Guns

[BobK]

Thats also assuming that those in the military would fight for the gov and not the people. Most people in my unit would not turn their weapons on us citizens.

I think that's a very important point. The people making up the armed forces are themselves US citizens and I think a fair percentage (possibly the majority, especially in the lower ranks) would join the people against the government.

 

[Danoff]

Now your final paragraph I'd agree is more likely to be the case, where people are so subservient all around and so entrenched in their day to day, that they don't realize their rights were slowly eroding beneath them.

...you mean already have been.

 

[HP]

I think that's a very important point. The people making up the armed forces are themselves US citizens and I think a fair percentage (possibly the majority, especially in the lower ranks) would join the people against the government.

They’ll follow orders. Armies been doing that since armies were invented. If a government directs its army against a population it will follow orders, it’s the nature of the beast.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

...you mean already have been.

Yes, I'm actually using are current situation as a reference to demonstrate that, while still talking in a general sense that this could be anyone, not just Americans.

 

[Joey D]

You say this as if the police force and Military are drones, and thus wouldn't actually break away from said government and side with the people. Not all but obviously some, which has been seen with other hostile governments in modern history. Similar to the original revolution.

Now your final paragraph I'd agree is more likely to be the case, where people are so subservient all around and so entrenched in their day to day, that they don't realize their rights were slowly eroding beneath them.

I fully believe the military is made up largely of drones who'll "just follow orders". If they were ordered to shoot civilians, I have no doubt many of them would because the order came down from further up the chain. Even if they didn't agree with it, they are conditioned to obey the chain of command. Would some break off? Absolutely, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be a majority of the military.

The police are similar too, although I'd like to think they're more in tune with what's going on.

I don't trust either group.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I fully believe the military is made up largely of drones who'll "just follow orders". If they were ordered to shoot civilians, I have no doubt many of them would because the order came down from further up the chain. Even if they didn't agree with it, they are conditioned to obey the chain of command. Would some break off? Absolutely, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be a majority of the military.

The police are similar too, although I'd like to think they're more in tune with what's going on.

I don't trust either group.

They aren't conditioned to follow a chain of command they like others are conditioned to understand a skill set and do a set job, I have a brother that is in the Army and he understands that their are limits to what orders matter and don't and so do others. He's told me many stories where he's not adhered to orders because the person giving them was on a power trip in doing such or was giving bad orders.

This stigma of mistrust is an issue but clearly for a different thread. The point is they're not largely made up of drones, many are citizens many believe they are doing a job to protect other citizens and thus it is naturally counter intuitive. Unlike the police where it seems to be day one training that anyone and everyone can be a threat at any time. Which is understandable but only when proper judgement is applied.

 

[BobK]

I fully believe the military is made up largely of drones who'll "just follow orders". If they were ordered to shoot civilians, I have no doubt many of them would because the order came down from further up the chain. Even if they didn't agree with it, they are conditioned to obey the chain of command. Would some break off? Absolutely, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be a majority of the military.

The police are similar too, although I'd like to think they're more in tune with what's going on.

I don't trust either group.

I disagree about them just being drones who'll just follow orders. It's very well established that illegal orders must not be followed and I can see how a rational being would question orders to shoot their own friends and neighbors. As an aside to that, I'd expect that if this does come to pass then soldiers will very likely not be deployed anywhere near their home towns.

 

[Joey D]

They aren't conditioned to follow a chain of command they like others are conditioned to understand a skill set and do a set job, I have a brother that is in the Army and he understands that their are limits to what orders matter and don't and so do others. He's told me many stories where he's not adhered to orders because the person giving them was on a power trip in doing such or was giving bad orders.

This stigma of mistrust is an issue but clearly for a different thread. The point is they're not largely made up of drones, many are citizens many believe they are doing a job to protect other citizens and thus it is naturally counter intuitive. Unlike the police where it seems to be day one training that anyone and everyone can be a threat at any time. Which is understandable but only when proper judgement is applied.

If that's what you believe, then I can respect that. But I still feel that the military is very much a drone force doing exactly what they're told to do. I've worked with and been around enough vets to make me believe this. I can't fault them for it since it's probably their training. However, I've never been to boot camp, so I don't know what their training entails.

And I still firmly believe if Trump (or whoever is president) gave the order to attack US civilians that US military would comply without too much question. This would be even more so if the president gave some half-ass reason to do so, probably something along the lines of national security.

I mean let's not forget Waco. Federal agents and the military laid siege to a compound and ultimately killed US citizens (along with British citizens). It was a weird situation all the way around, but still the US military fired on US civilians.

I disagree about them just being drones who'll just follow orders. It's very well established that illegal orders must not be followed and I can see how a rational being would question orders to shoot their own friends and neighbors. As an aside to that, I'd expect that if this does come to pass then soldiers will very likely not be deployed anywhere near their home towns.

Thing is those orders wouldn't be just kill for no reason. They would probably be seen as a threat to national security or whatever ludicrous thing the government is pushing.

Look at the tariffs, Trump is disregarding the Constitution in the name of national security. I don't see why that line of thinking couldn't be used by a president to institute a tyrannical government.

 

[McLaren]

I think one of the issues is that even though the population may have around 265 million weapons, half are owned by 3% of the population. Not only do I think these people would probably be unwilling to "share" their guns in the event of an uprising, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government was on the brink of turning on its citizens, these folks would be the first to be addressed beforehand along with any dealers that can sell Title II firearms.

 

[Danoff]

They aren't conditioned to follow a chain of command they like others are conditioned to understand a skill set and do a set job, I have a brother that is in the Army and he understands that their are limits to what orders matter and don't and so do others. He's told me many stories where he's not adhered to orders because the person giving them was on a power trip in doing such or was giving bad orders.

This stigma of mistrust is an issue but clearly for a different thread. The point is they're not largely made up of drones, many are citizens many believe they are doing a job to protect other citizens and thus it is naturally counter intuitive. Unlike the police where it seems to be day one training that anyone and everyone can be a threat at any time. Which is understandable but only when proper judgement is applied.

But also... Japanese internment camps:

 

[Rallywagon]

But also... Japanese internment camps:

A. Different time. B. We were at war with Japan, I imagine in such a case it would be an easier order to follow.

If that's what you believe, then I can respect that. But I still feel that the military is very much a drone force doing exactly what they're told to do. I've worked with and been around enough vets to make me believe this. I can't fault them for it since it's probably their training. However, I've never been to boot camp, so I don't know what their training entails.

And I still firmly believe if Trump (or whoever is president) gave the order to attack US civilians that US military would comply without too much question. This would be even more so if the president gave some half-ass reason to do so, probably something along the lines of national security.

I mean let's not forget Waco. Federal agents and the military laid siege to a compound and ultimately killed US citizens (along with British citizens). It was a weird situation all the way around, but still the US military fired on US civilians.



Thing is those orders wouldn't be just kill for no reason. They would probably be seen as a threat to national security or whatever ludicrous thing the government is pushing.

Look at the tariffs, Trump is disregarding the Constitution in the name of national security. I don't see why that line of thinking couldn't be used by a president to institute a tyrannical government.

I disagree with you too an extent. The first is the drone thing. No. Soldiers are no more a drone than anyone else. All of them have a line they wont cross. We're I can agree is that everyone has a different line, and that line probably shifts greatly depending on their ideals and the situation.
Hypothetically speaking. In a scenario that sees Trump trying to rise up as a dictator and somehow has backing in the government. I imagine the overall efforts would look similar to the first civil war. The same states would likely fill out the same ranks. A good deal of the military in CONUS is reserves and national guard. Those would likely join the side they are with. wild card is the all the federal ran units. I know for sure their would be huge divisions in the ranks. But how that would actually play out I can only imagine.

 

[Danoff]

A. Different time. B. We were at war with Japan, I imagine in such a case it would be an easier order to follow.

A) Xenophobia is all the rage today, B) Rounding up US citizens based on their ethnicity, you'd think, should trigger some level of "that's the line I won't cross".

 

[Mr Tree]

I can't fault them for it since it's probably their training. However, I've never been to boot camp, so I don't know what their training entails.

I have never been to bootcamp but I can happily say one of my best friends stopped his military carreer and I'm so happy for that. Finally if we go out we're no longer going out with a person who is hyped up abput anything and wants to make every confrontation physical.

I used to organise parties we've had this troublesome group who alwss came to fight and just for that, they where soldiers. The military brings out the worst in people and just that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If that's what you believe, then I can respect that. But I still feel that the military is very much a drone force doing exactly what they're told to do. I've worked with and been around enough vets to make me believe this. I can't fault them for it since it's probably their training. However, I've never been to boot camp, so I don't know what their training entails.

And I still firmly believe if Trump (or whoever is president) gave the order to attack US civilians that US military would comply without too much question. This would be even more so if the president gave some half-ass reason to do so, probably something along the lines of national security.

I mean let's not forget Waco. Federal agents and the military laid siege to a compound and ultimately killed US citizens (along with British citizens). It was a weird situation all the way around, but still the US military fired on US civilians.

The U.S. Military didn't fire on citizen in Waco. Unless the ATF, FBI and local police forces suddenly became a new military branch during that raid. Again I think you have an issue with departments who have the ability to use force and authority, but are conflating them as being all from the same cut, when in reality police and military training are pretty different. I will agree I think police forces are more of an issue than the military, especially the FBI at times, but as I said they're not all one in the same so let's not treat them as such.


Also I say what I believe from personal experience and first hand experiences. The Military and government branches takes the idea of protecting against thread foreign and domestic seriously. That meaning if a government is tyrannical or autocratic or whatever and people are suffering or dying from it, many of those who took that oath would be against said regime. It's easy to look from the outside in and say these people are drones, because media has done a great job perpetrating that thought. Yet how many veterans have come home speaking out against their government, protested and written detail accounts. Even went as far to leak confidential info. While I'm not saying all of this was right, it does prove a point that people are willing to call out those above when they do wrong even if it means making a massive sacrifice.

What about national security? I doubt it would unfold so easily, I'm actually quite surprised because this is on FEMA death camps and Alex Jones territory of irrational fear. It's like other black people telling me to be safe as a half black man because they think all police officers are out to get us...

It's just not the reality of things.

But also... Japanese internment camps:

We also had segregated troop outfits, rampant racist ideologies and so forth during this time frame. Which I believe played just as big of a role in allowing this than simple fear. Yet this wasn't a simple issue of the U.S. Government saying "these people are bad" the entire nation on a large scale agreed to this, similar to a more modern look with 9/11. Sure it wasn't to this level but people feared anyone that looked arabic/muslim, wore a burka, turban or similar religious and culture items. Being attacked at home and said vulnerability seems to be a catalyst to these situation.

What I'm simply saying is, these same citizens if persecuted beyond their race, religion, or ancestry in today's world were dictated by their government to face a similar situation, I strongly believe the results would be different. People on a large scale are already critical or their elected leaders here on varying degrees. I think while media does a good job of making villains out of those that don't necessarily deserve it, they also do a good job reminding people of what wrongs the government does. Especially when the elected head of state is someone that really don't like.

I think various situation of history are wrong, like the one you showed, not sure what point you are trying to extrapolate with it other than people will allow bad things to feel safe. I'd agree with you on that but that was never my point to begin with.

 

[Joey D]

The U.S. Military didn't fire on citizen in Waco. Unless the ATF, FBI and local police forces suddenly became a new military branch during that raid. Again I think you have an issue with departments who have the ability to use force and authority, but are conflating them as being all from the same cut, when in reality police and military training are pretty different. I will agree I think police forces are more of an issue than the military, especially the FBI at times, but as I said they're not all one in the same so let's not treat them as such.

Fair enough, my memory of Waco isn't the best since I was pretty young so I was wrong on that. Going back and looking, it seems like they just used National Guard helicopters as distractions and borrowed military vehicles for the raid/siege.

And I do have an issue with departments that can use force. I don't trust them to use it appropriately, nor do I trust the government to make decisions.

I also get police and military training are different, but based on experience the outcomes see pretty similar for the people who went through them.

Also I say what I believe from personal experience and first hand experiences. The Military and government branches takes the idea of protecting against thread foreign and domestic seriously. That meaning if a government is tyrannical or autocratic or whatever and people are suffering or dying from it, many of those who took that oath would be against said regime. It's easy to look from the outside in and say these people are drones, because media has done a great job perpetrating that thought. Yet how many veterans have come home speaking out against their government, protested and written detail accounts. Even went as far to leak confidential info. While I'm not saying all of this was right, it does prove a point that people are willing to call out those above when they do wrong even if it means making a massive sacrifice.

I'm basing mine on personal experience too. I've worked with a number of vets in the past and they are all more or less the same. They don't question anything, even when the ideas the boss lays out are horrifically bad and they get on you for breaking the status quo if you do question them. I'm under the impression I was hired in my job to make things run as best as they can, if I think I have a better idea with a valid reason, I'm going to lay it. Not questioning things is not being an engaged employee with the company's best interest at heart.

Are all military people the same? Probably not. But I think a vast majority of them are, but once again that's only based on my experiences. I'm not sure if there's any kind of data on this or not, in a brief Google search I didn't find anything but that doesn't mean it's not there.

What about national security? I doubt it would unfold so easily, I'm actually quite surprised because this is on FEMA death camps and Alex Jones territory of irrational fear. It's like other black people telling me to be safe as a half black man because they think all police officers are out to get us...

It's just not the reality of things.

National security, for me, is just a guise the government uses to violate rights. I mean look at all the things the government can do in the name of national security. Illegal wiretaps, spying on citizens, illegal searches, potentially illegal detention, seizure of money or property, and so on. I don't think it's irrational to be fearful of a government who doesn't really have human rights in its best interest.

If we followed the Constitution to the letter, I don't think I'd have anything to fear. But since we ignore it, I find myself very untrusting of our leaders.

 

[Danoff]

I have never been to bootcamp but I can happily say one of my best friends stopped his military carreer and I'm so happy for that. Finally if we go out we're no longer going out with a person who is hyped up abput anything and wants to make every confrontation physical.

Stopping a military career isn't going to change who he is, and not all military people are bad, and the military doesn't make people bad. Military teaches people how to follow orders, follow the chain of command, and generally enforces discipline to a greater degree than you'll find most places. It doesn't teach people to make every confrontation physical. That being said, it is attractive to people who already had the propensity to make confrontations physical. I think it's a fantastic way for those people to make the most out of their particular predispositions.

Also I say what I believe from personal experience and first hand experiences. The Military and government branches takes the idea of protecting against thread foreign and domestic seriously. That meaning if a government is tyrannical or autocratic or whatever and people are suffering or dying from it, many of those who took that oath would be against said regime. It's easy to look from the outside in and say these people are drones, because media has done a great job perpetrating that thought. Yet how many veterans have come home speaking out against their government, protested and written detail accounts. Even went as far to leak confidential info. While I'm not saying all of this was right, it does prove a point that people are willing to call out those above when they do wrong even if it means making a massive sacrifice.

You have to keep in mind that the president is commander in chief. He is the ultimate in the military chain of command. If factions of the military are stepping out, it is mutiny. I have no doubt that portions of the military would be mutinous under the right circumstances, but it goes against their training - which is first and foremost to follow the chain of command.

We also had segregated troop outfits, rampant racist ideologies and so forth during this time frame. Which I believe played just as big of a role in allowing this than simple fear. Yet this wasn't a simple issue of the U.S. Government saying "these people are bad" the entire nation on a large scale agreed to this, similar to a more modern look with 9/11. Sure it wasn't to this level but people feared anyone that looked arabic/muslim, wore a burka, turban or similar religious and culture items. Being attacked at home and said vulnerability seems to be a catalyst to these situation.

What I'm simply saying is, these same citizens if persecuted beyond their race, religion, or ancestry in today's world were dictated by their government to face a similar situation, I strongly believe the results would be different. People on a large scale are already critical or their elected leaders here on varying degrees. I think while media does a good job of making villains out of those that don't necessarily deserve it, they also do a good job reminding people of what wrongs the government does. Especially when the elected head of state is someone that really don't like.

I think various situation of history are wrong, like the one you showed, not sure what point you are trying to extrapolate with it other than people will allow bad things to feel safe. I'd agree with you on that but that was never my point to begin with.

My point was that people have and will do bad things in the name of security, safety, and the greater good. They do it today, and they have done it in the past. In this country and others. Military personnel do not receive any training in moral philosophy, they're not any better informed about what is right and what is wrong after they join the military than they were before. I don't have some magical trust that they'll rise above their orders any more than I have for anyone else.

 

[Mr Tree]

Stopping a military career isn't going to change who he is, and not all military people are bad, and the military doesn't make people bad. Military teaches people how to follow orders, follow the chain of command, and generally enforces discipline to a greater degree than you'll find most places. It doesn't teach people to make every confrontation physical. That being said, it is attractive to people who already had the propensity to make confrontations physical. I think it's a fantastic way for those people to make the most out of their particular predispositions.



You have to keep in mind that the president is commander in chief. He is the ultimate in the military chain of command. If factions of the military are stepping out, it is mutiny. I have no doubt that portions of the military would be mutinous under the right circumstances, but it goes against their training - which is first and foremost to follow the chain of command.




My point was that people have and will do bad things in the name of security, safety, and the greater good. They do it today, and they have done it in the past. In this country and others. Military personnel do not receive any training in moral philosophy, they're not any better informed about what is right and what is wrong after they join the military than they were before. I don't have some magical trust that they'll rise above their orders any more than I have for anyone else.

Yes being yelled at and scolded at during bootcamp has ko effect whatsoever on the persons enduring it.
Look off coarse it's not so that it makes the ever good guy to become a psychopathic monster. But we could clearly see the diffrence in behavior after bootcamps. When he came back from these bootcamps he was always on edge and had a lot of cropped up feelings ready to pop out at anything that would be the figuratively last drop. Something he no longer has nor had before.

I think the military is a place that's bad for your mental health (i don't know how vetter to describe it). Acting as if how recruits/soldiers are treated under the guise of 'discipline to a greater degree' does nothing to what behavior is considered normal by them and as if it's all due to their charachter is just as unfair as me stating it's the military only.
Not that it holds any ground as argument but it's also very insulting since you simultaniously imply you know my friend better then me plus that he is a especially violent person because otherwise he wouldn't snap.

Edit: I don't thibk the insulting part was your intention. I just wanted to clarify what implications are being made when you claim the military has nothing to do with it.


Edit 2 : I just reread your post. I think I do agree to a certain extend. I do notice a few of my aquintaces going into the military and most of them where physicly confrontational. I'm thinking being surrounded by those people combined with the 'discipline' aspect being yelled at for yellings sake could have some adverse effects on people. I think that's what turned him that way for a while.

I am happy to say that over the last year he didn't have those snaps. And those snaps have always been shortly after 'high intensity' bootcamps. Whoch makes me think it was built up stress that sought it's way out.

I should read a bit more and think a.bit more before replying to your quotes as they do offer perspective and should be thought about fo4 a sec before replying (however easy the concept of our subject is) I'm sorry for that.

 

[Danoff]

Yes being yelled at and scolded at during bootcamp has ko effect whatsoever on the persons enduring it.

If that were true they wouldn't do it.

But we could clearly see the diffrence in behavior after bootcamps. When he came back from these bootcamps he was always on edge and had a lot of cropped up feelings ready to pop out at anything that would be the figuratively last drop. Something he no longer has nor had before.

All I can say is that this is not a trait you'll find in everyone that comes out of bootcamp - I'd hazard to guess that it's not a trait you'll find in most people that come out of bootcamp.

it's also very insulting since you simultaniously imply you know my friend better then me plus that he is a especially violent person because otherwise he wouldn't snap.

I did not imply either of those things. I've known a lot of military personnel, and they don't behave how you describe. But I also know, for certain, that the military is appealing for people who want to fight and kill. That doesn't mean your friend, or everyone in the military, has that propensity. It means that people with that propensity find it appealing.

Police have a similar selection bias.

 

[Mr Tree]

If that were true they wouldn't do it.



All I can say is that this is not a trait you'll find in everyone that comes out of bootcamp - I'd hazard to guess that it's not a trait you'll find in most people that come out of bootcamp.



I did not imply either of those things. I've known a lot of military personnel, and they don't behave how you describe. But I also know, for certain, that the military is appealing for people who want to fight and kill. That doesn't mean your friend, or everyone in the military, has that propensity. It means that people with that propensity find it appealing.

Police have a similar selection bias.

Made a second edit to my precious post. I think that will show I responded to fast to your previous post

Not sure if you'll agree with it. But at least I wanted to make sure you realise I do acknowledge most of what you think/believe.

Also I have to say I do wonder why he responded like after bootcamps. I do still believe it was stressrelief as you seem to have multiple friends in the military maybe you have any thoughts on this.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yes being yelled at and scolded at during bootcamp has ko effect whatsoever on the persons enduring it.
Look off coarse it's not so that it makes the ever good guy to become a psychopathic monster. But we could clearly see the diffrence in behavior after bootcamps. When he came back from these bootcamps he was always on edge and had a lot of cropped up feelings ready to pop out at anything that would be the figuratively last drop. Something he no longer has nor had before.

I think the military is a place that's bad for your mental health (i don't know how vetter to describe it). Acting as if how recruits/soldiers are treated under the guise of 'discipline to a greater degree' does nothing to what behavior is considered normal by them and as if it's all due to their charachter is just as unfair as me stating it's the military only.
Not that it holds any ground as argument but it's also very insulting since you simultaniously imply you know my friend better then me plus that he is a especially violent person because otherwise he wouldn't snap.

Edit: I don't thibk the insulting part was your intention. I just wanted to clarify what implications are being made when you claim the military has nothing to do with it.


Edit 2 : I just reread your post. I think I do agree to a certain extend. I do notice a few of my aquintaces going into the military and most of them where physicly confrontational. I'm thinking being surrounded by those people combined with the 'discipline' aspect being yelled at for yellings sake could have some adverse effects on people. I think that's what turned him that way for a while.

I am happy to say that over the last year he didn't have those snaps. And those snaps have always been shortly after 'high intensity' bootcamps. Whoch makes me think it was built up stress that sought it's way out.

I should read a bit more and think a.bit more before replying to your quotes as they do offer perspective and should be thought about fo4 a sec before replying (however easy the concept of our subject is) I'm sorry for that.

No offense to anyone, but, if you've not been through basic, boot camp or in the military (of which the first two are requirements) then, I dare say you dont have a leg to stand on in terms of deciding how it effects you or your temperament. Each person is different, and thus will react differently to it. Perhaps your friend isnt all that great at handling stress? IDK, but being a soldier is a high stress job, and its important during BCT that recruits are placed into high stress situations so that when they are actually in a war zone, they are conditioned to reacted appropriately or are weeded out so they never make it to a war zone.
But, you, as you seem willing to do in other threads (:cough: white privilege :cough seem to blanket anyone associated with a thing based off very anecdotal evidence. Was your friend ever deployed to a war zone? Cause what your describing sounds like PTSD symptoms caused by things that happened during a deployment. That or your buddy didnt have a mentality that meshed well with the sort of discipline the military instills.
But, that doesnt mean that is indicative of everyone, or even the majority of individuals that have gone through BCT. I mean, by the descriptions I am reading here, you would expect me to come through and rip your eyes put for even thinking of debating me. Yet here am I, calm, happy, and you still have eyes...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Fair enough, my memory of Waco isn't the best since I was pretty young so I was wrong on that. Going back and looking, it seems like they just used National Guard helicopters as distractions and borrowed military vehicles for the raid/siege.

And I do have an issue with departments that can use force. I don't trust them to use it appropriately, nor do I trust the government to make decisions.

I also get police and military training are different, but based on experience the outcomes see pretty similar for the people who went through them

Yes but that is a thing police forces have done for some time, they did it at Ruby Ridge as well and various riots and protests, and then it be came a common thing to purchase surplus military hardware to combat various situations. To me this is quite dangerous because they don't get extensive training at times like the military nor is it their continual job to use such items day to day, be it training or actual real world scenarios. Just one facet of why I find police forces far more dangerous.

I'm basing mine on personal experience too. I've worked with a number of vets in the past and they are all more or less the same. They don't question anything, even when the ideas the boss lays out are horrifically bad and they get on you for breaking the status quo if you do question them. I'm under the impression I was hired in my job to make things run as best as they can, if I think I have a better idea with a valid reason, I'm going to lay it. Not questioning things is not being an engaged employee with the company's best interest at heart.

I've had very different experience in that, as many former and active military went through the University and obtained degrees in applied science or engineering, and questioned quite often. They looked for concise applications of knowledge and due to discipline and so forth tended to be better than the average students, that were more likely to take things for face value and not understand or question them when wrong or confusing.

These people also seemed to have a better understanding of getting internships and research aide jobs because they not only had all the good qualities looked for in a diligent worker (without the fear of "is this your first job ever?"). But also questioning and trying to understand things to a higher level than dictated to them to help better themselves and ultimately the company/group.

Are all military people the same? Probably not. But I think a vast majority of them are, but once again that's only based on my experiences. I'm not sure if there's any kind of data on this or not, in a brief Google search I didn't find anything but that doesn't mean it's not there.

See it's a very big leap to say "the vast majority" may be likely to perpetrate actions on bad orders or orders that conflict with the oath they uphold. As I said I'm sure some will and others will not, I don't know what that line is on how many of one or the other but I find it hard to think it would be as many as you do. So clearly will have to agree to disagree on that portion.

Again we have a list of high profile cases from OCS and Enlisted personnel, contractors being whistleblowers, alerting people. We also have seen reports in the past days of people in the White House taking matters into their own hands to prevent Trump's agenda. People on his side. So to think this can't happen on a larger scale to some people, is what confuses me. These are Federal employees doing what they feel is right and going against a government they see in the wrong. Sure it doesn't happen to the scale some of us would wish but I imagine if the situation were as severe as some of us are giving a hypothetical too, that would change.

National security, for me, is just a guise the government uses to violate rights. I mean look at all the things the government can do in the name of national security. Illegal wiretaps, spying on citizens, illegal searches, potentially illegal detention, seizure of money or property, and so on. I don't think it's irrational to be fearful of a government who doesn't really have human rights in its best interest.

It can be, but there are very many incidences of a threat to national security, one of them will be remembered in a few days time here. I agree that due to such things as Danoff and I said, this creates a fear or enables agendas (due to no fear but power) to enable the more negative effects. Also just a side note it isn't potential illegal detention, it is actual illegal detention. Extraordinary rendition is real and is quite illegal hence why it gets off shored, to skate past this, but that doesn't change the reality of it being illegal.

If we followed the Constitution to the letter, I don't think I'd have anything to fear. But since we ignore it, I find myself very untrusting of our leaders.

Even during the early days the constitution was challenged, I don't think there has been a single time in history it has been followed to the letter, and the problem is that following it to the letter isn't as clear and simple as some would think. If it were we still wouldn't have massive debates on the first two amendments. I think another issue is people don't educate themselves enough on these very very important laws that in reality dictate their lives as citizens. Which in and of itself is just as alarming.

 

[Mr Tree]

No offense to anyone, but, if you've not been through basic, boot camp or in the military (of which the first two are requirements) then, I dare say you dont have a leg to stand on in terms of deciding how it effects you or your temperament. Each person is different, and thus will react differently to it. Perhaps your friend isnt all that great at handling stress? IDK, but being a soldier is a high stress job, and its important during BCT that recruits are placed into high stress situations so that when they are actually in a war zone, they are conditioned to reacted appropriately or are weeded out so they never make it to a war zone.
But, you, as you seem willing to do in other threads (:cough: white privilege :cough seem to blanket anyone associated with a thing based off very anecdotal evidence. Was your friend ever deployed to a war zone? Cause what your describing sounds like PTSD symptoms caused by things that happened during a deployment. That or your buddy didnt have a mentality that meshed well with the sort of discipline the military instills.
But, that doesnt mean that is indicative of everyone, or even the majority of individuals that have gone through BCT. I mean, by the descriptions I am reading here, you would expect me to come through and rip your eyes put for even thinking of debating me. Yet here am I, calm, happy, and you still have eyes...

In the quote in your post I did make it less general and more specific to my friend because indeed anecdotal evidence is not really evidence.
I already agreed with @Danoff that it's not how all people respond to this training.
I'm also not a good.enough english speaker to understand the term 'blanketing someone'. Could you explain and tell me who I blanketed and how?

Yes I had a knee jerk reaction, that's an issue I have a failure on my part I'm happy to admit. But I am working on this, which seems to be a hard thing for me. I'm fully ok with being called out on it as @Danoff kinda did. I do like to get the specific instance so I can see where and why I went in the wrong.

Also I didn't take anything you wrote in a bad way I just want to improve on communication/reasoning issues that's why I'm asking for the specific instance and to explain the expression.

 

[Rallywagon]

A blanket statement is one that encompasses a group. IE people in the military are roid raging psychos.

 

[baldgye]

A blanket statement is one that encompasses a group. IE people in the military are roid raging psychos.

Or, Americans are naturally more violent

 

[Rallywagon]

Or Americans are obese

 

[ryzno]

Or, Americans are naturally more violent

But we are! /s

 

[Johnnypenso]

But we are! /s

Is it nature or nurture?

 

[Mr Tree]

A blanket statement is one that encompasses a group. IE people in the military are roid raging psychos.

Ooh I have to reread the white priveledge thread then to search my mistake.
I didn't realise you meant a a blanket statement

And I really didn't want to say all military personal is or that a majority is. I did mean however that I think those people are attracted to military and alike jobs.

I'm sorry if I have offended you as a soldier or veteran.

 

[Imari]

A. Different time.

I suspect that if push were to come to shove, you'd find that it wasn't such a different time at all. Given current treatment of immigrants I don't think it would surprise anyone if certain groups of people were to be forced into camps were war to break out. It's not exactly a huge leap from current policy.

The US may have shifted away from certain types of racism, but it hasn't really shifted away from a general "us vs. them" type of mindset. It might not be blacks or Japanese, but there are still groups within the society that I could see there being a big push to lock up were there to be serious conflict going on.

This is a big part of what got Trump elected, there's a significant proportion of Americans that feel under threat by the "other" within their own country. That's exactly the sort of environment in which you get internment camps and such. There may have been a period where that sort of thing was less likely in the US, but I'd argue that right now in 2018 it's almost exactly the same sort of time.

 

[Danoff]

There may have been a period where that sort of thing was less likely in the US, but I'd argue that right now in 2018 it's almost exactly the same sort of time.

In some ways it's better (less rampant racism, or socially tolerated racism). But in some ways it's much much worse. People have gotten significantly better at dehumunizing their fellow man over... issues... rather than intrinsic values like race, or something like religion, where the judge is not necessarily you. Some trump supporters were violently attacked after the election for voting for the wrong person.

I can totally see rampant state-sponsored and supported violence such as internment camps for the crime of having refused to comply with a rule that people think is for the greater good. For example, suppose our country decides to ban guns. Guns are in the hands of citizens precisely to protect them against tyrannical government, so presumably people would use them against their government. Do we think the military would mutiny over that? I don't.