the depth of MY security clearance background interviews/investigation it would seem that a LOT less people would be able to be in the military, or in that rate/MOS, as they are REALLY detailed and picky in the background check (I was given QUITE a bit of grief over 1, 15 year old unpaid medical bill on my credit report, and for not remembering the full legal names and adresses of EVERYONE I ever knew/associated with who did any drugs, or that I had smoked pot with the couple time I admitted to having done so back in 92-94 7 years prior to my application for secret clearance.They almost wouldn give it to me)....
Side note-the gentlemen who do security clearance checks/interviews are some VERY intense, humorless, kinda scary and intimidating individuals.:what:

sacp81170a
March 8, 2008, 10:11 PM
Side note-the gentlemen who do security clearance checks/interviews are some VERY intense, humorless, kinda scary and intimidating individuals.

Try an SSBI sometime. It says right there on the form that the penalty for lying is 10 years/$50,000. TS/SCI is some serious stuff. ;)

siglite
March 8, 2008, 11:02 PM
Yeah, just wait'll they ask you about your sexual preferences, and whether they include vegetables or rodents in the polygraph :D

Yeah, they find things in clearance checks. I had the frowny face guys dig up something I'd completely forgotten about. That sucked. "Oh... oh man, I forgot about that... it's kind of a funny story!"

"Yeah. I'm in stitches. Do go on."

Glenn Kelley
March 8, 2008, 11:52 PM
I expect it will be as much of a problem as membership in motorcycle gangs by Vietnam vets was.

akodo
March 9, 2008, 01:13 AM
what can gang members learn in the army to make them more dangerous out on the streets?

1. handguns suck rifles rock.
2. Your plan of attack should also include how to get out once you are done
3. That thing on the end of the rifle, that's a stock. put it on your shoulder and you can shoot more effectively.
4. those things on the front of handguns and rifles, those are sights, use them to actually hit your target not just to spray random bullets
5. Do things as a group, not peacemeal. Even as simply as standin out front, everyone rush into the Liquour store on my mark 1...2...3!!!!

Rachen
March 10, 2008, 12:43 PM
You talk about rounding up and killing people a lot...
What's your malfunction!?!?

First, of all, I never talk about jackbooted thuggery in any way you're implying.
Second, I wish the US would be more the the US of Jefferson, Madison, and Adams. There is too much putrid sewage flowing in the streets of big cities, and it's starting to move into the rural areas, which is making me have tears in my eyes.

And the thing with libperverts is that they keep stressing for "reforms" ,and "rehabilitation". The thing is, THEY DON"T WORK. GET OVER IT. SURE IT SOUNDS NICE, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. Only in a socialist dreamer's mind it works, but in reality, rehab doesn't work any more than trying to ignore the symptoms of bacterial meningitis and hoping it will go away soon.

siglite
March 10, 2008, 01:08 PM
LOL

Now rachen has me thinking of little reform petri dishes for bacteria. Where they can grow on the glucose media and learn to be better, more benevolent bacteria....

XDKingslayer
March 10, 2008, 01:14 PM
My girlfriend and I watched the program last night as well. I can't really imagine some gangbanger adapting to military life. While there may be a few here and there, I think the numbers are very few.

There are very few that adapt to military life. And those that do usually find life rough for the first couple of years.

I had a member of Bassett Grande (I think that was the name) in my platoon. He was a loud mouthed beligerent punk.

At last check he's on his 12th year of service and is a Gunnery Sergeant. Probably a lifer. But it took up to E-5 to get the punk out of him.

trinydex
March 10, 2008, 06:59 PM
First, of all, I never talk about jackbooted thuggery in any way you're implying.
Second, I wish the US would be more the the US of Jefferson, Madison, and Adams. There is too much putrid sewage flowing in the streets of big cities, and it's starting to move into the rural areas, which is making me have tears in my eyes.

And the thing with libperverts is that they keep stressing for "reforms" ,and "rehabilitation". The thing is, THEY DON"T WORK. GET OVER IT. SURE IT SOUNDS NICE, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. Only in a socialist dreamer's mind it works, but in reality, rehab doesn't work any more than trying to ignore the symptoms of bacterial meningitis and hoping it will go away soon.

well what do you suggest? rounding up people to kill them results in a different undesireable outcome.

i don't understand why people aren't willing to accept the consequences of the lifestyle they choose to embrace. the universe is filled with balance and diversity adn i don't mean that in some touchy feely artsy fartsy bs way either.

the spectrum of human diversity is what enables "us" to keep the balance, persevere through disasters threatening survival of the greater population. unfortunately that spectrum has a finite percentage of outliers who will not fit in to the "current" mode of societal operation that "we" have chosen.

you can't just cut those people down, because you'll end up cutting everyone down one day... think of it in the cliche killing all "non average height people" eventually no one is average height.

Six O'clock Tactical
March 10, 2008, 07:06 PM
considering gang members most often kill other gang members, ill let them learn how to properly shoot all day long. The more accurate they are shooting at rivals the less likely they are to kill all those bystanders you hear about with their bull**** sideways shooting and one-handed mac-10's.

JWarren
March 10, 2008, 07:12 PM
the spectrum of human diversity is what enables "us" to keep the balance, persevere through disasters threatening survival of the greater population. unfortunately that spectrum has a finite percentage of outliers who will not fit in to the "current" mode of societal operation that "we" have chosen.

you can't just cut those people down, because you'll end up cutting everyone down one day... think of it in the cliche killing all "non average height people" eventually no one is average height.


The logic sounds good, but it falls short in reality. Are you suggesting that gang members serve a societal funtion essential to its survival?

If so... could we say the same thing about pedophiles? or rapists? or serial killers?


There is a substantial difference between diversity and what is simply unethical, immoral, and a bane upon society.

I think your analogy attempts to draw an equal comparison between diversity of genome and personal choices. You can't do that.

If we attempted the metaphysical arguement, it would say something such as "there can be no good without evil." That's true from a perspective point of view, and utterly idiotic in reality.

To use the example of rapists...

You can't say... "Without rapist there would be no consentual sex." Good can exist independent of evil. We just wouldn't percieve good in the same way.

We can do without gangs.


-- John

Poper
March 10, 2008, 07:47 PM
You're right! I saw it happen on TV. I think it was that thing in Waco, Texas a few years back.

There! Fixed it!

:scrutiny:

Poper

sacp81170a
March 10, 2008, 07:51 PM
We can do without gangs.

I agree completely. The problem lies in who gets to apply the label "gang" and define what it means.

Q: What's the difference between a "good" totalitarian government and a "bad" totalitarian government?

A: A "good" totalitarian government only kills those who "deserve" to be killed. Who deserves it? Why, whoever the government says, of course.

The problem is that gang members still possess the same God given rights as individuals that all of us enjoy until convicted in a court of law of a crime. They still have a right to due process, they're innocent until proven guilty, they have a right to confront witnesses against them, etc., etc. If we decide that members of a particular group can be denied these rights because of their membership in that group, we've taken a giant step toward a totalitarian regime and risk becoming a member of the "wrong" group ourselves one day.

I understand that groups of scumbags will organize themselves for criminal enterprise. There are laws against that, some of which (IMO) come perilously close to setting the stage for totalitarianism. I'm not trying to stand up for the "noble, misunderstood inner-city yutes" so much as I'm not willing to trade all of our freedoms for a little safety. The only logical approach to the problem of gang violence is to make the violence less profitable. I would say that if they met armed resistance from a determined citizenry at every turn, then they would be less apt to use violence in the first place. But that's just my opinion.

YMMV.

You're right! I saw it happen on TV. I think it was that thing in Waco, Texas a few years back.

There! Fixed it!

Ah, but that was a "good" totalitarian government agency that did that, right? :barf:

Timthinker
March 10, 2008, 07:52 PM
Is the military the only place where useful tactics can be acquired? This seems like a useful question to ask ourselves. Of course, the army teaches the tactics discussed in this long thread. But can they be acquired elsewhere? I think the answer is yes. We live in an information oriented society where virtually any subject can be researched. And infantry squad tactics falls into this category. Think about it and test my idea by some online research. It might prove a useful experiment.


Timthinker

Code Monkey
March 10, 2008, 08:35 PM
Oh wow... another great post from Rachen.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4113898#post4113898


January 22nd, 2008, 01:30 PM #133
Rachen
Senior Member


Join Date: 03-16-06
Location: New York
Posts: 431

And speaking of that June 4 incident at Tiananmen Square...........If I had a child who actually participated in the riots, I would immediately disown him/her. Stupid teenagers HAVE NO RIGHT to riot against the government who fed their families and clothed them and schooled them. CCP is not Qing Dynasty. They are righteous People's government.


Dude, you've got issues. None of them good. That stuff does not fly in America. My family got the hell out of China because of people like you.
YOU are a jackbooted thug in disquise my not-so-intelligent friend.

This line is from this thread...

There is too much putrid sewage flowing in the streets of big cities, and it's starting to move into the rural areas, which is making me have tears in my eyes.

Yup, a lot of other famous people thought along those lines...
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, the list goes on and on. We've even had some here in the U.S. Hmmm, what are they called? Oh yeah, the KKK.

I'm not trying to insult you Rachen.
All I'm doing is calling you out, so others can see you for the fraud you really are. If one should search your previous posts, there is an emergent pattern.

According to your info/posts...

You are twenty years old and reside in NYC. Yet, you own and carry a LeMat Revolver on the NYC subway. Supposedly, you also own an M1911 pattern pistol and a Ruger revolver of some kind as well.
In addition, if a madman should enter your classroom while in session... you stated you would pull some magicical-mall ninja-wushu neck breaking move.

And the B.S. in your posts goes on and on...

Cut the s**t, leave the High Road, and go play some counterstrike.

R127
March 10, 2008, 09:34 PM
I can resolve the "round people up and kill them" dilema quickly. The government just doesn't have the tools to solve the problem because it isn't an issue of firepower or even mere crime but one of culture. Gangs are negative, criminally oriented parasite CULTURE. Long ago we lost anything that even began to resemble a unified American culture. That was ok because there was still community-centered culture. Now that has been stamped out and even if it wasn't all avenues of remmedy and recourse have been usurped from local communities.

The distant centralized government bureaucracy has a tremendous ammount of force available but it can only use it in the most hamfisted fashion immaginable. Since culture and community has been stamped out and any action that is carried out is done so by the direction of a disconnected leadership there is no clear way for the response to distinguish friend from foe. The consequence is that either nothing gets done at all or else some extremely poorly chosen random attribute is criminalized. Famously most states have laws against wearing masks in public. This grew from a clumsy attempt to discourage the KKK. In contrast a coherent community would be able to recognize an undesirable organization such as the KKK and move effectively against it.

I believe there are other factors in play too. For instance it is very common in corrupt regimes to allow gangs and much crime to go relatively unmolested. It's a classic case of both sides against the middle. The ordinary citizens become trapped between a criminal underclass and a corrupted criminal ruling class left feeling as if they have nowhere to turn. In the long run it never works out because as we see with Brazil the people realize they still have eachother and they are the ones who make civilization anyway and they cut out the middleman. Unfortunately it's often very bloody getting to that point and for some reason the process repeats again often after only a couple generations. Probably because all the wrong people are attracted to positions of power. At any rate we have a lot of pigs at the trough right now who benefit in terms of political clout and cash flow if there is the spectre of gang violence hanging over everyone's head. The terrorism paranoia is just more of the same. Fear is big business.

JWarren
March 10, 2008, 11:26 PM
sacp81170a wrote:

I agree completely. The problem lies in who gets to apply the label "gang" and define what it means.

Q: What's the difference between a "good" totalitarian government and a "bad" totalitarian government?

A: A "good" totalitarian government only kills those who "deserve" to be killed. Who deserves it? Why, whoever the government says, of course.


My friend, you and I are in complete agreement.

When I made the comment "We can do without gangs," it wasn't advocating killing them off. It was part of my diatribe questioning the idea of gangs are some necessary part of the "Bell Curve" of society and are part of the diversity which preserves life/society/whatever.

I was disagreeing that there is any redeeming qualities regarding gangs.



The problem is that gang members still possess the same God given rights as individuals that all of us enjoy until convicted in a court of law of a crime. They still have a right to due process, they're innocent until proven guilty, they have a right to confront witnesses against them, etc., etc.


Again, we are in complete agreement. I frankly believe any group has the right to congregate/assemble/chit-chat/whatever. This includes pro-anything movements-- regardless if they are for or against my beliefs or values. This includes gangs, this includes Neo-Nazi's, Louis Farrakhan's group (I forget the name), The Flat Earth Society, The Masons, my wife's pre-school class, etc. etc.

Their actions at any particular time determine the consequences of those particular actions. If a group is standing on the corner, great... more power to you. If that same group is breaking into my home, they may well have a problem. If they survive that problem, they will likely face charges.

But then-- my view is dependant upon an empowered and armed society which is willing to take its destiny in its own hands.

Eradication of any group is a function of the "Dial 911 and Pray crowd."




BTW.... there are no good Totalitarian governments. I detest anyone believing they know what is good for me better than I know for myself.



-- John

Poper
March 11, 2008, 12:31 AM
I detest anyone believing they know what is good for me better than I know for myself. John, I can't say it better.
Unfortunately, my elder, white-haired, war hero senator (now a presidential candidate, whom shall remain nameless) has authored more than one letter to his constituents that states something to the effect of 'I understand your disagreement with my position on <fill in your favorite bill here>, but this is a representative republic and as such I must at times exercise my judgment when I believe I know what is better for the people of Arizona.' :barf: Gag me! :barf: I have one such letter in my file. It's coming, folks. And it cannot be avoided in the upcoming election. :cuss:

My $0.02.

Poper

trinydex
March 11, 2008, 01:55 AM
Are you suggesting that gang members serve a societal funtion essential to its survival?

i said nothing of the sort, it's obvious that those people have no "use" in our society, but they are a byproduct of otherwise NATURAL human diversity. something that will never go away. you keep axin' the outliers and you'll end up with nothing. that's called communism right? the dirty dirty artsy fartsy theory that brings about dictatorships that "we" all hate as first world capitalists right?

"we" have created a society in which not everyone can fit in... debateably there is no such thing as a society where everyone fits in. so deal with it. like we always have.

If we attempted the metaphysical arguement, it would say something such as "there can be no good without evil." That's true from a perspective point of view, and utterly idiotic in reality.
the metaphysical arguemnt is exactly what i'm getting at. and there is no good without evil and it has nothing to do with the opposition of consensual sex and rape, because that is not a metaphysical arguement is it?

we can certianly do without gangs... but how then do you address the inevitable and REAL statistics that contribute to gang formation? it's not something you can just throw away, because if and when you do it will resurface in another form. the reason being the underlying fact that there will ALWAYS be such people, disgusting, artsy, crazy, genius or otherwise... what can be done about that?


I can resolve the "round people up and kill them" dilema quickly. The government just doesn't have the tools to solve the problem because it isn't an issue of firepower or even mere crime but one of culture. Gangs are negative, criminally oriented parasite CULTURE. Long ago we lost anything that even began to resemble a unified American culture. That was ok because there was still community-centered culture. Now that has been stamped out and even if it wasn't all avenues of remmedy and recourse have been usurped from local communities. so when are you going to start your communist regime to unify the moral cultures of humans in this nation? c'mon peeps... this is what i'm saying. DEAL WITH THE BAD that philosophically and definitively COMES ALONG with the good. by definition in a free culture you can't do this. by definition in a world of diversity you cannot avoid gaussian statistical outliers.

I was disagreeing that there is any redeeming qualities regarding gangs. there's no redeeming qualities in the world that you live in. what if you lived in a different world? what if you lived in scotland during the braveheart times? i think havin' a few gangstas around would help keep the freedom... you can't just excuse things based off one definition of existence. i'll absolutely say that gangs create problems for modern day society, but if you don't deal with those problems without degrading the social architecture you make it impossible to continue living.

sacp81170a
March 11, 2008, 06:28 AM
BTW.... there are no good Totalitarian governments. I detest anyone believing they know what is good for me better than I know for myself.

My point exactly. ;)

And yet, right here on this very thread we have examples of THR members advocating a totalitarian solution to the gang problem and lionizing a totalitarian regime for the way it deals with dissident groups.

Think about the definition of totalitarianism: it basically means that all must participate, no exceptions(except for "special" cases). Now apply that definition to this proposal: "Since some people misuse guns we must take them away from everyone except the military and police."

Sound totalitarian to you? It does to me. Of course, the "good" totalitarians are only doing it "for the children". They don't think any silly individual rights should stand in the way of their programs, so you have to give yours up for the safety of all. If we unmask the gun control movement for the Totalitarian program that it is we change the terms of the argument in our favor. Advocating totalitarian solutions to any problem, including gangs in the military, only plays into their hands.

Totalitarianism isn't a Right or Left thing. There are examples on both sides of the aisle. Never forget that the incident in Waco was ostensibly over failure to pay a $200 tax.

The solution to criminal gangs? I can't really think of a good one except making the cost of their criminal behavior too heavy to bear, whether that penalty is imposed by the legal system or a well armed citizenry resisting their criminal behavior. One of those elements has been conspicuously absent for too long, and I'm not talking about the criminal justice system.

JWarren
March 11, 2008, 09:22 AM
trinydex,

Your response was every well-written, and very well-considered. I actually believe that you and I are-- in the grander spectrum-- in complete agreement.

I actually espouse a "Savage Garden" Worldview. Gangs are like many things in that worldview-- a part of life. The premise of the Savage Garden is that society has not thrown off its primal instincts and that we are more the animal than we would perhaps like to belief. This worldview questions what the natural state of man actually is-- civilized and lawful, and ordered, or savage and chaotic. It further questions the "rightness" of either state of mankind.

This worldview became a point of discussion in Elizabethan Europe and was a primary theme of Shakespeare's Othello.

At any rate, that may give a foundation to understanding where I come from.


you keep axin' the outliers and you'll end up with nothing.


I agree.


"we" have created a society in which not everyone can fit in... debateably there is no such thing as a society where everyone fits in. so deal with it. like we always have.


Again, I agree. However, this has no bearing upon being willing to oppose the gangs. Its more a function of setting realistic expections of the outcome. All we can really do is protect our own as best we can.


and there is no good without evil

Actually we will have to disagree on this. At one time, I said the exact thing. Now I see the flaw in that reasoning. The flaw is in the terms. If we somehow eliminated all "Evil" practices from ourselves and our society, some would argue that the bottom spectrum of what we still do would become the "Evil."

I disagree. Oh, sure... we could perhaps call it such, but calling a thing a thing does not make it so. If we "preceived" something to be "evil," that is only a fuction of preception-- not of universal truth. As we have seen repeatedly in our history, mankind has often called a thing "wrong" or "evil" only for the next generation-- or many generations later-- to see it as acceptable. Victorian England is a perfect example of that societal repression-- and considering many of the covert practices of that society-- of societal hypocrisy.

My point is this-- and I realize that it is a matter of "faith" in terms that it cannot be proven-- The concept of Good and Evil (or any Ethos) exists beyond what mankind chooses to define it as. Whether that originates from some religious entity or some cosmological constant, or whatever really isn't important. Because mankind cannot often agree on what is good and evil indicates to me that it isn't the notion of good and evil that is flawed-- it is Mankind's ability to percieve it clearly.


I appologize... that discussion veers far too far from the topic here... I got carried away.



but how then do you address the inevitable and REAL statistics that contribute to gang formation?


Excellent question.

My short answer? Nothing.

The truth that many of our visionarys completely fail to grasp is that is it utterly impossible to eliminate the ills of our society. Didn't one of our president's have a War on Poverty? How'd that go?

What he failed to grasp is that economics is not about dollar bills in your pocket. Economics is about ratios and comparitive wealth as it pertains to the rest of society. If I were to give everyone in the USA $100 dollars, guess what.... everything likely just went up in price in a corresponding fashion. If everyone is "rich," no one is rich. Its all in the ratios.

That was a round-about illustration of what I'm getting at-- and you've indicated as well. The Bell-curve distribution exists, and remains valid. There will be those that do not fit into the formula.



there's no redeeming qualities in the world that you live in. what if you lived in a different world? what if you lived in scotland during the braveheart times? i think havin' a few gangstas around would help keep the freedom... you can't just excuse things based off one definition of existence. i'll absolutely say that gangs create problems for modern day society, but if you don't deal with those problems without degrading the social architecture you make it impossible to continue living.


Fair enough... but let me examine it a bit.

Presently, there is no redeeming qualities in my world. I'll give you that. However, I have seen the other worlds where they may have redeeming qualities. Gangs often form out of a need for community--and perhaps more importantly-- for protection. I can see that.

I think your comparision to scots during war with England is a stretch. The same could be said of any resistence movement or rebellion. Somehow, I find difficulty comparing resistence movements to gang activities. Sure, I can see where you are coming from, but there are significant differences. For one, a scot during the time of rebellion would likely be more unlikely to willfully cause harm to those around him if he could help it. They would not be part of his fight. I can't say the same of a gang member necessarily.


As for gangs helping freedom, some could argue the opposite. Often our most restrictive laws originate from a desire to deal with these elements in our society. This goes back as far as the NFA '34. It isn't the good-willed people that these laws were meant to address-- we just get caught in the net.

While I can see your priniciple, I think reality tells a different story.


i'll absolutely say that gangs create problems for modern day society, but if you don't deal with those problems without degrading the social architecture you make it impossible to continue living.


The root causes can never be dealt with. There will always be such an element in any society.


The answer is empowerment of one's self. Its not a perfect answer, but the only thing anyone can do is be prepared to meet any threat that comes.


Good dicussion, my friend.


-- John

JWarren
March 11, 2008, 09:37 AM
sacp81170a wrote:

And yet, right here on this very thread we have examples of THR members advocating a totalitarian solution to the gang problem and lionizing a totalitarian regime for the way it deals with dissident groups.

It's knee-jerk. People are tired of being threated by them. I can see that.

But it's impossible. If a guy isn't doing anything at that moment, and you can't prove anything, what are you going to do? As much as I hate the garb, you can't take a guy out for poor tastes in fashion, etc...

Again, I advocate individual empowerment and courage. The only way such a thing will be dealt with is through the actions of people right there when something happens.

I won't wait for the police if a guy were to burst in my home with an 870. I'll respond to the best of my abilities. I'd rather live in a society where people reach for their arms rather than their cell phones when people are threatened.



Sound totalitarian to you? It does to me. Of course, the "good" totalitarians are only doing it "for the children". They don't think any silly individual rights should stand in the way of their programs, so you have to give yours up for the safety of all. If we unmask the gun control movement for the Totalitarian program that it is we change the terms of the argument in our favor. Advocating totalitarian solutions to any problem, including gangs in the military, only plays into their hands.


You said it well. I can't add to that.


The solution to criminal gangs? I can't really think of a good one except making the cost of their criminal behavior too heavy to bear, whether that penalty is imposed by the legal system or a well armed citizenry resisting their criminal behavior.

Either of such would not deter criminal gangs. Criminal activity existed and still exists in cultures with far harsher penalties than we have. I advocate a well-armed citizenry, but I have no illusions that it would actually reduce the criminal gang element. But citizens WOULD be safer and would likely be less a target. The criminal activities would likely move to other less-risky propositions such as warehouse theft, etc.-- those without as much risk of an armed opposition.

One of those elements has been conspicuously absent for too long, and I'm not talking about the criminal justice system.


Agree wholeheartedly.



-- John

trinydex
March 13, 2008, 12:02 AM
Again, I agree. However, this has no bearing upon being willing to oppose the gangs. Its more a function of setting realistic expections of the outcome. All we can really do is protect our own as best we can.
i particularly like the latter part, but i agree completely.

what we can do is crime control, what we can do is bad guy control. as with all things there's a balance of freedom vs safety and resources invested vs desireable and possible outcomes achieved. i think we do that balance well in an organized society.


Actually we will have to disagree on this. At one time, I said the exact thing. Now I see the flaw in that reasoning. The flaw is in the terms. If we somehow eliminated all "Evil" practices from ourselves and our society, some would argue that the bottom spectrum of what we still do would become the "Evil."
would you disagree with me if i said that without good there can be no evil if i qualified it by saying in order for there to be free choice, there must be a bad to choose to go along with the good choice? it's sad to reference to a certain extent but this is exactly what the matrix movie is about.

I think your comparision to scots during war with England is a stretch. The same could be said of any resistence movement or rebellion. Somehow, I find difficulty comparing resistence movements to gang activities. Sure, I can see where you are coming from, but there are significant differences. For one, a scot during the time of rebellion would likely be more unlikely to willfully cause harm to those around him if he could help it. They would not be part of his fight. I can't say the same of a gang member necessarily.
the way i see things which you're legitimately (academically and otherwise) free to disagree with, is that the modern day gang member (a lot of which are shown in the history channel program series gangland) is basically a socially unacceptable, marginal outcast. in that sense, they are trying to impose their own little revolution on society, to carve out a niche where they can exist with some feeling of empowerment. in the end, all humans live in power cycles.

we in organized society have put pressures against them, tried to put controls, mitigate their disruptive capabilities etc. this is the way, not that it "should" be or anything idealistic like that, but this is the way it MUST be (IMO). because striking down with some sort of ultimate resolve would then begin to deconstruct other (more desireable) parts of our social architecture.

The answer is empowerment of one's self. Its not a perfect answer, but the only thing anyone can do is be prepared to meet any threat that comes.
i like that self empowerment is not the perfect answer. i like even more that it's the only answer (to me). me being responsible for me? who'da thought?

Good dicussion, my friend.

always a pleasure to have a good one online.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2008, 12:21 AM
this is nothin new after ww2 there was a special forses explosive guy was knocking off banks in canada. and after he killed himself they back tracked him found some broken safes everywhere he was stationed here and abroad

Moonclip
March 13, 2008, 08:13 PM
I grew up partially in a gang area and still live in one currently. I also served in the military. This is not new stuff, just much of mainstream America does not know or understand it.

While in I met a crip or two, some of the east coast gangs I'm not as familiar with like Vice Lords, and some of the SoCal Hispanic gangs.

Mosy of these people were ok and just wanted a different life. I've heard of though of turf of sorts being staked out on aircraft carriers and on bases!

wheelgunslinger
March 13, 2008, 10:01 PM
what if you lived in scotland during the braveheart times?

Oddly enough, the men in Scotland during that period were this type of person. The rule of law found in England pretty much disappeared once you passed the firth of forth and gave way to the rule of honor.

I grew up as a troubled youth in a rough industrial town. If there had been a large gang structure, they wouldn't have had to work hard to get me to join. Instead, I kept to my tight group of friends, stuck a gun in my pants, and we watched each other's backs. So, I kind of understand the mentality.

I despise the people capitalizing on it. The ones who come from other countries or come up using other people to make money off of human suffering while wearing the mask of some sort of brotherhood.

The individual soldiers who want safety in numbers and a sense of belonging are most often being played by the guys at or near the top whether it's the Aryan Brotherhood, Latin Kings, Crips, or whomever.

However, I do agree with the idea that they must be part of the structure. I will, however, always find myself at odds with their goals and means as a necessary part of being who I am.

And, that's okay. In a strict Anthropological sense, it's really just us telling them that this is our turf and they can't have it without a fight.

trinydex
March 13, 2008, 10:09 PM
I despise the people capitalizing on it. The ones who come from other countries or come up using other people to make money off of human suffering while wearing the mask of some sort of brotherhood.
this type of capitalization is disgusting and is not at ALL exclussive to marginalized youth or socioeconomically displaced. the prime example would be religious institutions, people being used for minority gain for so long. that's why i hate being "associated" with some religious institution, it comes with so much bad blood and generalizations that have absolutely nothing to do with my personal life philosophy.

R127
March 13, 2008, 11:55 PM
so when are you going to start your communist regime to unify the moral cultures of humans in this nation? c'mon peeps... this is what i'm saying. DEAL WITH THE BAD that philosophically and definitively COMES ALONG with the good. by definition in a free culture you can't do this. by definition in a world of diversity you cannot avoid gaussian statistical outliers.

What communist regime? Communists are anti-culture.

It is irrational and in practice an utter failure to try and run a whole freak'n continent from Washington D.C. It doesn't work and it was never ever intended to work that way. The constitution was written to keep government local to the many republics, commonwealths and other nations that we now call the "states" and the local communities of people themselves.

Government operating alongside the people can actually adjust to their changing needs whereas government operating from a ivory tower in a far off land cannot. Consequently those in the ivory tower would find it a lot easier to erase the indigenous cultures and replace them with a uniform one the empire approves of. There is nothing at all to suggest that my state's culture should look much like Oregon or New York's beyond certain key shared values enumerated in the constitution though that's pretty much been tossed out the window at this point. The current top down approach is what is attempting to create unified national culture... as it happens it's communist anti-culture but nonetheless....

Humans like any other critter on God's green earth need a certain ammount of room. As a general rule we group together into communities with certain common values for various benefits. That then becomes the group's territory, be it a neighborhood, a small town, a big city or a whole country. The disconnect is that now there is an assumption that anybody and everybody is acceptable for any reason within your given group's personal space. That is just crazy, doesn't work because it is destabilizing. It undermines the purpose of forming the community in the first place. In fact the entire idea that we are all just interchangeable units of production is lifted straight from the communist's handbook. Now that community could be based on any mutual value, like "we're all artists." I'm sure you've heard of artist colonies. Or "we all value personal liberty and individuality and welcome anybody who will tolerate anybody else" or whatever. It's a local, community-oriented thing and it works. So does the "your criminal gang isn't fooling us with it's lame appeals to freedom of association because we can darn well see you are in fact a criminal gang and openly so" community.

Rachen
March 14, 2008, 12:28 AM
Oh hi there Code Monkey, our mischievious little poltergeist:D

Truly, I want to admit it, ever since the haunting began so abruptly, I felt a little annoyed, since I seemed to be singled out as the sole target of it's malicious pranks.
In my futility and sheer desperation one stormy night, I even went to my local Chemyst's to procure a bottle of tincture of garlic, said to be able to banish any Infestation. When I spread out the magick tincture all over my doorjambs, as instructed by the Vicar and the Chemyst, the Infestation grew worse, and now, it has even told me to leave my own domicile! How audacious of it! I dare not invite the Vicar to perform an exorcism, although he is a kindly man, always true to his Word, I will hardly be able to procure any of my precious savings to pay for his Godly services, and if I don't manage to get my latest manuscript accepted by the Publishers, even my bread and firewood would become a grave scarcity.

However, I got used to it fairly quickly, and now I have even come to enjoy it's presence.:)

Sage of Seattle
March 14, 2008, 03:47 AM
I frankly believe any group has the right to congregate/assemble/chit-chat/whatever. This includes pro-anything movements-- regardless if they are for or against my beliefs or values. This includes gangs, this includes Neo-Nazi's, Louis Farrakhan's group (I forget the name), The Flat Earth Society, The Masons, my wife's pre-school class, etc. etc.

Whoa, John, that right there is just crazy talk! :neener:

Titan6
March 14, 2008, 06:22 AM
Interesting that the OP never came back but anyway.... since I happen to know a little about the subject....

1) why are gang members allowed in the military at all?

They are not. Even with a clean criminal record if an applicant shows signs of gang membership; tattoos for example, they can not join. It is not always easy to figure out who is in what gang though. There are more than a thousand gangs in LA alone. There is no strcit scrutiny until after the applicant joins.

2) would the penalties be stricter for a post service member who commits murder?

I am not sure I follow. You want to know if someone to be punished differently based upon their previous service to country?

3) I always thought the military firearms training (basic) taught using full auto MGs, suppressive fire, and accuracy. Obviously the gangs in US can't own Full Auto, so what else could they learn in the military that would serve them on the streets?

First it is laughable to assume that a criminal enterprise would not go out of their way to commit another crime by either stealing or creating full auto weapons. So any skills they learned about how to operate full auto weapons (as if there were a seperate special course required) they could use just as well.

But that would be like buying a house because you need to make eggs in the kitchen. There are lots of other reasons why someone who was in a gang would join the military.

The military pays extremely well right now. Much better than being in a gang and much less chance of being killed (even with the war) as well. Some kids just want to get away from that enviornment and the military offers them an "easy" and more certain way to a better life. So it is not neccessarily about "what they can learn to be a better criminal". Most gangs simply are not that well organized (although a very few are).

However, the military is not for everyone and a person that had problems with following the rules in civilian life often times has problems following the rules in the military as well. So that person might often times find themselves with a ticket home to exactly the same place they came from. Except now they might have a little more knowledge and skills about firearms and tactics (if they paid attention at all).

Dumpster Baby
March 14, 2008, 12:08 PM
What you said about the best equipment we can get is an interesting situation. An American even at this point in time can get better individual weapons and gear than any soldier is issued if you can accept no full auto, no explosives and other obvious differences that ammount to an adjustment of tactics. You should see what I've done with 6AL-4V ELI. We are the missing check and balance. We are the reason our system is broken. I've read your stuff and I suspect you already know that. The trick of it is that with over 300 million people covering a whole continent we have ZERO chance for the cultural unity required to take our proper place in the constitutional balance. For starters it would require overturning every law that has been created by the "authorities" to prevent the armed citizen's militia from working correctly. See previous comments about the Minute Men being hobbled down on the border. On top of that it would require the support or indifference of half the community. This won't happen until we go Brazil.

Very well put. That's the main stumbling block, the Unintended Consequences, for removing all existing gun regulation that everyone is so passionate about. We got lots and lots of people who don't think like we do, don't believe what we believe, don't want what we want, don't act like we act, and will never blend in to a Leave It To Beaver dream world, only with everyone having any kind of serious weaponry they want to have.

trinydex
March 14, 2008, 05:06 PM
What communist regime? Communists are anti-culture.

but they are pro-uniform morality. murderously so, at least in application.


It is irrational and in practice an utter failure to try and run a whole freak'n continent from Washington D.C. It doesn't work and it was never ever intended to work that way. The constitution was written to keep government local to the many republics, commonwealths and other nations that we now call the "states" and the local communities of people themselves.
that is why the checks and balances are in place, you're pushing from one extreme rule by one entity in one locale to the opposite of having 50 rulers in 50 locales, the balance is not achieved and in practice would be undermined. i think we've managed to keep a balance pretty well in america, but that's the point. balance. and checks.


Government operating alongside the people can actually adjust to their changing needs whereas government operating from a ivory tower in a far off land cannot. Consequently those in the ivory tower would find it a lot easier to erase the indigenous cultures and replace them with a uniform one the empire approves of. There is nothing at all to suggest that my state's culture should look much like Oregon or New York's beyond certain key shared values enumerated in the constitution though that's pretty much been tossed out the window at this point. The current top down approach is what is attempting to create unified national culture... as it happens it's communist anti-culture but nonetheless....
this is why there are representatives, state laws and federal laws. and when you want to petition there is a judicial system by which to do so. if it's too slow for you, then you're going to be advocating some sort of totalitarianism. the main problem is when you encounter a person that is fervent on their way of things, most of the time the majority doesn't agree with them. so would you like to start your own kingdom? i ask you again, when you gonna start YOUR regime? that's essentially what you're advocating. and on that note, everyone wants their own little kingdom to rule... you're not alone.


Humans like any other critter on God's green earth need a certain ammount of room. As a general rule we group together into communities with certain common values for various benefits. That then becomes the group's territory, be it a neighborhood, a small town, a big city or a whole country. The disconnect is that now there is an assumption that anybody and everybody is acceptable for any reason within your given group's personal space. That is just crazy, doesn't work because it is destabilizing. It undermines the purpose of forming the community in the first place. In fact the entire idea that we are all just interchangeable units of production is lifted straight from the communist's handbook. Now that community could be based on any mutual value, like "we're all artists." I'm sure you've heard of artist colonies. Or "we all value personal liberty and individuality and welcome anybody who will tolerate anybody else" or whatever. It's a local, community-oriented thing and it works. So does the "your criminal gang isn't fooling us with it's lame appeals to freedom of association because we can darn well see you are in fact a criminal gang and openly so" community.
i think this kind of generalizing is not going to help. once again, balance. what the public (which is why in court rooms lawyers say the people v blank) finds BEARABLE, not ACCEPTABLE, it's impossible for EVERYONE to accept EVERYTHING, that's mutually exclussive concepts as certain stances are by definition exclussion of other stances.

if anyone is familiar with math, sociopolitical structure is like a saddle curve, in one axis view you get a parabola, things are to be kept stable, and when perturbed they will oscillate lightly and settle back down in the potential well. things like dems vs gop fall into this, when you get an extreme dem likely the next round will bring about a conservative gop, they oscillate like that.

then from another axis view you have an upside down parabola, things require WORK to keep them stable, at the tip of the mountain and most of the time any perturbation cascades into destabilization.

regardless the work must be done.

If you enjoyed reading about "gangs serving in the military, using tactics after service" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!