NATIONAL GUARD QUESTION

[El Paso Eagle]

2 hours ago, ColoradoEagle said:

I don't think they're evil. They just protest for things like getting haircuts, not getting vaccines that helped us get rid of diseases decades ago, and their 'rights' to not bake a cake.

So, If you ot I disagree with what they are protesting does that mean they don't have the right to peacefully protect?

[ColoradoEagle]

1 minute ago, El Paso Eagle said:

So, If you ot I disagree with what they are protesting does that mean they don't have the right to peacefully protect?

They can peacefully protest not being able to golf, eat brunch, or whatever strikes them as cause worthy. Far be it for me to think of them as snowflakes.

[THOR]

On 6/3/2020 at 6:00 AM, 97and03 said:

Just like #haircutsmatter during lockdowns. 
The number of people I have seen willing to kill people over property damage is shocking. It is largely unnecessary property damage but it isn’t worth opening fire on unarmed people. And if you bring in the military that is what they would be there to do. The army isn’t a police force and it isn’t trained to pacify crowds. Soldiers are trained for combat not crowd control. 

so what's your address(I know you cant give it for other reasons)?  sleep with unlocked doors to your house?  never lock your car?  let everyone come on in and take what they want, it's just property, as you say, but it's property you worked your ass off for and it's safety for your family, their livelihood.

 

don't go someplace you don't belong, don't enter a place you aren't invited into and all is good.  looters are choosing to do the opposite, that's on them, not owner

Edited June 6, 2020 by THOR

[97and03]

6 hours ago, THOR said:

so what's your address(I know you cant give it for other reasons)?  sleep with unlocked doors to your house?  never lock your car?  let everyone come on in and take what they want, it's just property, as you say, but it's property you worked your ass off for and it's safety for your family, their livelihood.

 

don't go someplace you don't belong, don't enter a place you aren't invited into and all is good.  looters are choosing to do the opposite, that's on them, not owner

How does “I don’t believe my property is worth taking a human life” the same as steal everything I own and I don’t believe in law and order? 
When someone is arrested and convicted for looting, theft, arson, or assault, are they put to death? No, they go to jail.

So what would justify killing them in the street? 

[97and03]

Or another analogy:

 

[UNTLifer]

18 hours ago, ColoradoEagle said:

They can peacefully protest not being able to golf, eat brunch, or whatever strikes them as cause worthy. Far be it for me to think of them as snowflakes.

Just for clarification and to slice through the smugness of this post, the “protests” prior to the murder of Mr. Floyd, were a couple of people upset that the economy was shut down and they were trying to make some money to support themselves or their family. Their “protests” didn’t harm others, destroy private property, etc...  By comparison, the Floyd protests were warranted when the protestors said they wanted the four officers charged. They have now been charged, but prior to and after, a faction of the protestors decided to start breaking into businesses, stealing all of the merchandise, torching buildings and police cars, attacking police and now calling for the defunding of police (idiotic at best), decriminalization of marijuana, etc...

Far be it for me to not see the difference in the two. 

[ColoradoEagle]

2 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Just for clarification and to slice through the smugness of this post

It was smug, because I already knew the responses that were incoming.

Quote

, the “protests” prior to the murder of Mr. Floyd, were a couple of people upset that the economy was shut down and they were trying to make some money to support themselves or their family. Their “protests” didn’t harm others, destroy private property, etc...

Most of these protests included multiple men carrying around semi-automatic weapons in public spaces. I did not have an issue with the message (we need to reopen the economy), but the intimidation, mixed with the Trump signs, mixed with the answers to why they wanted the economy reopened being almost universally very superficial made the whole thing laughable.

You didn't see any damage, but the protests were far smaller and the police did not escalate, despite the presence of lethal weapons. Any time you have larger demonstrations and use of force, you're going to have 'a few bad apples'(tm).

Quote

By comparison, the Floyd protests were warranted when the protestors said they wanted the four officers charged. They have now been charged

It's not for you to decide how people react to 155 years of systemic racism and when it should end, the same way it wasn't up to me to decide how people should react to not being able to get Grandma's Sampler at Cracker Barrel. All we can have are our opinions.

Edited June 6, 2020 by ColoradoEagle

[97and03]

 

[UNTLifer]

4 hours ago, ColoradoEagle said:

It was smug, because I already knew the responses that were incoming.

[UNTLifer]

4 hours ago, ColoradoEagle said:

 

Most of these protests included multiple men carrying around semi-automatic weapons in public spaces. I did not have an issue with the message (we need to reopen the economy), but the intimidation, mixed with the Trump signs, mixed with the answers to why they wanted the economy reopened being almost universally very superficial made the whole thing laughable.

You didn't see any damage, but the protests were far smaller and the police did not escalate, despite the presence of lethal weapons. Any time you have larger demonstrations and use of force, you're going to have 'a few bad apples'(tm).

That was where, Michigan?  One protest?  What was superficial about wanting to get back to work. You are blaming damage on police escalation?  Really?  Protesting is one thing, riots are another. Clearing out Target stores, stealing high end sports cars shooting and killing a retired police chief in St. Louis, etc.. is more than a few bad apples. Again, people have a right to protest peacefully. The current group acts like laws don’t apply to them. I’ve watched people complain that the police are pushing them off the streets because they are breaking curfew that has been set by the mayors to curtail the violence. Breaking curfew is breaking the law. See the difference?  

[Venson]

On 6/1/2020 at 8:53 PM, El Paso Eagle said:

First, let me say I hope things calm down and further intervention is not needed, but in case...

I would think the line of responsibility would be 

• City
• State
• National Guard

Does the Governor have to request/allow then National Guard in? I ask since it seems like places such as NYC with it's large police force do not seem to have the numbers to cover all areas. Stories saying how bands of people are going from area to area and looting stores before police are able to arrive (sound well organized). Since most of these areas are strong Dem areas and their Governors  and Trump are not seeing eye to eye what happens if things get worse and the help of the National Guard is not requested?  Are the Governors allowed to decide how many troops they will allow? If a Governor does not request and the Federal Government send them in anyway??

The use of the National Guard requires the permission of the governor because they are state assets. When National Guardsmen take their oath it is slightly different than the active duty and the reserves. They take an oath to the state to which they belong as well as the national government. So, in order for the President to use them, he must request it from the Governor. If the President decides to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which has been done by about 12 Presidents, then he would have to call up title 10 troops which are going to be your active forces. Eisenhower did it 1957 with the "Little Rock 9" because the Governor refused to protect them as they integrated Little Rock's Central High School. Can he call up active forces? Yes he can if he deems it appropriate. Congress gave him that right with the passage of the Insurrection Act. However, they are usually advised to only use that as a last resort. At the end of the day, whether you like Trump or you hate him, he does maintain that right as the Chief Executive of the country.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Venson
More information provided.

[El Paso Eagle]

8 minutes ago, Venson said:

The use of the National Guard requires the permission of the governor because they are state assets. When National Guardsmen take their oath it is slightly different than the active duty and the reserves. They take an oath the state to which they belong. So, in order for the President to use them, he must request it from the Governor. If the President decides to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which has been done by about 12 Presidents, then he would have to call up title 10 troops which are going to be your active forces. Eisenhower did it 1957 with the "Little Rock 9" because the Governor refused to protect them as they integrated Little Rock's Central High School. Can he call up active forces? Yes he can if he deems it appropriate. Congress gave him that right with the passage of the Insurrection Act. However, they are usually advised to only use that as a last resort. At the end of the day, whether you like Trump or you hate him, he does maintain that right as the Chief Executive of the country.

Thank you. I had wondered about the "authority" to control the National Guard in DC. According to their website:

https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/Heritage/History/

Unique Law

Normally, American federal law specifically charges the U.S. National Guard with dual federal and state missions. As the U.S. federal government abolished the jurisdiction of the state of Maryland and states rights in Washington, D.C. to establish a federal district, there is no elected governor to command this guard unit. The District of Columbia National Guard is the only National Guard that reports only to the U.S. President.

[97and03]

 

[El Paso Eagle]

10 hours ago, 97and03 said:

 

I am open for everyone to voice their opinions. My only issue is how they are our "finest patriots" if they agree with him, but does he extend the same respect to those you don't?  You may not like it, and I do not want to see the troops used, but how is he "betraying" his oath?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Here is a link that answers some questions -

https://www.justsecurity.org/70482/the-president-the-military-and-minneapolis-what-you-need-to-know/ 

So I ask, other than personally not liking what he said, what has he done to "betray" the oath?

[97and03]

8 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I am open for everyone to voice their opinions. My only issue is how they are our "finest patriots" if they agree with him, but does he extend the same respect to those you don't?  You may not like it, and I do not want to see the troops used, but how is he "betraying" his oath?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Here is a link that answers some questions -

https://www.justsecurity.org/70482/the-president-the-military-and-minneapolis-what-you-need-to-know/ 

So I ask, other than personally not liking what he said, what has he done to "betray" the oath?

 I personally don’t think active duty military should be used for civilian crowd control. That isn’t their training. 
I am not an expert in civil-military relations (at least not in this country).  I am sharing opinions related to the OP’s thread about using the military to quell unrest. At least I think that is what we were talking about. The letter was from 89 former Defense officials. I think they have a pretty good idea of what it all means. 

[El Paso Eagle]

3 minutes ago, 97and03 said:

 I personally don’t think active duty military should be used for civilian crowd control. That isn’t their training. 
I am not an expert in civil-military relations (at least not in this country).  I am sharing opinions related to the OP’s thread about using the military to quell unrest. At least I think that is what we were talking about. The letter was from 89 former Defense officials. I think they have a pretty good idea of what it all means. 

Agree that they are knowledgeable, but  I would think there are those former officials who agree with him also that it is an extreme option. To me it's similar to letters from scientist or doctors on many issues where some agree and other disagree. I was just trying to see if there is a president to what he said being an actual betrayal?

[97and03]

55 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Agree that they are knowledgeable, but  I would think there are those former officials who agree with him also that it is an extreme option. To me it's similar to letters from scientist or doctors on many issues where some agree and other disagree. I was just trying to see if there is a president to what he said being an actual betrayal?

I took Constitutional Law but that doesn’t make me an expert. I can only make a decision based on what I know and evaluate the information available. 
The reports coming out of Washington indicate the CJCS and SecDef also opposed it.  There are reports that Milley and Trump had a shouting match over the.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394087/Americas-soldier-General-Milley-shouting-match-Donald-Trump-forced-down.html

[El Paso Eagle]

3 minutes ago, 97and03 said:

I took Constitutional Law but that doesn’t make me an expert. I can only make a decision based on what I know and evaluate the information available. 
The reports coming out of Washington indicate the CJCS and SecDef also opposed it.  There are reports that Milley and Trump had a shouting match over the.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394087/Americas-soldier-General-Milley-shouting-match-Donald-Trump-forced-down.html

Thanks. I was just trying to see if there was any actual part of the oath he violated. In the past few years opinions have become more and more used as facts.

[THOR]

On 6/6/2020 at 1:30 AM, 97and03 said:

How does “I don’t believe my property is worth taking a human life” the same as steal everything I own and I don’t believe in law and order? 
When someone is arrested and convicted for looting, theft, arson, or assault, are they put to death? No, they go to jail.

So what would justify killing them in the street? 

because you said it's unnecessary property damage, impling it doesn't matter, no reason to fight or defend it.  

 

i don't own a gun, never have, never will, but i will damn sure do what i need to do to stop people from taking my shit or destroying my business/property/house

Edited June 7, 2020 by THOR

[97and03]

7 hours ago, THOR said:

because you said it's unnecessary property damage, impling it doesn't matter, no reason to fight or defend it.  

 

i don't own a gun, never have, never will, but i will damn sure do what i need to do to stop people from taking my shit or destroying my business/property/house

I think you are reading it in a way that you want to see it. Damaging property is unnecessary. How would you think I meant that owning property is unnecessary? I am a lifelong Republican. I believe in private property. I also believe in law and order - not vigilante justice. So while I might give someone a proper thrashing if I caught them stealing my property, it would be to detain them for the authorities to take over and allow the justice system to take its course. I would not risk my life to save my car stereo on the other hand. Nor would I end someone’s life over it. 
(Defending the life or bodies of my wife and daughter are a totally different story. Maybe it’s hypocritical to an extent but you touch them and I end you.)

So I hope that clarifies my position. I don’t own a house so I can’t completely relate to that specific example. But I don’t think I would be willing to die for a house and certainly not for a car. So on the flip side not likely willing to take another’s life for it either. I wouldn’t stand and do nothing, but at some point you have to make a decision how far you are willing to go. Would I bare knuckle box someone to protect my property? Yep. Would I stand between my property and a large mob armed with weapons and gas cans. Nah I doubt it, because that would lead to someone’s life being lost (probably mine) and I don’t believe it is worth it. You could easily make a case that it becomes justified self defense at that point but only because I would have forced it to become that. 
 

Look man, I don’t claim to have all the answers or that everyone needs to think like me. I have my personal convictions that have evolved over the decades. When I was younger my answers would have been completely different. This is where I am at now in my life. You have to make your own choices based on your own morals. 
 

[THOR]

7 hours ago, 97and03 said:

I think you are reading it in a way that you want to see it. Damaging property is unnecessary. How would you think I meant that owning property is unnecessary? I am a lifelong Republican. I believe in private property. I also believe in law and order - not vigilante justice. So while I might give someone a proper thrashing if I caught them stealing my property, it would be to detain them for the authorities to take over and allow the justice system to take its course. I would not risk my life to save my car stereo on the other hand. Nor would I end someone’s life over it. 
(Defending the life or bodies of my wife and daughter are a totally different story. Maybe it’s hypocritical to an extent but you touch them and I end you.)

So I hope that clarifies my position. I don’t own a house so I can’t completely relate to that specific example. But I don’t think I would be willing to die for a house and certainly not for a car. So on the flip side not likely willing to take another’s life for it either. I wouldn’t stand and do nothing, but at some point you have to make a decision how far you are willing to go. Would I bare knuckle box someone to protect my property? Yep. Would I stand between my property and a large mob armed with weapons and gas cans. Nah I doubt it, because that would lead to someone’s life being lost (probably mine) and I don’t believe it is worth it. You could easily make a case that it becomes justified self defense at that point but only because I would have forced it to become that. 
 

Look man, I don’t claim to have all the answers or that everyone needs to think like me. I have my personal convictions that have evolved over the decades. When I was younger my answers would have been completely different. This is where I am at now in my life. You have to make your own choices based on your own morals. 
 

makes perfect sense.  thanks

[97and03]

30 minutes ago, THOR said:

makes perfect sense.  thanks

Always happy to engage in constructive dialogue, especially with a friend. Don’t have to agree but appreciate the opportunity to make my point. 

[THOR]

16 minutes ago, 97and03 said:

Always happy to engage in constructive dialogue, especially with a friend. Don’t have to agree but appreciate the opportunity to make my point. 

this is what the world needs more of in society.  if every one agreed, life would be boring as shit, but we have to listen to each other and don't get pissed when someone disagrees or see's something from a different point of view.

[El Paso Eagle]

9 hours ago, 97and03 said:

Always happy to engage in constructive dialogue, especially with a friend. Don’t have to agree but appreciate the opportunity to make my point. 

Great points. It's OK to disagree (As long as were all in agreement that SMU sucks)

[El Paso Eagle]

Yep, really brave to shout in someone face and try and get them to react so you can get likes on social media. Guess is OK to disrespect those who don't share your view.

 

Thank you National Guard