Why do civilian gun people love the military?

[NoirFan]

It seems like there is a logical disconnect here.

On the one hand gun owners are always ranting about the evils of a centralized, controlling government, especially when said government attempts to regulate firearms.

On the other gun owners tend to be admiring of the military, which is perhaps the ultimate expression of the government's ability to project force and control.

It is also confusing to me when gun owners lionize the military while condemning police and the federal investigative agencies such as ATF.

Is it because:

Political conservatives support the military and gun owners tend to be conservatives?

Soldiers get to play with weapons to which civilians have no access?

Many gun owners are prior military?

Or any other reason? I myself have a cautious admiration for the military, HOWEVER I am also supportive of strong centralized government and the rule of authority. I do not identify as a small-government conservative.

 

[sprithitler]

I support civilian gun ownership, i also support the police and the military. The police and the military are necessary arms of the government in a free country.
What i dont support is the authorities abusing the powers of the police and military against the common citizen (or at all). In sweden as well as in the USA we see numerous cases of abuse of government authority and this gives us reason to distrust the government and certain government agencies, though we still for the most part support the military and the cops.

 

[The Bushmaster]

Have you ever served in the military? I did and I doubt that the government has all that much control over the enlisted personel. If the gov decides to go against the Constitution and use the military to control the civilians they will have a bunch of military siding with the civilians...A lot of people had their first contact with real firearms in the military and that may have had a big influence on them liking those "nasty" guns that we all enjoy......

 

[ronwill]

Remember that it's the military that keeps you free and allows you to ask why admire the military. Also, there are laws in place concerning the use of the military within U.S. borders. Without those who serve you may very well be speaking German, Russian, Japanese, Arabic, or one of several other languages spoken by those who have seen fit to try and overthrow us.

 

[Jason M]

We can choose to support what the troops have chosen to do while not supporting what they were told to do.

There is no logical disconnect in the logic.

 

[eflatminor]

I do not believe we should have a standing army

The greatest concern the founding fathers had was the fear of standing armies. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed on this point. In the end, they felt a standing army was a necessary evil and included its formation in the constitution. The other side got the Bill of Rights, something that would have not been necessary without a standing army.

I would have pushed for no standing army and for all able bodied men to be automatically in the military, trained and ready to defend should the country ever be invaded. This is much like the Swiss today. Such an army of the people would help to ensure that the miltary is never turned on the people (as it was in Waco, TX) and is much less likely to engage in overseas wars...a good thing in my opinion. Such an army would also ensure that everyone is not only is allowed to posses firemarms, they are required to. You want that fully auto M16? You would have it without a standing army.

 

[Vector]

Interesting questions

 

[The Bushmaster]

eflatminor...You need to have a talk with the Swiss. They are having real problems with their system. They do have a very small standing military and the government has been using it illegally (as per our Constitution) against the Swiss citizens.

 

[harmonic]

It's a little recognized concept called respect for those who serve.

BTW, for the spiritually challenged, the verse on the soldier's weapon is Isaiah 6:8.

 

[sprithitler]

Hey, Bushmaster, no swiss army forces have ever (or at least in way more than 200 years) been used against the citizens of Sweden. Scweiz is a small mountainous watchmaking country in the middle of europe, Sweden is the largeish country far to the north (on a par with alaska) that makes AFVs, Third generation Jetfighters and saab and VOLVO.

 

[eflatminor]

Bushmaster, I hesitated mentioning the Swiss because you're right, their system has problems. However, I would not have supported a standing army as we have now. The founding fathers and politically minded people that founded this country ultimately, and with much reservation, disagreed. I think they were wrong in their final assessment. We might not have risen to 'superpower' status without our standing army, but I also believe our country, our economy, and our people would have been better off for it. Now that we have a standing army, I don't think that's something that will ever be undone. Therefore, we must FIGHT to retain the right bear arms, arms just like they have in the army. The whole point of the 2nd was to counter the dangers of a standing army. The Liberal Fascists that run the country these days want to remove that necessary balance and tilt power from the people to the government and their military. That is exactly what the founding fathers feared.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't mind the military, but I believe the Founders were correct in insisting on a very small peacetime military. Otherwise there is a temptation to fall into the trap of endless warfare that corrupted and bankrupted the old powers of Europe. We are heading in that same direction.

Indeed there is a striking similarity between the constant demands of the Roman Caesars on their legions and the constant demands of the feds on our own volunteer military. The stress and endless obligations are forcing out the citizen soldiers and prompting both recruitment of foreign troops and simply hiring it done from contractors.

I also find the tendency among some gun owners to divide the world into "sheep and wolves" and lavish praise on the so-called "warrior culture" very disturbing. We once prided ourselves on having NO warriors. We were a republic, not an empire. Our soldiers were drawn from the ranks of farmers and clerks--something unthinkable to the ancien regimes. And when it was over they went back to being farmers and clerks. Now we are developing a warrior caste, which in turns supports movements to restrict firearms. After all if you have a warrior caste protecting you, you should not need firearms.

 

[Titan6]

Firstly most of the people I know in the military are progun, some admantly so, some less so. The number of antis I have met I can count on two hands. Most military members are conservative in values and in what they believe to be a conservative government. How could it be otherwise? We are defending the system after all....

On the one hand gun owners are always ranting about the evils of a centralized, controlling government, especially when said government attempts to regulate firearms.

On the other gun owners tend to be admiring of the military, which is perhaps the ultimate expression of the government's ability to project force and control.

It is also confusing to me when gun owners lionize the military while condemning police and the federal investigative agencies such as ATF.

The military has had nothing to do with controlling the population or centralizing the government in the past 60 years or so. If you think otherwise provide an example of such that is supported and I will look at it. The military does not arrest people and if pushed into this role would likely push back.

This is quite different than the ATF that does do these things. The military is not a tool of suppresion in the United States for US citizens.

Political conservatives support the military and gun owners tend to be conservatives?

IT depends upon what you mean by a lot of what you said such as "support the military" and "conservatives"

Many gun owners are prior military?

And if you ask them most of them will all tell you how much they hated it... "Served 28 years son... hated every minute of it... don't ever join the military.."

Or any other reason? I myself have a cautious admiration for the military, HOWEVER I am also supportive of strong centralized government and the rule of authority. I do not identify as a small-government conservative.

Don't know if this one will stay open seems political to me.

 

[Titan6]

I agree with all of your post Cosmo except for this part:

Our soldiers were drawn from the ranks of farmers and clerks--something unthinkable to the ancien regimes. And when it was over they went back to being farmers and clerks. Now we are developing a warrior caste, which in turns supports movements to restrict firearms. After all if you have a warrior caste protecting you, you should not need firearms.

We only had an Army of farmers and clerks for a short period of time. An Army of soldiers and clerks simply can not compete with a professional Army in the field. The more professional and highly trained one side is the more lopsided the victory will be.

With the speed of warfare being what it is these days there is no way to raise a profesional Army from the populace until after the war is over or the invaders are on your doorstep.

Also if you have warrior caste protecting you, you need firearms more than ever.....

 

[Drgong]

I think it the point that if the military where to be ordered vs. American civilians, they would have a Mutiny on there hands. Federal law enforcement is not the case.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

I support civilian gun ownership, but not the military, or their efforts

 

[azhunter122]

Because we are proud to be Americans and many of us have served. Also many of us are close or are connected to law enforcement, they are our friends. The ATF is anti gun that's why we don't respect them as much as an leo that actually puts real criminals in jail and protects our streets.

Just my $0.02

 

[Navy joe]

I do not believe we should have a standing army

I'd agree with you if it were 1789 and we could keep privately owned horses and cannons in the barn. I don't think today we can grab the CVN from over the mantle and run off to defend America at a moment's notice. Today's world and military are to connected, too complex to not have a standing army. Unless of course you want to get invaded.

I joined the military to support and defend the Constitution, don't know where all the American stomping facists are in the military.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Why do civilian gun people love the military?

Painting people with a pretty broad brush, wouldn't you say? Generalities are largely meaningless.

That being said, there may be a correlation, though I am not sure there is. If there is, it is likely because the "military" in it's philisophical sense and the true "gun" people would share the "warrior mentality."

while condemning police and the federal investigative agencies such as ATF.

I don't know that that is true either, but it is true that abuses of power exist more domestically within local and Federal agencies than with the military.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

I would have pushed for no standing army and for all able bodied men to be automatically in the military, trained and ready to defend should the country ever be invaded. This is much like the Swiss today. Such an army of the people would help to ensure that the miltary is never turned on the people (as it was in Waco, TX) and is much less likely to engage in overseas wars...a good thing in my opinion. Such an army would also ensure that everyone is not only is allowed to posses firemarms, they are required to. You want that fully auto M16? You would have it without a standing army.

I don't think it would work. Many roles in a modern military are extremely specialized. Take a tank crew. How is a civilian going to get the skills necessary without an enlistment. Show me a 2nd place tank crew, I will show you a dead one. First accurate shot generally wins. The level of training, coordination, and skill required is immense. Armored crews act more like a single entity than individuals. Our tank crews are extremely good at first shot kills (what wins armor wars) because of the sheer numbers of hours in the turret and the hundreds of rounds sent down range.

This applies in a lot of other jobs:
Aircraft Carrier.
Fighter Pilots.
Special Forces.

Warfare is simply to fast today. In 1776 it took months to move any army across the ocean. Then they needed to assemble and march days or weeks to their objective. This gave the defenders plenty of time to assemble their own army. Today an invasion could occur in a matter of hours. Even if you had an Aircraft carrier without a standing army it would be sunk before it could be manned.

One area that is IMPOSSIBLE without a standing army is Strategic Defense.
ICBM Silos need to be manned 24/7 forever until the end of time, ready for that one day.
They have never been used simply because the enemy knows the awful destruction that would be reigned down. Ever projection USSR made showed a massive and unacceptable response.

SSBN (Boomers) require even more manpower. In the harbor they are vulnerable and provide no defense. The need to be at sea constantly is so great each sub has 2 complete crews . They act as an defense that can't be eliminated by first strike to ensure no country does the unthinkable 7-10 are ALWAYS at sea. Ever second of every day they are out there in the deep deep cold water simply waiting for the order everyone hopes will never come. It can't be done without a standing army.

Lastly is level of proficiency. Proficiency comes from a lifetime training. What is expected of soldiers in training (hours, food, conditions, level of endurance) sucks. Without an enlistment, an obligation to country, a promise made, many soldiers, myself included would consider walking out. An untrained army or poorly trained army is no defense. During the first Gulf War Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world. They were swept aside with casualties in the 20:1 to 50:1 range.

What I do think we could do is to reduce the size of the military (especially Navy & AF) substantially, but we simply need a standing army.

 

[shdwfx]

We can choose to support what the troops have chosen to do while not supporting what they were told to do.

There is no logical disconnect in the logic.

Wrong. There is a logical disonnect.

We've been fed that line to cover the cowardice of politicians in congress who's ideology pre-disposes them to oppose a military culture that prises freedom but are too afraid to take the unpopular position of opposing a popular military.

If you morally and ideologically oppose the mission of our military, how can you support the soldier's decision to follow those orders?

"We support the troops, just not the mission."
That's a bunch of cop-out cowardice. If you oppose the mission, you can not agree with the soldiers' decision to follow those orders and you do not support the troops.

 

[Gordon Fink]

It seems like there is a logical disconnect here.

It’s ideological inconsistency, and many people are guilty of it.

That said, I admire the military for the good it can do and despise it for the evil it can do. I also support our troops even when I disagree with U.S. military operations.

I hope that someday we can return to peacetime and a very small standing army. Unfortunately, we have grown used to a permanent wartime footing over the last 67 years.

~G. Fink

 

[GrizzlyGraves]

So say in the case of NOLA, were the troops acting in a LE facet alongside the various LE groups? Did they take part in the door-to-door searches and gun confiscations or were they tasked with removing those who refused to evacuate?

I'm not attacking the soldiers in any way. Please don't misread my post here, I have the utmost respect for LE and the military. I just want to clarify what exactly were the orders given to the soldiers and by whom were they given.

Also, was it Natl. Guard in NOLA? If so I would assume they were working under the control of the governor.

 

[Freelance Tax Collector]

An Army of soldiers and clerks simply can not compete with a professional Army in the field.

In the field, no. That is why there is such a concept as assymetric warfare, and it is something that history has shown that large, standing, professional armies have a real tough time with.

Indeed there is a striking similarity between the constant demands of the Roman Caesars on their legions and the constant demands of the feds on our own volunteer military. The stress and endless obligations are forcing out the citizen soldiers and prompting both recruitment of foreign troops and simply hiring it done from contractors.

I am inclined to agree.

We once prided ourselves on having NO warriors. We were a republic, not an empire. Our soldiers were drawn from the ranks of farmers and clerks--something unthinkable to the ancien regimes. And when it was over they went back to being farmers and clerks.

I think an interesting example of how we are growing towards this "warrior caste" is our military's obsession with the whole spartan mythos. We were all instructed to read the book "Gates of Fire" (which I thought was just terrible in terms of story structure, dialogue, historical accuracy, and plot progression but hey, maybe I'm just an elitist, right?) which illustrates how Spartan warriors had no part in running the mundane doings that actually keep their society running. Things like farming and construction- they had slaves to do that. One was forced into military service at the age of seven, and effectively was in active duty until they were 30, when they were placed in more or less of a reserve status. They were typically "married" around age 20, but only got what amounted to conjugal visits once a week. All music except for battle hymns were outlawed as well as theater. I really don't see why people idealize this way of thinking. Because they were tough warriors that held out against a metric ass ton of Persians, I guess. They really dodged the tyrrany bullet on that one

BTW, for the spiritually challenged, the verse on the soldier's weapon is Isaiah 6:8.

This really comes down to a matter of opinions, ideals, and values, but it makes me sick every time I see something like that.

I doubt that the government has all that much control over the enlisted personel.

They sure do, it's called a chain of command. We would be told we were conducting anti terrorist operations.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Our troops are American Patriots and some are even my dear family and friends.