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 know there outght to be an ordinance about ordnance...

 Jihadin wrote:
Though you all voicing for combat are like the non military politicians

My opinion that the National Guard is subservient to government control and one of their stated roles is to put down armed insurrections, should it come to that, does not require that I have any military experience. Serving as an infantryman, pilot, or sailor gives me no special insight into how the rule of law works in the US.

I think you should reconsider your position, you're a reasonable dude. Your stance is that we should not send it heavily armed troops because these guys are also heavily armed, and if one of them shoots at a Guardsmen, they will get shot in return. Steamdragon already said it, but... does this sound reasonable? Because it sounds to me like you're essentially advocating that we cede a small bit of the US over to a heavily armed separatist militia. I cannot buy that, no sir. This is not Pakistan or Afghanistan or Somalia where the most heavily armed warlord gets to decide what the law is.

Frazzled gave me a hard time about invoking the Guard and then the Army if needed but I think he may have glossed over that those were the tail end of the steps I would like to see followed in order. The regular army is only the most extreme of resolutions and would require things to be massively more out of hand then they are, as I said; with the Guard only being a step before. As things stand now it is a law enforcement issue. If law enforcement fails to act, or decides that the situation is beyond their control, then things go up from there.

Some guy says he worked for the BLM, Reckons he knows whats going on.

So does that guy ever offer any, you know, proof or is it all just wild conspiracy theories based on "facts" which will probably be disproved very shortly?

He volunteered man!

He has seen things!


YOU WEREN'T THERE!!!!

Frazzled gave me a hard time about invoking the Guard and then the Army if needed but I think he may have glossed over that those were the tail end of the steps I would like to see followed in order. The regular army is only the most extreme of resolutions and would require things to be massively more out of hand then they are, as I said; with the Guard only being a step before. As things stand now it is a law enforcement issue. If law enforcement fails to act, or decides that the situation is beyond their control, then things go up from there.

Agreed.

Your advocating a real slippery slope there.
Of course you have D-USA mocking me for my combat experience.

He volunteered man!

He has seen things!


YOU WEREN'T THERE!!!!

Be glad you made a choice to go Nursing D-USA. For I never question your knowledge in the medical field

Though quite a few of us has agreed on one thing about you. You have a very "dumb" tendency to try to provoke a negative response from a Vet's. By chance do you also do the same to the Vet's in your VA hospital?

What would happen if the National Guard rolled out against OWS for occupying Federal Property? If it last more then 30+ days then Title 10 orders are issued. If its a Military operation then who controls the detainee's? Can soldiers be prosecuted for "harming" the detainee's? Remember, we fall under UCMJ and not Federal Laws.

 Jihadin wrote:
Your advocating a real slippery slope there.
Of course you have D-USA mocking me for my combat experience.

He is talking about the person in the above video, Rusty Hill - not you. The gentleman cleaned up garbage for a while, which gave him great insight into the cabal that actually runs Nevada. Wheels within wheels, my friend.

 Jihadin wrote:
Can soldiers be prosecuted for "harming" the detainee's? Remember, we fall under UCMJ and not Federal Laws.

This exact thing happened in 1992, as well. 2 suspected gang members were engaged and killed by Guardsmen. The LAPD investigated and brought no charges as they were justifiable shoots with many witnesses.

If they were not justifiable - man, I dunno. I'm speculating but I think as you say it would be UCMJ rather than criminal courts. I'm not sure at all though.

So being in the BLM makes one a Vet now?

I think it's a misunderstanding.

I apologize to D-USA then

Edit

Under UCMJ and in accordance with RoE then the killing is justified. They're gang members though. Issue is though its on his property from what I understand. The check point and the militia as long as they're there "screw em" I say. How long before the "militia" members get tired of living rough, in the desert, soon to be summer, and probably not a proper crapper near them.

Though I did notice amongst the Militia is there are former deployed Vet's from OIF and OEF. Neither side going to back down being their both harden towards having weapons pointed at them. It all comes down to nerves then

I mock a video and someone feels persecuted, that same person then goes on to question my professional practice. It's getting pretty old.

I feel the same way when you do it to me D-USA

Adults get twitchy about subjects that are very close to them. I almost caused physical pain to someone once over him questioning my grasp on Nagle's algorithm.

I think it is something we should chuckle at, and then try to remember we're adults and there are things far more important going on right now... like how crazy Bundy is.

 Jihadin wrote:
I feel the same way when you do it to me D-USA

I have issues with you, lots of them.

They have nothing to do with your status as a vet, nor do they reflect my opinions on vets.

I believe I have made two blanket statement about veterans when talking to you:

1) I don't believe that vets are above the law and that they have to follow the same rules as everybody else. That was during the shutdown.
2) I made an argument about substituting an inflammatory description for the name "veteran" that was inflammatory and stupid on purpose, to show that words have meanings and are important to people.

I put my ass on the line on a regular basis for my patients. You guys see the crap that goes down at some of these VA's and I don't care who I have to piss off I will make sure that gak like that never goes down while I am taking care of these guys.

Whatever issues I have with you are solely because of you. They have jack to do with the uniform you wear or the service you rendered. I don't know if that makes you feel any better but rest assured that I would never treat any of my patients poorly because some vet on the Internet pissed me off.

 Jihadin wrote:
I feel the same way when you do it to me D-USA

I have never seen him mock your service. A link would be appreciated.

I was once told I wouldn't understand what Cricket was until I knew what crumpet was.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I feel the same way when you do it to me D-USA

I have never seen him mock your service. A link would be appreciated.

I was once told I wouldn't understand what Cricket was until I knew what crumpet was.

I think it might be something better suited settled between the two of them, and not in a thread unrelated to the topic.

I recommend an indiegogo campaign to get plane tickets so they can throw down in a 40k match in person. TO THE DEATH.

Change the word "veteran" to "innocent bystander murderer". D-USA

Subtle D Subtle

Then the run with CptJake when I had to back him up when you "insinuated those with us with PTSD should not have weapons.

 Jihadin wrote:

Then the run with CptJake when I had to back him up when you "insinuated those with us with PTSD should not have weapons.

I'm a big fat democrat, according to some. I wear it like an insult, but I'm certainly a liberal, in a lot of ways more liberal than democrats.

However, I think gun ownership is a good thing. I still also think that PTSD sufferers shouldn't have firearms until diagnosed, evaluated, and undergoing treatment. I also don't think people with metal instability or depression or anything that could cause people to do something dangerous to people unwarranted should have guns. I include myself in that large population I've just cut out. It's why I've not bought one though I want to. I know people who have PTSD who came back from Afghanistan who continued to have guns. They've pulled them on people during episodes, thankfully, without bad endings. It's not a good scene though.

At any rate, I REALLY think you guys shouldn't drag this thread through that. C'mon, sort it out between the two of you.

 Jihadin wrote:
Change the word "veteran" to "innocent bystander murderer". D-USA

That isn't a link so I have no idea what the context is, and if it is similar to this thread it seems more than likely it would be a misunderstanding than an insult to vets. I think daedalus is probably right that it would be better to deal with this in PM.

 Jihadin wrote:
those with us with PTSD should not have weapons.

That isn't an out of the realm of being a reasonable proposition, nor is it an insult to vets.

Gist of it was regardless of severity of PTSD. No weapons. CptJake got bent on that one. Everyone that deployed has PTSD. Now to bring this back into topic. Your deploying troops who more likely have PTSD in a desert environment, facing armed individuals, and both sides not backing down. In a DESERT Environment. More likely on Bundy property that D-USA echoing Reid about Armed Insurrection.

I mention that earlier but not the PTSD bit.

I'm going to go check out some cute puppy videos on youtube.

You guys enjoy your thread.

This really needs to die.

Since the BLM has withdrawn, it's all pretty moot anyway.

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Because in the end, extremist conservatives are too busy becoming fascists to explain to anyone why the government is so bad in any sensible way

I love these guys. Best entertainment I never paid for

That's why we need to send in the graboids. It will be like a stage performance of Tremors.

But they could just get onto the heights, those hills aren't alluvial.

If members want to fight with each other, please would they take it off the forum?

It is a tangent to the main line of discussion.

 Bromsy wrote:

But they could just get onto the heights, those hills aren't alluvial.

A dilemma, as those hills would inevitably have eyes.

 dogma wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

But they could just get onto the heights, those hills aren't alluvial.

A dilemma, as those hills would inevitably have eyes.

God help us if they cross breed.

What would happen if the National Guard rolled out against OWS for occupying Federal Property? If it last more then 30+ days then Title 10 orders are issued. If its a Military operation then who controls the detainee's? Can soldiers be prosecuted for "harming" the detainee's? Remember, we fall under UCMJ and not Federal Laws.

1. OWS didn't occupy federal property that I am aware of.
2. Protesters who occupy miliatry installations get intercepted by MPs.
3.. Protesters who occupy federal proerty get intercepted by federal Po Po

There is no slippery slope at least in my argument. You cannot let private groups effectively take over areas of the US. That has always garnered a response from either the state of Fed.
State troopers, FBI, 82nd division, state guard, and the Army of the Republic all have stopped such activities in the past.


And I'm from the South. We've had federal troops here before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I mock a video and someone feels persecuted, that same person then goes on to question my professional practice. It's getting pretty old.

In his defense your avatar made of sausages has no boudin sausage in it. I'd question your professional qualifications too...barbarian!

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Though you all voicing for combat are like the non military politicians

My opinion that the National Guard is subservient to government control and one of their stated roles is to put down armed insurrections, should it come to that, does not require that I have any military experience. Serving as an infantryman, pilot, or sailor gives me no special insight into how the rule of law works in the US.

I think you should reconsider your position, you're a reasonable dude. Your stance is that we should not send it heavily armed troops because these guys are also heavily armed, and if one of them shoots at a Guardsmen, they will get shot in return. Steamdragon already said it, but... does this sound reasonable? Because it sounds to me like you're essentially advocating that we cede a small bit of the US over to a heavily armed separatist militia. I cannot buy that, no sir. This is not Pakistan or Afghanistan or Somalia where the most heavily armed warlord gets to decide what the law is.

Y'know, I think it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that the, "Hey, don't use the military on this one, it'll get ugly fast," position is the same as suggesting we let the nutjobs do what they want in perpetuity. There are plenty of other ways to eventually resolve this without starting firefights. I know everyone's amped for Waco II: The Son of Reno, but it's not necessarily the optimal way to do it.