gangs serving in the military, using tactics after service

[trinydex]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Oh hi there Code Monkey, our mischievious little poltergeist

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]

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!

 

[Titan6]

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]

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]

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.