Glenn Beck

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Gets his own thread as he reports things you won't hear in the Communist media.

Illionois:

Obamites propose that every gun owner forced to carry 1 million dollars in insurance as a condition of gun ownership.

1. there is no insurance company that offers such insurance
2. if there was, I estimate the cost being about 5 grand a year

[Jersey boy]

Glenn Beck on Point Tonight.

Your local National Guard Unit WANTS YOU!

Be on the look out for your neighbor Big Bad Bubba the "weapons dealer".

Dateline.. Carrolton, Iowa:

*snip* The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.

*snip* Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.

Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.

"Once credible intelligence has been gathered," said Kots, "portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents' wishes.

*snip*
"It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia," said Kots. "We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing."

Full story at link.

www.carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=7451&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1

Getting well trained are we Hollis?

[maddoctord]

Arcadia and Carroll, Iowa are tiny nowhere towns that are actually fairly close to Des Moines.
Small town America has constantly rejected government intervention. What makes this any different?

Awfully suspicious indeed. This exercise will not be taken lightly and would come with mass rejection. I hope people remember what the 3rd Amendment was.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Mad

If Hollis is an exemplar of the common military mindset, covering his backside supercedes covering yours.
(To Serve, Protect and Defend my ass).

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Tonight Beck had two experts on his show, both exmilitary.

One says he doesn't 'believe' the American military would fire on the citizenry. The other says Civil War.

Crime and riots in the city, the money becomes worthless etc.
All because of the disenfranchisement of the citizens against the government.

The rise of Bubba militias. Small groups dedicated to protecting their towns from the government and maintaining their way of life.

(Don't read Bubba as ignorant). Patriots.

[maddoctord]

On a discussion forum, I posted the following post and I thought I might pass it on here.
And I do realize I'm preaching to the choir here.



If you outlaw guns, only outlaws would have guns.
Undeniable fact.

"United States Constitution"
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think I may help out with this argument that seems to be going on:


mi·li·tia
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


Militia can be applied to anyone who has trained with the operation of firearms or tools of the like. If they have experience, proper training, and licensing, that person qualifies as part of a militia. This is a voluntary organization of the citizens within a community banding together to protect themselves.

However, this does not make them an alternative to the authorized Law Enforcement, it's more or less a civilian supplement to help.


But! The Constitution says that this is only in time for "being necessary to the security of a free State". A state is by any standard is a term used loosely for the community, as stated above.



"The rights of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I think this speaks for itself. Let the community arm themselves accordingly.
Whether or not a person wants to own an armament is fine. Automatic weapons, especially in times of peace, (in war, methinks it should be allowed ONLY IF there are battles on the home front; and there hasn't been one since the Civil War in 1861-1865) isn't necessary in the hands of a civilian, however it may be necessary when you know how to use it when appropriate.

The standard arsenal however - hunting rifles, semi-autos with safety, and shotguns - are fine by any means. If someone likes hand-to-hand combat a lot more, so be it! Let them have the melee weapon of choice. If these are to be used in an aggressive attack in malice against a fellow, let them be judged accordingly.

Not all people should have a gun though. Felons, mentally unstable, those without license, those that have gone through anger management, and minors should not be able to purchase or be allowed to have in possession such devices.

[Adam]

Well, I remember a true story that happened about 30 years ago. My high school pal and my self were ridding our dirt bikes in a huge vacant piece of property once owned by the railroad. The shacks of the railroad were still standing. Probably used in the 1930's. To the North was a string bean field. Were I worked to pick beans to earn my school clothes and supplies, during the summer. Between the two pieces of property was a ditch about 15 feet high. Great for dirt bikes.

The only problem was old man Cantrell did not like dirt bike riders on his property. Evidently he decided to do something about it. Because his no trespassing signs were ignored. I found out how serious he was when a 16 year old kid leveled a shot gun at me and my high school friend and told us to turn off our engines.

That was one moment in time when I felt helpless and rage at the same time. So much for a licence.

The kid with the shotgun told his little brother to go get old man Cantrell. When Mr. Cantrell showed up he gave us a lecture. The old man regonized me and knew I was not a hell raiser to the degree that some of the other dirt bikers were.

I never rode on his property again. And never spoke to anyone about what happened. I just chalked it up to a lesson learned. The day old man Cantrell got the drop on me.

[david]

Just to play devil's advocate... Seeing as how exposed backsides usually attract penalties, then what is wrong with tending to your own? For right of for wrong a solider may have no choice but to bat for his team save to commit suicide. If one does not command other men and is ordered to kill women and children and God is watching then suicide suddenly becomes a serious alternative. I would suggest that the responsibility of the team’s righteousness rest in those who command many.

Regards
David

[Adam]

Just to play devil's advocate... Seeing as how exposed backsides usually attract penalties, then what is wrong with tending to your own?

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For right of for wrong a solider may have no choice but to bat for his team save to commit suicide.

Dave comment: This is faulty reasoning and would not make the level of logical choice. Well maybe in Imperial Japan about 70 years ago. Should an individual grunt make the conscious choice that his order was evil the journey would most likely provide a choice to make something good out of bad.

If one does not command other men and is ordered to kill women and children and God is watching then suicide suddenly becomes a serious alternative.

Dave comment: Not in my church. The other serious alternative is to refuse the order. Also read about fragging in Vietnam.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frag_(military)

Fragging is a term from the Vietnam War, used primarily by U.S. military personnel, most commonly meaning to assassinate16 an unpopular officer of one's own fighting unit, often by means of a fragmentation grenade, hence the term. Fragging is more commonly used as a term to define the friendly fire in Vietnam.

A hand grenade was often used[citation needed because it would not leave any fingerprints, and because a ballistics test could not be done (as it could to match a bullet with a firearm). The grenade would often be thrown into the officer's tent while he slept.

Sometimes the intended victim would be 'warned' by first having a smoke grenade thrown into his tent. If he persisted in antagonizing his men, this would be followed by a stun grenade, and finally by a fragmentation grenade.

A fragging victim could also be killed by intentional friendly fire30 during combat. In this case, the death would be blamed on the enemy, and, due to the dead man's unpopularity, the perpetrator could assume that no one would contradict the story.


I would suggest that the responsibility of the team’s righteousness rest in those who command many.

Dave comment: Team righteousness would be better viewed threw the perspective of team integrity. Those who play at devil's advocate are subject to the straw man argument.

www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm
A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one's more substantial counter argument. The term straw man derives from the use of scarecrows for military practice, such as charges. In reality, a scarecrow is far easier to defeat than an actual person.

The straw man argument, also called straw dog or scarecrow, deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the opposing side. This can be done by leaving out key points of an opposing argument, quoting a person’s words out of context, or presenting a particular person’s poor defense as the entire defense of an opposing side. In the worst case, a straw man is literally an imagined person who weakly defends an argument and can be easily defeated.

[rob]

Just to play devil's advocate... Seeing as how exposed backsides usually attract penalties, then what is wrong with tending to your own?

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'd add to this from the Declaration of Independence...

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

DH

A soldier's duty is to his oath - to serve protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. By extention he is supposed to defend the people of the nation - not to kill them. Now we add your addendum (unless he's covering his own ass).

[david]

Dave,
Looks like I have given you plenty straw to burn. The logic is this. If you know your commanding office is going to summarily execute you for disobeying an order legal or otherwise then wilful disobedience becomes suicide.

Rob,
Good quote. I think Cal or Steven previously posted the famous Jefferson quote. Maybe the sovereign states can do something.

Cal,
I hear you. I do not condone ass covering at the expense of a person's life. The get out clause in the oath would seem to be “domestic enemies” which is another name for constitutionally legal cannon fodder. Each side will label the other a such. Do they still shoot deserters? The point is:- What do you do if you find your self stuck on the wrong side?


Regards
David

[Caligastia]

DH

Yes Yes - I was only following orders. Didn't work for the Nazi's at Numerberg - we rejected the argument. Why do you think it should fly in this generation.

[Adam]

DH.
Looks like I have given you plenty straw to burn. The logic is this. If you know your commanding office is going to summarily execute you for disobeying an order legal or otherwise then wilful disobedience becomes suicide.


Dave comment: I smell the smoke coming from you. Can you name one person who was in the U.S. military in the last 100 years summarily executed in the context that you provide? Now I do not doubt people have been punished for the offence. However none that I know of have been summarily executed. Now in the information provided below you will see why Obama needs a private S. S. army. Also you will see why the articles of Military justice require a LAWFUL ORDER.

Waging a civil war is not lawful if the President does not himself support and defend the Constitution. Now facts are facts and if you look around you see the Federal government overstepping there authority in the name of compassionate communism. When the time comes that you are standing in line waiting for your bread and government cheese. Ponder the word lawful order. Or ponder what a great defender of the Constitution Obama is. Today one has to walk and chew gum at the same time. Its not what Obama and his ilk say...its what they do that speaks.

But hey your too busy putting out straw fires.


Military Orders
To Obey or Not to Obey?

By Rod Powers16, About.com
See More About:

* military law17
* obeying orders18
* military oath19
usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
When one enlists in the United States Military, active duty or reserve, they take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

National Guard enlisted members take a similar oath20, except they also swear to obey the orders of the Governor of their state.

Officers, upon commission, swear to the following:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 9021 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)22 makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 9123 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 9224 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).

[hollis]

There we go again, using my credential which I never should have revealed in the first place, against me. Without me having the opportunity to read the situation myself, it is assumed that I will act within a set of predictable monkey-like actions. Wow, you all know me well.