l_bader

Let me tackle a few of these at once...


Jay (et al) -

There are many misperceptions as to what the Military is, what it does and how it is accomplished. Too many people form their opinion (about this issue and many others) from TV, movies, the media and other forms of stylized propoganda (from both sides of the argument).

From simpliest to most complex:

- The Military is comprised of fewer "combat troops" than most people realise. Though everyone in the Marines and Army have an "Infrantry" designator, that does not necessarily mean that is their primary specialty or position of assignment. In all branches, there are more support personnel (administrative, logistics, maintenance, communications, medical and intelligence) than there are trigger pullers. However every one of those people are needed to ensure the line troop is healthy, equiped, trained and ready to perform his duty with as strong a chance as possible for success. Part of doing so is discipline, loyalty and a measure of combat training.

- With the above paragraph it is obvious not everyone in the Military is expected to be assigned to a combat situation. Yet non-combatant Military personnel are in hostile areas. Case in point, I had a 23 year old single mother who was an administrative troop assigned to a mail convoy in Iraq. Her job was to get letters from Moms, Dads, kids and Sweethearts to the guys in the trenches. More than once was she actively engaged in a firefight. - If she had not (a) been trained accordingly and (b) trusted the training of the others assigned to (1) that convoy and (2) the support folks that responded to their distress calls odds are she would be resting at the National Cemetary on Fort Sam.

- Call it brainwashing if you must; the Military calls it indoctrination. However I see it more of a culling of the herd.

Basic Military training has a scant few weeks to take a disparate collection of volunteers that a generally undisciplined, at best in moderate physical conditioning, with competeting value sets, biases and prejudices and identify those that are willing to mold themselves toward a cooperative, disciplined, trainable organization. To do so, candidates are stripped of most indiviual identifiers; designer clothing, stylish hair cuts and style of communication. Schedules are identical for all; time to rise, eat, sleep, exercise. Standards for success are equal for all and known to all. Classes are not only held on marching, rank and firearms, but also Military Law, hygeine, first aid and finances.

Training/Drill Instructors have a short period of time to determine which of these have a *demonstrated* potential to become a beneficial addition to the Military or a burden. Those that are a burden are dropped, those that are not earn the privilege to be titled Soldier, Airman, Sailor, Marine.

This is why it is important to have an 18 year old boy fold his underwear into a 6" by 6" square. Because if he cannot follow this simple requirement, how then can he be expected to set the wing-bolts on a multi-million dollar aircraft to the proper torque setting, thus preventing a critical failure that may very well cost lives?

Timelines are compressed and tasks are daunting enough to require the trainees to act as a team. Those that don't fail. I'd rather they fail at the Great Lakes Training Center or Fort Leonardwood Kansas than overseas and under fire.

Once graduated from Basic, members of the service continue to train and are expected to display discipline and obedience, but the are also expected to think, act and react. For example, the LtCol I worked for in the mid-90s required that whenever a subordinate identified a problem, at least two solutions and a (supported) recommendation for action be submitted.

-soapbox ends here-

Academia and the Military generally tend to be at odds, however attempt to act from a more informed position than programmed (brainwashed) point of view...

Oh, and to steer this back toward the psuedo-original topic: Is a homeowner expected to kill someone? Yet what to do when an intruder breaks into the home in which his wife and children are occupying?

- L

Toddcod

iTrader: (8)

What we have is a classic case of "Some people were raised in a fantasy world". But in reality, the world can be a bad horrible place and things happen. The people that founded this country had to use force and give lifes to get the good life we have.

If you don't believe we can be invaded ask one of your grandparents from the 40's and ask if it was serious when they lost family and friends in world war II, And if that doesn't answer your questions look back another 30 years and see how many people died in WWI. Or more resently ask Iraq.

If someone wants to kill mass amounts of people and they don't have a gun, I guess they can get a van full of **** like in OK city. Blow up a major building. Then we should ban all cows, dogs, horses, and we could kill off all people so there would be no **** bombs.

Point is people in this country never put blam were blam is.

It is in the bad person. Most of the people that do crazy crimes have built up to it. Put them away don't just keep letting them out of lock up, they will explode.

Not everyone has a good side or deep down inside that little heart wants to do good.

People died to have fire arms. And there is a reason for that. Protection is necessary for homestasis. IF they wouldn't of had fire arms this country would of never happened. England would of just killed everyone trying to make a difference. If you don't believe this asked the Indians if things would of been different if the had guns from the start.
You can't always talke something out. Especially with people that refuse to talk and wanna use force.

History is the key on how to avoid or resolve conflicts in the future. People should learn from the past experiances of the world.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

wow.... way to extrapolate. I don't thing anyone where thinks we shouldnt have used guns ins WWII or WWI or any other war.

Its being armed to your teeth. I guess im really surprised how insecure all you guys sound.

Toddcod

iTrader: (8)

This is why we need our guns. This is just criminal and wanting to rape money off of the average Joe. I won't move there. I would be in jail for LIFE! LOl

Quote
"You think you got it bad, they passed a law now that 10km over is 500 dollar ticket or some **** like that and it keeps going up and up and if your caught going 50km over you get a 10,000$ fine and car impounded i believe. If its racing they smash your car in front of your eyes. And i heard them talking about some stupid law if you have racing modifications on your car ex loud exhaust ect...that they can impound your car i dont think its going to pass though, Canada has some gay *** laws..."

l_bader

Loki -

I don't see how choosing to own one or more firearms for home protection or (legally) carrying a weapon for personal defense translates to being armed to the teeth.

- L

PS - Toddcod, if you cannot afford a dictionary, or have access to the spellcheck function of a wordprocessor (or similar program), you can find help here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Markp

Loki

Owning a gun does not equal insecurity... Unless you think every cop, Marine, soldier, and SEAL team member is insecure. I don't know if I've ever met an "insecure" member of a SEAL team, have you?

Mark

bryantaylor

iTrader: (5)

if refusing to be a victim is "insecure" it looks like i am.

l_bader

Mark -

I don't believe Loki is arguing the need for Military, Para-Military or Law Enforcement types to carry duty weapons. I think he is calling into question the need for "civilians" to carry.

Yet it seems to me if you remove the legal right for "civlians" to posess and carry, you then have (1) government agents (be they police, military or otherwise), (2) criminals and (3) sheep.

- L

magnamx-5

iTrader: (7)

I don't think taking our rights to bear arms is the right answer, the real answer is for everyone to make there own choice on the matter.

johndoe

iTrader: (5)

we could also get into a discussion about the murkiness of the second amendment. But I do agree that this is an issue where each side has some valid arguments but they ALL come with trade-offs.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

If you think a gun allows you to "refuse to be a victim" you are dumber than i ever thought possible.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Ya know whats interesting, every cop, marine, soldier and SEAL team member that i know doesnt carry unless on duty....

Although the SEAL i know is retired.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Do all you guys have home alarms? You do all this for security. Do you guys all have alarms on your homes? All windows on the first floor locked? Valuables hidden away?

bryantaylor

iTrader: (5)

does it drop the chance down to zero? hell no
but does it atleast give you a chance? hell yes

9 out of 10 times, just the sight of a gun is enough for the criminal to stop what they are doing and leave in a hurry.
and the personal insults prove your right, huh?

l_bader

Monitored Security - Check
Exterior Lighting - Check
Clear Sightlines to Windows and Exits - Check
Dead Bolts - Check
Locked Windows - Check
Telephone, Landline - Check
Telephone, Cellular - Check
Valuables Appropriately Stored - Check
Local Law Enforcement Coverage - Check
Local Fire/Paramedic Coverage - Check

Estimated response time for above listed Emergency Response (post call from self or neighbor): 3-5 minutes.

How much damage do you think a panicked intruder would be able to inflict during that time; armed or not?

My Ruger GP-100, loaded with Glaser Blue-Point .357 caliber safety-rounds is an easy, reliable, portable solution to fill the gap in a multi-layered home defense.

If the intruder is willing to comply with instructions, calmly lie face down, legs spread and fingers laced and resting at the back of his head until the Police arrive, he will be safely be removed from my property in good health. Otherwise, the paramedics will have the predominate roll in the aftermath.

(And before you ask, no I do not live in a crime ridden or high risk area.)

- L

magnamx-5

iTrader: (7)

I don't believe in relieing on others cops etc. If anything happens i assume i will get no help and take apropriate measures and yes i keep multiple locks on, and do not tempt fate.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

You said "refusing to be a victim", only a stupid person would follow that train of thought or believe it to be true.

Prove someones right? I am right, give everyone muskets, Ive said it repeatedly.

bryantaylor

iTrader: (5)

maybee i should have said it differently, but its gives you a chance to actually fight back and not just be a sitting duck

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

I guess thats the difference. I ve been around enough to know not to try to fight back. I have insurance. Take my car my wallet whatever. And I walk away.

bryantaylor

iTrader: (5)

i see what you mean, but i just have a hard time with just giving anything to some punk that i worked hard for.