surrealistic debate with former Marine

[Aguila Blanca]

The oath I took when I was inducted bound me to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ... but implicit in that was that I was too dumb to know what it said so my defense thereof would be limited to doing what my superiors told me needed to be done. The U.S. military is not (or was not, when I was in) a course in social studies, history, political science, or constitutional law. It's a course in making it through basic training without getting so mad you take a swing at a DI.

Sort of like fraternity hazing, and just about as stupid in many respects.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

"Our" threats? Who are you talking about? Do you consider yourself a mere cell in the body politic of the U.S. government? I don't make any threats. The U.S. government does. I don't have any troops. The U.S. government does. The individuals who comprise the U.S. government do not speak for me; nor do they speak for millions of other sane people.

lacoochee wrote:

Funny, you live in a representative democracy so in fact actually the government does speak for you. I did not like it when Clinton was the President, but he was still our President. I never thought of him as someone else's president as if he were from strange blue nation North of the Mason-Dixon line.

When the individuals in government slaughtered over 350,000 civilians during the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did not do so on my behalf. Nor did I approve of it. When the individuals in government slaughtered over 80 men, women and children at Waco, it was not acting on my behalf, nor was I vicariously acting through the government. I was not a cause of the action. I flatly condemned the action. Simply put, I had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I live in the world, not a government. Government influences my life, yes. However, it is, without hyperbole, absolutely insane to say that because people merely live within the sphere of influence of a particular entity, that therefore that entity "acts on behalf of" those people, or that they are a "part" of that entity. We live under the influence of the environment, too. I am not a part of a tsunami that slaughters people. I am in relation to the environment, but I am not an agent of its actions. It is insanity to suggest that if we do not vote, but only pay taxes that we are forced to, that we are part of its workings.

If people want to put up their artificial worlds up and call them "states" or "nations," they're free to do so. But leave me out. I don't live within other people's mental problems. And I certainly don't voluntarily take part in the foul actions their mental illnesses lead them to perform.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[R127]

Funny, you live in a representative democracy

No, we live in a Federal Republic not a democracy. Look it up.

so in fact actually the government does speak for you.

No, they don't. We have a two party system. The government speaks for one or both of the two parties and whoever can bribe them.

I did not like it when Clinton was the President, but he was still our President. I never thought of him as someone else's president as if he were from strange blue nation North of the Mason-Dixon line.

Bill, like most other presidents, acted illegally throughout his entire term. Under no circumstances can an outlaw be seen as a legitimate president.

"I kill those who ignore the the promise of the United States government that they will be punished if they harm one of our own."

The government harms more of us and is a greater immediate threat to freedom and the economy than any outside entity. If the government were operating according to the logic of your rephrased sentiment it would have to commit suicide... of course there is no logic to it. It's just another example of Captain America poisoning. Cheap phoney baloney chest thumping false patriotism.

 

[R127]

The oath I took when I was inducted bound me to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ... but implicit in that was that I was too dumb to know what it said so my defense thereof would be limited to doing what my superiors told me needed to be done. The U.S. military is not (or was not, when I was in) a course in social studies, history, political science, or constitutional law. It's a course in making it through basic training without getting so mad you take a swing at a DI.

Sort of like fraternity hazing, and just about as stupid in many respects.

Understood. That is why it has reached the point that one has to recognize the fact that the US military despite all its immense power has failed in its duty to defend the constitution and safeguard our society. It's one of those poop or get off the pot momments. It's not a matter of hate directed at individuals, it's the system and it's broke.

 

[Soybomb]

The oath I took when I was inducted bound me to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ... but implicit in that was that I was too dumb to know what it said so my defense thereof would be limited to doing what my superiors told me needed to be done. The U.S. military is not (or was not, when I was in) a course in social studies, history, political science, or constitutional law. It's a course in making it through basic training without getting so mad you take a swing at a DI.

Sort of like fraternity hazing, and just about as stupid in many respects.

I think that sums up what I was trying to say earlier and did a poor job at. Sometimes we jump on antis for listening to a police spokesman speak as an authority on guns. We say that police carry guns for work but not all police are going to be gun enthusiasts. We can't then assume that soldiers are necessarily gun enthusiasts or 2nd amendment supporters because their job requires a gun either. I think there is a tendency to want to view every soldier as a freedom fighter, a true believer in the constitution, a defender of all things american including the rkba. Many soldiers may be like that, but many are still just doing a job, the gun is just part of work and nothing more.

 

[mgregg85]

Sadly I've run into several current and former military people that were of the opinion that only ex-military/cops should be allowed to own guns.

Very scary stuff to think about really, they'd like to turn our country into something more closely resembling Starship Troopers. And though I enjoyed the book, I don't like the thought of the military/ex-military running the world.

 

[brigadier]

I have met numerous vets who spoke to me with stronger left wing idealism then admitted loyal communists I've encountered (true to form communists can actually put up a decent argument as they tend to be devils advocates as opposed to plain stupid. If the military was schooled in the constitution and encouraged to uphold their oath, then WW II would have been the last war we fought in.

I personally think that police officers, soldiers and politicians should be REQUIRED to be schooled in the constitution and prove that they know the bill of rights by heart BEFORE they are sworn in. I'd like to find a way to push for a federal bill requiring just that.

 

[flynlr]

when I joined the Army in 84 I didn't know the 2nd amendment from a hole in the ground. But I did take an oath to uphold it and others.
it wasn't until 1989 when I joined the AF reserves that I actually started reading and understanding the constitution. as an ANG member today I fully understand and will defend and protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

[Tom Fury]

Liked something Jake said: about venturing off into the wilderness; I think a simple truth is that most of us have decided its' best to do that armed; others arm themselves with a rationale they think will get them thru and draw down on those with a different one they perceive as a threat.
No more chance of reasoning with them than they would have with you. Others don't want to perceive the wilderness.
You know why you made your choice.
They perceive the rules of society and the 2A are what will protect them; and default think they have no need for anything else and no one else should either; therefore anyone who thinks differently is a threat. They require unilateral disarmament to level the playing field. They believe in safety, not security.
Experience in the military; indeed any experience, tends to confirm what they want to believe instead of make them think twice.
I call for a ban on concealed deadly reasoning...
Cheers, TF

 

[Ithaca37]

Funny, you live in a representative democracy so in fact actually the government does speak for you.

So you support all aspects of government regulation 100%? Impressive. You know the colonies had some representation in England. Were the founders wrong for revolting since any representation, effective or not, automatically makes the government act in your interest according to your logic?

 

[Deanimator]

When the individuals in government slaughtered over 350,000 civilians during the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did not do so on my behalf. Nor did I approve of it. When the individuals in government slaughtered over 80 men, women and children at Waco, it was not acting on my behalf, nor was I vicariously acting through the government. I was not a cause of the action. I flatly condemned the action. Simply put, I had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I wasn't born yet, but the government bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki on my behalf and I certainly approve of what was done. This idea that the Japanese were just peacefully building Toyotas when we dropped a couple of atomic bombs on them for no reason is despicable nonsense. The government of Japan, with the wholehearted support of the Japanese people engaged in a reign of robbery, rape and murder that horror writer Clive Barker would be hard pressed to duplicate, certainly with ordinary humans as his villains. Actions have consequences, whether you're a 300lb. cop who stomps on a 115lb. barmaid's head, or a nation that slaughters its neighbors and treats rape as a reward for a job well done. The Japanese got off lightly. REAL justice would have been a Chinese mandate over Japan. Had the Chinese been allowed to do in Tokyo or Osaka what the Japanese did in Nanking and Manila, THEN the Japanese would have something to complain about.

And to compare David Koresh and the Branch Davidians to Tsuji Masanobu and the Kwantung Army is nothing short of insane. I wasn't aware that Koresh had led an invasion of the town of Waco. I wasn't aware that the Davidians had raped 100,000 women there. To the best of my knowledge, the Davidians didn't chain people together, throw them in a handy river and use them for machinegun practice. I had no use for the Davidian religion, just as I have no use for ANY religion. It's entirely possible that had Koresh been lawfully apprehended, he might have rightfully been prosecuted and convicted of various crimes. But to equate him and the Davidians to the Japanese in WWII is arch foolishness.

The Japanese weren't victims of the US government, but rather of the Japanese government.

 

[siglite]

Thanks marinepilot. I figured as much. It's not like an O-6 would dare write that position down anywhere. But I don't doubt that there are many who think exactly as you describe.

 

[K-Romulus]

Well, you get all kinds in the military (like me, for instance).

There is a variety of opinions to be found both in the military and among former active duty people.

Example: It seems that a substantial portion of the VCDL membership is active/former/retired military. And then you get Mike Barnes LtCol/USMC as President of the Brady Campaign.

If it makes anyone feel better, I took a carbine operators' course at MCB Quantico last fall where 17 out of 22 students were active duty Marines from the Weapons Training Battalion, incl. the sniper school, who were taking the course for "work" (evaluating the class to see if they should incorporate any concepts learned into USMC training doctrine). Most every break conversation initiated by the active duty guys concerned a fear of future gun control, or ridiculing anti-gun-owner ideas. And I didn't see any dissenters.

 

[romma]

I would think (and this is just a theory) that Marines and army are at the fore front of invasions of many countries that have been victimized by their own governments, and would have seen first hand what can happen to an unarmed population...

Based on at least the Marines and Army personal that do see these types of things, the would be at the very least be pro 2nd...

 

[USMC 1975]

I joined the Marines as a wide eyed 17 year old who had no idea what the hell the Constitution said or meant.

But by the direction of my DI's and our Beloved Corps, I learned how to defend it.

Back then my job was to defend this country and our citizens rights and freedoms by going to war as a trained Marine. Today, because of my age, my job is to defend this country and its citizens and our freedoms by writing to our elected officials and telling them what a pain in the ass they are becoming and that election time is right around the corner.

Same job, different way of working.

Chris

 

[buck00]

To top it off, his wife was trying to tell me that because he was retired military, he knew more than me about all things that were gun related, and political...

Just because a person is military or LEO doesn't mean they know much about firearms or our rights.

 

[amprecon]

In or have been in the military and doesn't believe in guns? Wouldn't that be called an oxymoron?
There's alot of "oxymorons" in the military or have been in the military. Who makes up the military? People. Take guns away from the people, than what will the military do? Not what they're paid to.

 

[romma]

Just because a person is military or LEO doesn't mean they know much about firearms or our rights.

I understand that, most of the time when the topic of firearms comes up with people other than I normally associate with, they usually don't have much knowledge, or much to say about them.

The surrealism I am referring to was having read about so many of these conversations from other THR members, I was actually engaged in one, I was trying to muster up all the right points to debate this individual that I learned here... It went well and then when we were discussing the FEDGOV interfering with the states, he made the crucial error I had hoped for,,, he used the term "STATES RIGHTS",,, when I pointed out that States don't have rights, individuals do, I had him... He more or less changed the topic at that point.

 

[Deanimator]

In or have been in the military and doesn't believe in guns? Wouldn't that be called an oxymoron?

There was a fellow Lt. in the training battalion at Ft. Knox who said he didn't like guns, "Because they hurt people." I asked him, "What branch do you belong to?" He replied, "Field Artillery". I asked him, "What branch kills the most people on the battlefield?" "Artillery", he replied. I asked him, "You belong to the branch that kills the most people on the battlefield, but you claim to not like guns 'because they kill people'; can you reconcile those two?" After a pause came the reply, "No..."

 

[spaceCADETzoom]

The reason why the guy in the OP was a Marine is irrelevant is because there's absolutely no connection between being in the military and opinion on domestic public policy. On one hand you're talking about being a tool of foreign policy (being in the military). On the other, you're talking about DOMESTIC policy. A Marine's opinion on domestic issues is the same as the opinion of any other citizen's. It shouldn't be weighted because he's in the military. You're on the slippery slope of "qualifications" on opinion. Maybe you're saying my opinion on policy should be greater than yours because I am a Cavalry officer? Thanks, slightly flattered...but that's really silly.

And as far as marinepilot81's comments on Marine "leadership." It's a good thing in the representative democracy that is America, the military is run by the civilian government. I don't know what silly world we'd be in if some general (a marine general, no less!) dictates domestic public policy. THis isn't a banana republic. Moustached men with mirrored sunglasses and epaulets and cords and medals on their chests don't tell everyone what to do here. I hold appointed office as a Cavalry Officer. I have no authority over anyone but soldiers, sailors, marines, etc. My mom doesn't salute me. She could still tan my hide--no matter the fact grizzled Command Sergeants Major salute me. My opinion that every American should be able to buy whatever gun they can afford with no government intervention is just as relevant as any other citizen's opinion on the matter. It matters not one bit that all of the marines you know are "evil gungrabbers."

Besides, all the disconnect of using a gun in the course of one's job versus an individual's right to bear arms has been talked about in all of the posts above. some are closing their ears to it, but I'll say it again: it is entirely plausible that a trained worker who has his duty gun SEVERELY regulated would have the opinion that "guns shouldn't be in the hands of 'mere' civilians." The military does not even let its own servicemen have guns without draconian rules. If you're joe private, your POW (privately owned weapon) must be kept in the company arms room. It must be approved by your commander. Even your duty weapon is 99% of the time away from you when you're not deployed. And when you do have it it is UNLOADED without magazines. a soldier stateside only has a loaded weapon .000001% of their time in uniform. Today's "force-protection" military is the epitome of the nanny-state that many Americans dream of: from guns, to motorcycles, to cellphones--it's all regulated for the "safety" of the individual soldier. The deck is stacked against RKBA if you're forming your opinion within the military. Anyone who has a strong opinion FOR the RKBA has formed it BEFORE the military.

Opinions on RKBA is the same in the military as it is in any other field. These opinions should weigh the same as it does in any other field as well. Unless you think that servicemen are somehow better than every other AMerican... hate to burst your bubble, but we're not.

 

[spaceCADETzoom]

There was a fellow Lt. in the training battalion at Ft. Knox who said he didn't like guns, "Because they hurt people." I asked him, "What branch do you belong to?" He replied, "Field Artillery". I asked him, "What branch kills the most people on the battlefield?" "Artillery", he replied. I asked him, "You belong to the branch that kills the most people on the battlefield, but you claim to not like guns 'because they kill people'; can you reconcile those two?" After a pause came the reply, "No..."

To play devil's advocate, here...if your redleg buddy had any actual convictions he could have easily argued that HE's trained to use those guns and has the authority to employ them against the enemy. The peasant...erm...average AMerican has neither the training nor authority. THis is the same tripe that's being spewed about on this thread. Somehow because he fires 155 downrange, he's a more "qualified" citizen. Somehow a marine "should know better" than to argue against the 2a. That's all baloney.

The marine is just as ignorant (sometimes even moreso) as any other American. Look at this thread: how many times have you seen "liberal" misused by Marines? It's extremely illiberal to desire a government to regulate the purchases of the individual. But like any other American who takes cues from Limbaugh, or Michael Moore, etc, we spout what we hear. Marine, baker, nurse, construction worker, school teacher, clown, engineer, housewife, celebrity--all of these opinions should have the same weight...they're all equally flawed

 

[1911Tuner]

In or have been in the military and doesn't believe in guns? Wouldn't that be called an oxymoron?

Not at all. You might be surprised at the number of WW2 veterans who served with distinction...heroes who saw a lot of combat...vertitible tigers who waded into the heat of a fight and killed individual enemy soldiers up close and personal...who came home and never touched another gun as long as they lived.

The reasons for that were as varied as the men who served.

Many had seen so much horror that they didn't want to be reminded of it.

Firing a rifle, or fighting with a rifle was simply a prerequsite for service. Part of the job. For some, the actual shooting was a pleasant experience. Not so for many others...not even on the firing range.

For all of us who love to shoot, it's hard to understand that not everybody who has shot, takes to it immediately and develops a life-long
passion for it...much the same way that not everybody who attends a race at Daytona or Talledega becomes a die-hard NASCAR fan.