Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You have advocated, in this thread, the use of police agencies, to "randomly inspect" households that have firearms, especially if they have children.


Now, tell me, how does the government know which house has firearms? They would need information they are not entitled to. To search a house without warrant, or probable cause (and the mere ownership of a particular, legal item is not probable cause) is entirely against the 4th amendment. By that token, any household with a blender, or a microwave oven should be inspected, to ensure that people are being safe with their household items... See how ridiculous it is?

 Deadshot wrote:
Any law or governing system can easily be overturned provided the overturner has support of their army and no other country sticks their nose in anywhere.

America could turn around tomorrow, announce Martial Law, prohibit anyone entering or leaving Berlin Wall style, declare Obama the new Emperor of the American Empire and tell all the world to shut the feth up or be nuked. Provided the army supports them and will follow blindly.

This is where the 2nd Amendment comes into play. Sure he could (as Emperor of the new American Empire) declare the Constitution Null and Void, and people would still fight. Obviously not everyone would fight, some would go quietly because the opposite is death. You would also have to convince people in the army to turn on their friends, families, loved ones, neighbors, and fellow countryman. This won't happen in a day, a week, month, year, etc...

2nd Ammendent is nothing to a Brit.

Basically if the government were to have the unwavering loyalty of the armed forces to a similar level as Hitler in the 40s, they could do what they like.

Yey, Godwinned.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
You have advocated, in this thread, the use of police agencies, to "randomly inspect" households that have firearms, especially if they have children.


Now, tell me, how does the government know which house has firearms? They would need information they are not entitled to.

I'm pretty sure the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are entitled to information about who owns firearms.
That right now the ATF is an organization which has been effectively neutered is a different discussion altogether though.

To search a house without warrant, or probable cause (and the mere ownership of a particular, legal item is not probable cause) is entirely against the 4th amendment.

Wrong.
The fourth amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. There was a time where exigent circumstances were considered "unreasonable" for searches and seizures.

By that token, any household with a blender, or a microwave oven should be inspected, to ensure that people are being safe with their household items... See how ridiculous it is?

I see how ridiculous you will stretch to try to make a fallacious comparison.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
You have advocated, in this thread, the use of police agencies, to "randomly inspect" households that have firearms, especially if they have children.


Now, tell me, how does the government know which house has firearms? They would need information they are not entitled to.

I'm pretty sure the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are entitled to information about who owns firearms.
That right now the ATF is an organization which has been effectively neutered is a different discussion altogether though.

To search a house without warrant, or probable cause (and the mere ownership of a particular, legal item is not probable cause) is entirely against the 4th amendment.

Wrong.
The fourth amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. There was a time where exigent circumstances were considered "unreasonable" for searches and seizures.

By that token, any household with a blender, or a microwave oven should be inspected, to ensure that people are being safe with their household items... See how ridiculous it is?

I see how ridiculous you will stretch to try to make a fallacious comparison.

I'll have you know I made microwave explode once.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The fourth amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. There was a time where exigent circumstances were considered "unreasonable" for searches and seizures.

Except that merely owning a firearm does not constitute a valid reason, therefore it would be UNREASONABLE to allow anyone into my residence to search for such items.

By that same logic, not owning an ID does not mean that I should be able to be challenged by some guntoting hillbilly as "illegally voting".

Yet those laws just got passed by people like yourself.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The fourth amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. There was a time where exigent circumstances were considered "unreasonable" for searches and seizures.

Except that merely owning a firearm does not constitute a valid reason, therefore it would be UNREASONABLE to allow anyone into my residence to search for such items.

Exactly. Practicing your 2nd Amendment does not give anyone reason to enter my house. Unless you think it's ok for the Cops to walk in whenever you post something on here.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I see how ridiculous you will stretch to try to make a fallacious comparison.

How about private swimming pools?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I see how ridiculous you will stretch to try to make a fallacious comparison.

How about private swimming pools?

What about them?

 Kanluwen wrote:
By that same logic, not owning an ID does not mean that I should be able to be challenged by some guntoting hillbilly as "illegally voting".

Yet those laws just got passed by people like yourself.

The various levels of government in the US have a habit of legislating to the lowest common denominator. In my home state of Oregon, a couple people jumped off of freeway overpasses, or threw stuff over the walls into oncoming traffic. So they in essence, legislated that those big domed fences be put up, to prevent such a thing happening again.


Ultimately, you cant legislate away stupid. You can't really even punish stupid. You just have to deal with it when it rears its ugly head. The situation in the OP is another such case. The failure of the "parent" to monitor their kid's activity, and failure to secure items in the house ultimately led to their demise.


Private swimming pools lead to probably 100s of drownings by kids in private pools... Most recently/ famously was that rapper who almost lost his kid. This was due to a drain/filter hole in the bottom that, in public pools is covered to prevent suction of swimmers.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The fourth amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. There was a time where exigent circumstances were considered "unreasonable" for searches and seizures.

Except that merely owning a firearm does not constitute a valid reason, therefore it would be UNREASONABLE to allow anyone into my residence to search for such items.

Exactly. Practicing your 2nd Amendment does not give anyone reason to enter my house. Unless you think it's ok for the Cops to walk in whenever you post something on here.

Personally, as an unbiased observer not under this Constituition I think law enforcement should be able to search a premises at any time, with or without warning if they have reason to believe that there is criminal activity. As long as no injuries or damage is caused there is no issue, bother than infringing on any rights to your home. But then again, I also believe that crimimals forfit human rights entirely and for the period you are under search, you should be treated as such.

 Deadshot wrote:
2nd Ammendent is nothing to a Brit.

Basically if the government were to have the unwavering loyalty of the armed forces to a similar level as Hitler in the 40s, they could do what they like.

Seriously? You talk of the American government turning around and taking control and declaring themselves ruler for life of a new empire, and then when someone says that a piece of an American document of law comes into play, you say it means nothing to a Brit? OF COURSE IT DOESN'T MEAN FETH ALL TO YOU! Yet you're going to argue American culture from the point of view of a member of the UK? Jesus, I've heard some dumb gak on here, but today, you've not only taken the cake, you've taken the supplies to make more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:
Personally, as an unbiased observer not under this Constituition I think law enforcement should be able to search a premises at any time, with or without warning if they have reason to believe that there is criminal activity. As long as no injuries or damage is caused there is no issue, bother than infringing on any rights to your home. But then again, I also believe that crimimals forfit human rights entirely and for the period you are under search, you should be treated as such.

Would you like us to find the thread where police enter a guy's house illegally so they can set up an operation at someone else's house, and then arrest him when he refuses and arrest his family?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
2nd Ammendent is nothing to a Brit.

Basically if the government were to have the unwavering loyalty of the armed forces to a similar level as Hitler in the 40s, they could do what they like.

Seriously? You talk of the American government turning around and taking control and declaring themselves ruler for life of a new empire, and then when someone says that a piece of an American document of law comes into play, you say it means nothing to a Brit? OF COURSE IT DOESN'T MEAN FETH ALL TO YOU! Yet you're going to argue American culture from the point of view of a member of the UK? Jesus, I've heard some dumb gak on here, but today, you've not only taken the cake, you've taken the supplies to make more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:
Personally, as an unbiased observer not under this Constituition I think law enforcement should be able to search a premises at any time, with or without warning if they have reason to believe that there is criminal activity. As long as no injuries or damage is caused there is no issue, bother than infringing on any rights to your home. But then again, I also believe that crimimals forfit human rights entirely and for the period you are under search, you should be treated as such.

Would you like us to find the thread where police enter a guy's house illegally so they can set up an operation at someone else's house, and then arrest him when he refuses and arrest his family?

American cops are terrible, we know this.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
2nd Ammendent is nothing to a Brit.

Basically if the government were to have the unwavering loyalty of the armed forces to a similar level as Hitler in the 40s, they could do what they like.

Seriously? You talk of the American government turning around and taking control and declaring themselves ruler for life of a new empire, and then when someone says that a piece of an American document of law comes into play, you say it means nothing to a Brit? OF COURSE IT DOESN'T MEAN FETH ALL TO YOU! Yet you're going to argue American culture from the point of view of a member of the UK? Jesus, I've heard some dumb gak on here, but today, you've not only taken the cake, you've taken the supplies to make more.

All I'm saying is that's all it takes. Just because 1 person is loyal to the ideals of his ancestors doesn't mean everyone is the same. Not every American is going to have the same unbreakable faith in their countries rules of engagement when it comes to things likke law enforcement. Because really, if someone has the power and opportunity, as well as the overwhelming desire, to sieze the power that that position would give, literally making himself the Emperor (40k style) of America, how is a little piece of paper going to stop him. Really?

When I said it means nothing, I meant the words. I don't know what's in the Constituition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the second part I am saying I believe that cops should be able to do what they need if it will stop a major crime. If they need your home as a staging area there and then, and you refuse, what type of citizen are you? What happens if they get away with it and your entire country collapses and putsNorth Korea as the dominant superpower on the Earth with control of EVERYTHING?

 Deadshot wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
2nd Ammendent is nothing to a Brit.

Basically if the government were to have the unwavering loyalty of the armed forces to a similar level as Hitler in the 40s, they could do what they like.

Seriously? You talk of the American government turning around and taking control and declaring themselves ruler for life of a new empire, and then when someone says that a piece of an American document of law comes into play, you say it means nothing to a Brit? OF COURSE IT DOESN'T MEAN FETH ALL TO YOU! Yet you're going to argue American culture from the point of view of a member of the UK? Jesus, I've heard some dumb gak on here, but today, you've not only taken the cake, you've taken the supplies to make more.

All I'm saying is that's all it takes. Just because 1 person is loyal to the ideals of his ancestors doesn't mean everyone is the same. Not every American is going to have the same unbreakable faith in their countries rules of engagement when it comes to things likke law enforcement. Because really, if someone has the power and opportunity, as well as the overwhelming desire, to sieze the power that that position would give, literally making himself the Emperor (40k style) of America, how is a little piece of paper going to stop him. Really?

That little piece of paper was written in mind so that the citizens of this country can stand against the government should they ever feel the need to do so and remove an unwanted government. When it was written it was the British monarchy. 50 years down the road, it could be the crab people. One person could declare the Constitution null and void, it doesn't mean that people wouldn't stop believe in the rights it grants and fighting to restore those rights against a tyrannical government.

When I said it means nothing, I meant the words. I don't know what's in the Constituition.

It's been stated a few times in this thread. The 2nd Amendment is right to bear arms. It gives every US citizen the right to own a firearm so that they may defend themselves against people that seek to remove their freedoms from the US citizen.

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.

- Dems the words to it

For the second part I am saying I believe that cops should be able to do what they need if it will stop a major crime. If they need your home as a staging area there and then, and you refuse, what type of citizen are you? What happens if they get away with it and your entire country collapses and putsNorth Korea as the dominant superpower on the Earth with control of EVERYTHING?

Except that no one has the right to enter private property and turn it into their own tacti-cool command center. They also didn't knock politely, they shouted at the residents, knocked down the door I believe they even flashbanged the house. Why would you want to help people like that? Average cops are decent and okay people (except for the ones that give out speeding tickets ), but cops that pretend like they're Seal Team 6 and abuse their power as officers of the law should not be officers of the law... That is one of many reasons that people can find to not trust cops as a whole.

At the end of the day, if a soldier loyal only to Lord Obama of this hypothetical reality pointed a shotgun to your temple and told you to get the feth back in your car, how much is that idea worth compared to your life? Or are you a martyr?

No, cops are not nice if you stand in the way of their jobs. They are there to protect and arrest criminals. Flashbangs are a little extreme. Asking would be better. I'm talking about when the guys says no, in which case he is obstructing justice and should be charged with aiding and abetting (is that how it's spelt?), be put in the back seat with his hands behind his back and whatever else. I'm saying that they should be able to enter the so called Private Property, because ultimately the land is property of the country which they serve. And before you ask, no, I am not communist in any which way but not.

Once you get into corrupt cops, then they should be treated as criminals too.

 Deadshot wrote:
At the end of the day, if a soldier loyal only to Lord Obama of this hypothetical reality pointed a shotgun to your temple and told you to get the feth back in your car, how much is that idea worth compared to your life? Or are you a martyr?

If a soldier stopped me on the road and told me to get back into my car while he immediately threatened my life, I would do as I am told, because I'm a coward and know when to choose my fights. Again you're also asking a rational, human being (not a hypno-conditioned Astartes) to point a gun and potentially fire on his own countrymen. A rational human being that has taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that [they] will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help [them] God." While it says to follow the orders of the President and the officers above them, the first thing they swear to defend is the Constitution. If you have a man that turns around and takes over the government as a tyrannical dictator, you can bet that many of our soldiers will remain loyal to him, but just as many if not more will "defect" to the side that doesn't want to fall in line under an emperor.

No, cops are not nice if you stand in the way of their jobs. They are there to protect and arrest criminals. Flashbangs are a little extreme. Asking would be better. I'm talking about when the guys says no, in which case he is obstructing justice and should be charged with aiding and abetting (is that how it's spelt?), be put in the back seat with his hands behind his back and whatever else. I'm saying that they should be able to enter the so called Private Property, because ultimately the land is property of the country which they serve. And before you ask, no, I am not communist in any which way but not.

An officer of the law has no right to enter the home of anyone that they do not have reasonable suspicion is up to a crime. Asking someone to open their door so they can commandeer their house as an operations center is not a reasonable excuse to enter someone's house. The homeowner should not be arrested and put in the back of the car and charged with a crime because he committed no crime. If you enter my house as an officer of the law with not warrant in plain sight explaining why you're entering my premises, and you seize my property you are in violation of the 4th amendment, another right granted by the US constitution, and depending on how long you're illegally using my house as your operations center, you might also be in violation of the 3rd Amendment that prevents the quartering of soldiers, but that's a bit trickier to defend since cops aren't soldiers. We have the Constitution to protect us, the citizens, from the potentially abusive actions of a government, whether it's local, state or federal. And why would I think you're a communist? Is it because you're advocating parts that one might see in a police state? No, I think think you're being ignorant of the situation of how our government works, which is okay since you're not a US citizen, but it's not okay because you're butting in as if you have the knowledge of someone that lives over here. I don't but in on UK law and practices because I don't live there, and I would like to be afforded the same respect.

Part of the core motivating ideas behind modern, liberal, Western style democracies is the principle of being free from the demands of a dictatorship. The Constitution of the United States, as well as the core laws of many other nations, are designed with, it seems to me, the common understanding that a sovereign citizen will have a number of outlined, explicit responsibilities to his nation, which in turn will not enforce upon him any additional obligations. That's the essence of what we mean when we talk about a free society.

Enforced quartering of troops (be they military or law enforcement) is anathema to this concept. Traditionally speaking, situations in which the government has infringed the freedoms of press, speech, or assembly haven't gone in positive directions for the general populace of those countries. I think there is a lot of merit on both sides in the gun control debate, but at the end of the day, I think that governments which want to completely disarm their populations have also traditionally been up to no good, and I don't think it's a positive direction to take.

 Soladrin wrote:
Yey, Godwinned.

Took long enough... jeez!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey Alfndrate... keep it up.

Can't add anything more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
You have advocated, in this thread, the use of police agencies, to "randomly inspect" households that have firearms, especially if they have children.


Now, tell me, how does the government know which house has firearms? They would need information they are not entitled to.

I'm pretty sure the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are entitled to information about who owns firearms.

Nope... not really.

Only those that have been sold from license gun dealers or those wanting Class 3 firearms. Other than that, there's a gak ton of guns "out there" in the wild that the ATF have no idea who owns and where.

That right now the ATF is an organization which has been effectively neutered is a different discussion altogether though.

Look up Ruby Ridge.

Besides, their function isn't to track all weapons.

To search a house without warrant, or probable cause (and the mere ownership of a particular, legal item is not probable cause) is entirely against the 4th amendment.

Wrong.
The fourth amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. There was a time where exigent circumstances were considered "unreasonable" for searches and seizures.

Did you go to law school? Jesus Kan, the courts have a VERY liberal interpretation of the 4th that would definitely forbid that kind of police action w/o a warrant.

Why are some of you all so Hell bent on the idea the US Military is totally "Blind Obedience to Authority"? Its drilled into us, sketched in stone, tattoo on our forehead, and pretty much ingrained into us when to obey lawful orders and when not to obey unlawful orders. If Obama declares himself Dictator and abolish the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights you can be assured the Joint Chief of Staff and the rest of Congress will be damn quick to evict his arse out of office and tell Biden to either be "POTUS or join your buddy".

 Jihadin wrote:
Why are some of you all so Hell bent on the idea the US Military is totally "Blind Obedience to Authority"? Its drilled into us, sketched in stone, tattoo on our forehead, and pretty much ingrained into us when to obey lawful orders and when not to obey unlawful orders. If Obama declares himself Dictator and abolish the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights you can be assured the Joint Chief of Staff and the rest of Congress will be damn quick to evict his arse out of office and tell Biden to either be "POTUS or join your buddy".

Yeah... I know... isn't it insulting?

It's like these folks don't believe ya'll can think on your own.

Unless, Skynet inserted some super-secret memory chip in ya'll head to neuter your free thoughts... THEN we're fethed. Until then, no President is going to wipe his (or hers) arse with the Constitution and tell us plebs to kneel.

To be totally fair, most military organizations undergo some form of basic training. This indoctrination, while both necessary for the proper function of a cohesive military, as well as largely beneficial, is also a form of (mostly) benign brainwashing. For those who are outside of that experience, it can lead to a degree of apprehension in regards to the trustworthiness of those individuals, especially when it comes to deciding whether or not to follow the orders of their superiors. Especially amongst people with a strong anti-establishment bent to their thinking, who are all too willing to believe the worst about a group of people who have willingly aligned themselves so closely with ideals and practices they so abhor. It isn't necessarily correct, obviously, since there is more than a few US military servicepeople who have chosen (rightly and wrongly) to violate orders in order to report what they interpreted as violations of the law.

The flipside to that, of course, is that despite the clear instructions to US military personnel to interpret their orders to the best of their ability and to refuse to follow illegal orders, there will always be people who are willing to do what they are told, regardless of the ethical reality, so long as they can warm themselves in the comforting grip of the chain of command. The fact that there are many occasions of acts that needed reporting by the aforementioned servicepeople is good evidence of that.

Still, on the whole, I don't think that the US military is blindly obedient to the point of supporting an illegal dictatorial regime. Obviously. Nor, of course, can I pretend that they are a crusading force of lily-white angels, devoid of blemish or criminal activity.

In any event, I hope that helps put things into perspective. It certainly does for me.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Last I checked this is not a scholarly argument.

You don't say.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
At the end of the day, if a soldier loyal only to Lord Obama of this hypothetical reality pointed a shotgun to your temple and told you to get the feth back in your car, how much is that idea worth compared to your life? Or are you a martyr?

If a soldier stopped me on the road and told me to get back into my car while he immediately threatened my life, I would do as I am told, because I'm a coward and know when to choose my fights. Again you're also asking a rational, human being (not a hypno-conditioned Astartes) to point a gun and potentially fire on his own countrymen. A rational human being that has taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that [they] will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help [them] God." While it says to follow the orders of the President and the officers above them, the first thing they swear to defend is the Constitution. If you have a man that turns around and takes over the government as a tyrannical dictator, you can bet that many of our soldiers will remain loyal to him, but just as many if not more will "defect" to the side that doesn't want to fall in line under an emperor.

No, cops are not nice if you stand in the way of their jobs. They are there to protect and arrest criminals. Flashbangs are a little extreme. Asking would be better. I'm talking about when the guys says no, in which case he is obstructing justice and should be charged with aiding and abetting (is that how it's spelt?), be put in the back seat with his hands behind his back and whatever else. I'm saying that they should be able to enter the so called Private Property, because ultimately the land is property of the country which they serve. And before you ask, no, I am not communist in any which way but not.

An officer of the law has no right to enter the home of anyone that they do not have reasonable suspicion is up to a crime. Asking someone to open their door so they can commandeer their house as an operations center is not a reasonable excuse to enter someone's house. The homeowner should not be arrested and put in the back of the car and charged with a crime because he committed no crime. If you enter my house as an officer of the law with not warrant in plain sight explaining why you're entering my premises, and you seize my property you are in violation of the 4th amendment, another right granted by the US constitution, and depending on how long you're illegally using my house as your operations center, you might also be in violation of the 3rd Amendment that prevents the quartering of soldiers, but that's a bit trickier to defend since cops aren't soldiers. We have the Constitution to protect us, the citizens, from the potentially abusive actions of a government, whether it's local, state or federal. And why would I think you're a communist? Is it because you're advocating parts that one might see in a police state? No, I think think you're being ignorant of the situation of how our government works, which is okay since you're not a US citizen, but it's not okay because you're butting in as if you have the knowledge of someone that lives over here. I don't but in on UK law and practices because I don't live there, and I would like to be afforded the same respect.

I know perfectly well how the warrant thing works. I'm saying it shouldn't exist and cops should be able to just do their job of fighting bad guys. And I firmly believe that anyone who obstructs justice or aids a criminal in any way should be treated as such. If you have a couple dirty magazines that you don't want found, deal with it, odds are the cops have seen nipples before. And if you have drugs or a mafia meeting in there well then you are going to be arrested anyway.


Yes, it would require total blind obedience and remorselessness of the soldiers.
In a hypothetical reality, what I'm saying is that the simple existence of the Constituition isn't enough to bury your head and say it is impossible to occur.

Whembly, I wasn't saying it was going to happen I said it is possible if the right conditions are fulfilled. That's all. Not that I want it, expect it, hope for it, or that it will, that its probable, only that its possible.

Going to have to disagree with you Deadshot - the police should have limits imposed on them. They should not be able to act however they want, Judge Dread style, in "enforcing the law". Clearly, the law could be "the police can do whatever they want", but this should not, ideally, be the case in a reasonably free and ordered society.

 Jihadin wrote:
Why are some of you all so Hell bent on the idea the US Military is totally "Blind Obedience to Authority"? Its drilled into us, sketched in stone, tattoo on our forehead, and pretty much ingrained into us when to obey lawful orders and when not to obey unlawful orders. If Obama declares himself Dictator and abolish the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights you can be assured the Joint Chief of Staff and the rest of Congress will be damn quick to evict his arse out of office and tell Biden to either be "POTUS or join your buddy".

Not to mention to acquire a dictator the people of this country would need to like someone for longer than the 6 months before s/he's elected.

 xole wrote:
Not to mention to acquire a dictator the people of this country would need to like someone for longer than the 6 months before s/he's elected.

I'm sturggling to think of many politicians who actually do what they say they are going to do when they get into office when they get into office

 Jihadin wrote:
Why are some of you all so Hell bent on the idea the US Military is totally "Blind Obedience to Authority"? Its drilled into us, sketched in stone, tattoo on our forehead, and pretty much ingrained into us when to obey lawful orders and when not to obey unlawful orders. If Obama declares himself Dictator and abolish the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights you can be assured the Joint Chief of Staff and the rest of Congress will be damn quick to evict his arse out of office and tell Biden to either be "POTUS or join your buddy".

Sure they will if he did that, but that would be stupid.
The first would be use of troops in martial law situations-easy enough. Then those situations are expanded due to the present crisis.
There's a certain really really bad Star Wars trilogy that can show Genghis Connie the way er...shows an example of that.

"I am proud to establish a New Order, the First United State Galactic Empire." President "Genghis" Connie on Face the Nation.