And why do a LARGE amount of enlisted say "What the fuck are you teaching us.."
Most NCOs do not agree woth this and a soldier follows them more then anything
Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
Most NCOs do not agree woth this and a soldier follows them more then anything
King Arts
Well-known member
Soldiers obey their officers and ncos ncos obey officers. The ncos did not agree with a lot of stuff the army changed from allowing women people to be openly gay, to trannies. Yet your vaunted ncos bitched out and obeyed orders
There is a diffrence between "This shit is being allowed" to "Shoot your fellow Americans"
King Arts
Well-known member
How about integration? I personally am against segregation but at the time you could see huge amounts of federal power being taken away from the states so that the central government could pass laws. And the 101st obeyed, and the national guard did not fight it. Yes it is an extreme solution to kill fellow Americans but it’s also extreme to use federal power to decide how local schools are run whether segregation or not, it’s also extreme to put up red flag laws or restrict guns. So when we look at your sterling record show us the proof that when the liberal government reaches for more power you won’t pussy out and obey them?
Yes, which is why they are creating a parallel command chain in the diversity officers and such, who can be phased in to keep NCOs in line with official dogma, while they slowly phase out the NCO corp's current crop who might actually resist. As I said, they are playing the long game.
It's an old part of the Commie playbook, and if they can rig elections they can easily buy themselves time.
It won't be 'Shoot your fellow Americans'.
But the result will be a police state where some over arching police/reserve military body the US Gov creates or builds out of existing units will be used the same way Soviet Guard/NKVD units were.
There is a reason the places like West Point are putting Critical Race Theory in their curriculum, or why some are calling the Pentagon 'a Harvard Faculty Lounge with cruise missiles'.
Our Republic is nearly dead of Covid and corruption. Cycle's of history thinking will not save us or realistically inform our future. We are in uncharted waters, and there are far worse things than dragon's under these waves.
The only way we revive our Republic is if something breaks the power of Dems, the un-elected career officials in the SEC/FedReserve/State etc, and the GOP establishment all at once, without destroying the fabric of our society or the infrastructure we need to survive.
I don't see any way the above plausibly happens, but I see plenty of ways the Dems can slow boil on this, if they also have the power to rig elections on the POTUS level.
A soldier follows the NCO as long as the NCO is good. That is how things work.
The army entrusts the NCO Corp to lead and help soldiers grow.
THAT is where the Officers and Enlisted very. The officers are trying to force this onto the enlisted.
Plus, we already have things going against that by allowing people to speak upwithout punishment
LindyAF
Well-known member
Right, but just saying "what the fuck are you teaching us" isn't actually anything, and is just going to get the response of "idk what my boss told me we have to do, just sit through it." And at least going off the people I know, this is less them saying "what the fuck are you teaching us" and more gripping to their peers about it. That's not to say it's not a start, or not fertile ground, but until and unless we start to see people in the military defying anti-white ideology that actually puts skin in the game en mass (stuff like walking out of anti-white CRT lectures etc), then as citizens I think we cannot depend on any sizable proportion of the military to actually risk anything to defend the interests of the historic American nation and fight back against the DC government & state.
Panzerkraken
Well-known member
I suppose it's a good thing they're not doing that. Unless you have some kind of actual proof that they are, outside of histrionic complaints from a secondhand source (waves vaguely at Florida) that don't present any of the actual course materials, just broad statements of "They're teaching CRT! They hate America!"
I've looked through the Army's recent initiatives and while they have added a lot of domestic terrorism stuff to the TARP training and talked about how "Every Soldier will have to complete quarterly online training and annual "live" training;" that's no more than exactly what they do now. Online training that you sit and click through as quickly as possible so you can get done with it and print the certificate, accompanied with Live training meaning a guy from the local counterintelligence company comes and gives an hour long briefing, at the end of which there are no questions.
Not exactly rigid indoctrination, on average it takes six to ten weeks of enforced isolation and constant exposure to cause a significant change in actual belief, and even then you're going to get a significant relapse in behavior in a percentage (as high as 20) of the training population.
The biggest policy change is in AR 600-20, which now states that individuals are responsible and accountable for their activities online, and attaches potential penalties under the UCMJ. The creation of "diversity officers" is an additional duty, that some poor 2LT is going to be stuck with and wind up with the responsibility for hanging posters around the common areas and coordinating an annual training event that people will go out of their way to avoid having to sit through again, not some kind of Bolshevik Political Officer appointments.
What I do see is changes that will eliminate cliques and good ol' boy groups regardless of ethnicity or background, which is a fine thing. I've listened to countless complaints about "Masonic ring knockers," "Just another one of those Harley Club guys," as well as those who think there's nearly conspiracies of every single ethnic/religious group in the Army to take care of their own at the expense of others. Now the ways those people are selected for promotion or positions are having their DA Photo removed, their sex, sexuality, ethnicity, marital status, and just about every other individual trait redacted from their records in order to ensure that the individual is being selected purely on the basis of their performance reports and individual achievements. Which is just how it should be.
Are you? Seems like he's in a better position to talk about what he's seen.
I'd like to see these purported lectures. I'm pretty confident I know more people in the military than the average person and none of my friends have said anything about them. I have a high confidence that any kind of training plan that's actually being presented to the force at large is going to be bland, boring, and absolutely NOT anti-anything. Because the second you make it anti-there's grounds under existing policy for a discrimination suit, and there's no exceptions for the source, and no means to sweep it under the rug when a SPC can just pick up the phone and call their congressman, winding up with Mark Milley answering questions about it.
I think you're correct, because the military didn't take an oath to support and defend the "historic American nation" (which sounds like it's in the 20kHz range); they swore that to the Constitution of the United States and obey the orders of the President and the Officers appointed over them.
For all the conspiracy theories and gnashing of teeth that happens on either side whenever the administration's political leanings change, it's still a living document, subject to the changing interpretations of the time.
Personally (and on topic for the thread) I'm in favor of unrestricted sale combined with mandatory licensure, just the same as for using automobiles. With the same training requirements, meaning that you'd go and do the CCL course for a couple weeks, then get your license, and be able to carry subject to the local regulations, just like speed limits and stop signs. Want to get a Machinegun? You're gonna need a Class C license for that. Longer course, more training, but at the end, that's it, plonk down your money for your big ol' M2.
I worked with weapons continually for years, and there were STILL negligent discharges and accidents that happened, even in SOF units, so the best bet for making sure that the entire public has access without creating both a hazard to themselves and to other users is to ensure there's a unified training regimen. For people with training from elsewhere? Give a test. The DMV doesn't require you to show you graduated from a Driver's Training course, just that you pass their test. A nice written test followed by a range fire check and a couple shoot/don't shoot scenarios would fit the bill just fine.
Don't get me started on how useless SHARP and EO breifs/classes are. I took a speciality one for Ft Hood called SWAT, and I actually liked it because I learned that, you can make a defense that you are being discriminated on as a white guy. I felt so happy to know that.
The extremism brief just mentions boring shit about same shit they say when looking for insiders. Almost identical.
Most live training is not even done by a CI. At least in the Intel sphere itself. It can be done by any officer as well. At least the one we had was by the second highest in our chain...but yeah, Anti-American would get a lot of pushback from soldiers. HUGE pushback. Even those that may not feel attached like they used too, they would still push back. One of EOs protected categories is nationality.
American counts
LindyAF
Well-known member
Yes, I'm pretty sure you don't actually disagree with us about the facts of this here, who you disagree with about whether there'd be some "split" in the Army in the context of the situation in Biden's speech on the 2nd amendment is @Zachowon, who was the only one here who thinks that would happen. We all agree that the military as an institution serves the interests of the DC government. Where you disagree with me and the rest of us here is the moral valence of this and which side you'd be on.
He has been in the Army longer and was high up in the enlisted ranks.
What we are getting at is that the military generally share the same mentality in that all this shit is stupid and why the fuck are they teaching it to us.
They cant focus and say one race is worse then another. There is a policy in AR 600-20 that does not allow that. They can't force us to hate any country (except China and Russia. And even then Russia isn't really hated, we just don't give a fuck about them. China is hated) or any nationality. Including America.
The Army just wants us to focus on iur fucning jobs. Which is killing the enemy and taking control. That is the end goal of the army.
LindyAF
Well-known member
I mean no, reading his posts that's not what he thinks and not what he's getting at. That's what you think and are getting at. He doesn't think it's stupid - he think what they're teaching isn't really leftist or "really" critical race theory, probably because he already agrees (and agreed) with eighty percent of it and thinks the other twenty percent isn't a big deal, just like he agrees with and is advocating for "gun control" because it's "just the same as using automobiles" using the exact same talking point as democrats and fudds do.
You mean...
How he basically just said thG one needs to get a license?
@Panzerkraken do you agree with any aspects of CRT?
The point he was making is the likely hood of the military being changed by another briefing that won't end up getting stopped because of already existing policies is zero
LindyAF
Well-known member
Yes, mandatory licensing in order to exercise our right to keep and bear arms is gun control, and it is also a policy goal and talking point for democrats, down to the "just like cars!" thing, as if one needs a license to own one on their own private property, and as if guns were not a constitutionally protected right or as if any other right required a license.
He's not going to say "I agree with CRT" because that's not something anyone outside of college professors and extremely liberal students say. You couldn't even pin down most dem congresscritters to clearly and unequivocally say they agree with it. Start asking about specific critical race theory beliefs, and see if he starts arguing that it's not actually critical race theory or w/e.
He's not going to say "I agree with CRT" because that's not something anyone outside of college professors and extremely liberal students say. You couldn't even pin down most dem congresscritters to clearly and unequivocally say they agree with it. Start asking about specific critical race theory beliefs, and see if he starts arguing that it's not actually critical race theory or w/e.
Last edited:
Panzerkraken
Well-known member
So, I mean if you want me to dissert on it, you're overreaching what I said and extrapolating incorrectly. My personal views are that they (guns) should be exactly like cars.. buy and sell with no problems or restrictions, keep on your property as you like, but carrying them in a situation where they could conceivably present a public menace is regulated by local ordinance, preferably at the lowest level manageable under the constitution's mandate, which would be the states (just like cars, yes.) So states would have the mandate to manage concealed or open carry laws, locations and situations where firearms are permitted or not, and then the authority to enforce those laws. Federal regulations would apply to import/export, interstate commerce, and federal lands and buildings. Interestingly, there's no states that decided not to have some kind of training and testing requirement for driving vehicles on public motorways, nor is there a federal mandate to have licensure for motor vehicles. Yet they all do, for essential safety concerns (to mandate a baseline of training). I agree that the training and some kind of proficiency test should be required, but that the states should be the authority for it. At that point, people can vote with their feet about it, or just vote if they like. You're welcome to reference Heinlein's Take Back Your Government if you need a model for working from the grass roots.
Additionally, I have a CCL, but I don't carry anything most of the time, because I don't feel threatened. Your mileage may vary.
I'm not a legal scholar, nor a literary critic. I've read exactly two papers on CRT because it's come up recently and I had no concept of what it was, and I've taken a single 200-level Criminal Justice class where racial disparity was presented as an issue in the criminal justice system. It's not something that's reared its head in my Engineering curriculum. I think that GEN Milley was mostly right when he compared reading about it to reading about Marxism, although he would have been more correct in using the term "Marxist Criticism" or even "Psychoanalytic Criticism," because Marxism is still viewed as an adversarial theory in the United States.
My overall take on it? Meh. Academic stuff. Conceptually lofty ideals that accentuate the negative aspects mostly for the purposes of calling attention to them. Not really the basis of an -ism though, similar to the baseline rosy picture of the Communal Utopia that Marx put forward, but again, realism doesn't allow for that kind of rose colored result. The core of it, to me, comes down to Adams:
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy said:
Edit:
As a note, my sig provides more insight into how I view authoritarianism. I also use quotes from Voltaire regularly, so take what you will.
The counterargument to the car comparison is that when it comes to licensing, the #1 worry and cause of public concern is completely different between cars and guns. With cars, it is by far unintentional accidents and DUI accidents. Hence the focus on training, restrictions and extra training for models harder to control, and so on.
With guns, its crazy people, terrorists and last but in terms of scale of damage absolutely not least, criminals of common and organized kinds shooting at their victims, or quite often, other criminals. Accidents are a very small portion of the total deaths, and some try to also throw in suicides, which massively inflate the number if added into statistics, but that's something that's easiest to push into use of alternative tools instead - after all plenty of people kill themselves even in countries with extremely limited access to guns. Hence mimicking the car regulation approach of focus on accident prevention and more surprisingly, use efficiency training is a solution looking for a problem. Just red tape and extra cost for gun owners, which is something that the gun control would like just on account on that, but unlikely to improve any statistic of concern meaningfully.
The main problem in public narrative is crazy people and crazy terrorists, though in sheer numbers not that big, while the real problem to be addressed is criminals, but that gun control activists&friends of all people won't want to touch even if their lives depend on it(and sometimes they really do), because they would get all sorts of -ists for even thinking it. They tend to have a massive social group overlap with the same people who want to lower/eliminate penalties for minor and not so minor crimes, let the homeless camp on city streets willy nilly, and even talk of abolishing police and prisons.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
"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."
Keep and bear. If you do not have the right to bear it off of your property, you functionally do not have the right to bear arms.
'Shall not be infringed.' Any and all licensing or training requirements are, by definition, an infringement, because they require time and money to 'qualify' to own guns.
The one and only constitutional position on gun ownership and use, is the abolishment of any and all gun control laws, excepting possibly for those which through the 5th amendment apply only to convicted criminals, as that is the only constitutional allowance for removal of a liberty.
You can be pro-gun control, but if you're honest, that also requires amending the constitution to make gun control legal. To claim anything else is to play games with redefining words, at which point the entire constitution means whatever you want it to, and we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of whims.
