Soldiers used to patrol school campuses in Killeen, Texas

[Trooper]

As you need an education in such........

Used with permission of GunCite:

The use of the term "well regulated" within the Federalist Papers was that the population knew its function, was discipline (had character and self control) thus had a wider usage. Frankly most young men today are not well regulated. They lack character and self control. They are not respectful of those over them such as their fathers. We have a society of brats that can not be trusted. We are heading towards slavery.

 

[steveh_131]

Forcing them into government employment will fix that? All hail the state!

We're calling that 'liberty' nowadays.

 

[Trooper]

Perhaps, but PCA is currently the law of land. Until its changes, your argument is non seq.

I will also remind you that there are professional military personnel who are more concerned about pay and career, than that of the public as well.

And it has been modified already to allow the use of National Guard Intel folks to conduct intelligence missions for the police. Also to use the Guard in domestic terrorism.

Frankly the Guard does not even come under the PCA if not paid by Title 10 funds. Thus the modifications allow the Guard to work as paid soldiers in law enforcement.

 

[rambone]

We're calling that 'liberty' nowadays.

 

[88GT]

I think it borders on ridiculous to say that anything the Feds have jammed their nose into has become military jurisdiction.

Illogical conclusion. The Feds have intruded into a lot of things without making it a military issue. Using the military to intrude might make it a military jurisdiction, but again, I fail to see the problem. At least from the "This is what you asked for when you all wanted your children to go to school on someone else's dime."

I know that's not your position, but actions have consequences. It's hard to get upset about the state flexing its muscles in areas it has already claimed jurisdiction over.

Would you take issue with military patrols on government roads? What about government parks? Should we keep a platoon in the post office?

Maybe. We have LE in schools. That doesn't make them little miniature police states, does it? I'm less concerned with the "who" than with the "how."

This is a 10A issue.

No, it's not. Because nobody wants LE to do the job either. The bottom line is that people want what they want but when it comes with strings they have taken a disliking to, they get all bent out of shape about it.

Besides, the federalization of government schools is just around the corner. So it will be a federal jurisdiction soon enough.

 

[rambone]

Using the military to intrude might make it a military jurisdiction, but again, I fail to see the problem.

Maybe someday you will see it.

 

[Survivalcookie]

For those of you who have never been to Killeen or Ft Hood, this where the Ft Hood soldier's children go to school. Without Ft Hood, there would be no town of Killeen.

They are not serving a law enforcement function, they are there as a deterrent. With their children. And other soldier's children.

With all this talk of armed guards in the schools, a steady stream of parents and grandparents in and out of the schools all day would deter lots of evil activity.

we should consider doing the same thing.

lived in Killeen TX in the mid 70's, was a pit. I do not blame the soldiers one bit for protecting their children...I don't know why everyone is so afraid of military members....they are parents and Americans.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Considering that our military volunteers give up a number of their rights in order to serve, I would think that mandatory government servitude would be a negative. Setting aside the forced employment aspect when I could better use my time for my benefit.

Years ago they use to give boys the choice go in the army or go to jail, and many were thankful for the choice...Many men have served their country and never felt force and most made a choice that has benefited them for the rest of their lives.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Who said anything about an official position?

All I'm saying is that it borders on ridiculous for someone to ***** about government protection in government schools. It's also supremely hypocritical.

I would think they were public schools...I do not believe that there are any DOD schools anymore in the US unless maybe very remote locations.

 

[88GT]

Maybe someday you will see it.

Right. Because not agreeing with you means the only logical conclusion is that I can't see it. I see it. I don't give a damn. Not my kids, and quite frankly, I think it's great people are getting what they're asking for.

I would think they were public schools...I do not believe that there are any DOD schools anymore in the US unless maybe very remote locations.

Yes, that's what I said.

 

[KLB]

lived in Killeen TX in the mid 70's, was a pit. I do not blame the soldiers one bit for protecting their children...I don't know why everyone is so afraid of military members....they are parents and Americans.

Agreed. Seems most just ignore the fact that it is their children they are protecting.

 

[Trooper]

Agreed. Seems most just ignore the fact that it is their children they are protecting.

Within the libertarians is a fear of anything that has authority. Government, military, fathers, even G-D. Not all libertarians but it is common. It is the making of one to be godlike, of pushing self over all others. Radical individualism.

It also ignores that most things in life require the help of others. That you have to trust someone. And what we have today, as seen by the fears of the leftwingers as well as from the libertarians, is a fear of anyone and everyone. No one can be trusted thus you can only count on yourself. You can not marry, have children, bond with anyone because no one is worth our trust.

Thus we are seeing the end of the American experiment in freedom.

 

[steveh_131]

Maybe. We have LE in schools. That doesn't make them little miniature police states, does it? I'm less concerned with the "who" than with the "how."

Well..yes. Yes, they really are little miniature police states. But that isn't the issue at hand.

What we are doing is inviting more types of government enforcers into our daily lives. Soon enough we will be conditioned to accept this intrusion as well. It won't be long before folks like yourself will be saying 'Well we use the military to protect our schools...That doesn't make them little boot camps, does it?' This will be used to justify the next intrusion. What will it be? Military checkpoints on the roads? Bus stops?

The government is like a crappy houseguest. Invite them for a short time and they will never leave. They'll just want to take over a new room in your house every month. Let's stop inviting them.

Right. Because not agreeing with you means the only logical conclusion is that I can't see it. I see it. I don't give a damn. Not my kids, and quite frankly, I think it's great people are getting what they're asking for.

I think his point was that in time, you will see the consequences of justifying this sort of stuff play out.

 

[steveh_131]

Agreed. Seems most just ignore the fact that it is their children they are protecting.

I'm not allowed to protect my children with a firearm while they're in a public school, am I? This is completely irrelevant.

Within the libertarians is a fear of anything that has authority. Government, military, fathers, even G-D. Not all libertarians but it is common. It is the making of one to be godlike, of pushing self over all others. Radical individualism.

Perhaps you confuse 'fear' with 'disdain'. We libertarians want this thing called 'liberty', and figures of authority over us are quite the opposite of liberty.

This is not the same as 'making one to be godlike', nor does it mean putting self over all others. One of the responsibilities of liberty is to care for your fellow man, instead of waiting on the government to do so.

And you're foolish to make any silly connections between religious belief and libertarian thought.

Libertarians want freedom. Why don't you?

Thus we are seeing the end of the American experiment in freedom.

You think that libertarians are causing the end of the 'American experiment in freedom'?

 

[Trooper]

I'm not allowed to protect my children with a firearm while they're in a public school, am I? This is completely irrelevant.



Perhaps you confuse 'fear' with 'disdain'. We libertarians want this thing called 'liberty', and figures of authority over us are quite the opposite of liberty.

This is not the same as 'making one to be godlike', nor does it mean putting self over all others. One of the responsibilities of liberty is to care for your fellow man, instead of waiting on the government to do so.

And you're foolish to make any silly connections between religious belief and libertarian thought.

Libertarians want freedom. Why don't you?



You think that libertarians are causing the end of the 'American experiment in freedom'?

No, the fear of everyone else. The lack of trust is ending our freedom.

And caring for your fellow man is a conservative principle, not a libertarian one. Libertarian view is that only caring about yourself is the most important thing. Family, God and community are all evil when compared to being an individual.

 

[88GT]

Well..yes. Yes, they really are little miniature police states. But that isn't the issue at hand.

So private schools with armed security are police states too?

What we are doing is inviting more types of government enforcers into our daily lives. Soon enough we will be conditioned to accept this intrusion as well. It won't be long before folks like yourself will be saying 'Well we use the military to protect our schools...That doesn't make them little boot camps, does it?' This will be used to justify the next intrusion. What will it be? Military checkpoints on the roads? Bus stops?

Folks like me? Pray tell, what exactly is that? You seem to forget that I am among the precious few--here on INGO and IRL--that eschews the government's involvement in my life by NOT sending my children to be indoctrinated within their little proto-prisons. Seems to me I'm one of the few honest enough to have the conversation that perhaps we shouldn't be discussing whether or not this or that armed protection is appropriate but whether or not government schools are the inherent problem?

I do not advocate military or LE security for government schools because I do not advocate government schools. My solution eliminates the need for your solution. But I will not sit on my high horse and pretend it is a moral outrage against the very liberty of the citizenry that a GOVERNMENT entity is utilizing GOVERNMENT resources to protect it. These people ASKED for this when they abdicated their responsibility as parents to the state, be it federal or local. I will not suffer gladly any whining about the increased government role in a government program by those who do nothing but make excuses for their choices to accept some level of government intrusion in education, but complain when it gets beyond their comfort zone.

The government is like a crappy houseguest. Invite them for a short time and they will never leave. They'll just want to take over a new room in your house every month. Let's stop inviting them.

Then eliminate government schools. Otherwise, you need to address your concerns about who is justifying what to the people who continue to perpetuate the government school system and then wonder why their kids can't be protected. I did my part. I refuse to support it. Can't say the same for others.

I think his point was that in time, you will see the consequences of justifying this sort of stuff play out.

No, I'm pretty sure his point was that I can't see it if I don't see it his way. I just happen to have a different take on it, you know, actually having kids and this being more than a mere theoretical discussion for me.

 

[88GT]

Not addressed to me, but I'll answer with my NSHO opinion anyway...

I'm not allowed to protect my children with a firearm while they're in a public school, am I? This is completely irrelevant.

Well, what do you want? Government "free" education or a "guarantee" of safety for your children? I think it's incredibly relevant.

Perhaps you confuse 'fear' with 'disdain'. We libertarians want this thing called 'liberty', and figures of authority over us are quite the opposite of liberty.

This is why I can never muster much respect for self-described libertarians. This belief is as untenable, unrealistic, and illogical as the other utopian belief that people will act in opposition to their own self interest for the sake of the collective every single time. There will always be authority or there will be anarchy. If your version of liberty is anarchy, then I want nothing to do with it.

This is not the same as 'making one to be godlike', nor does it mean putting self over all others. One of the responsibilities of liberty is to care for your fellow man, instead of waiting on the government to do so.

That's kind of funny. I have NO duty to my fellow man beyond what my moral/religious beliefs demand of me. Curious what you would say to someone who had no moral code or religious tenet that demanded of him a concern and care for his fellow man. Would he be an enemy of liberty if he had no conscience to help his neighbor in need? How do you equate a moral code for the individual with a standard for liberty?

He's right though. Libertarianism sets the individual as the supreme sovereign entity. I don't know that I would go as far as "godlike" in my description, but libertarian thought, the political philosophy, has no room for any other consideration except the sovereignty of the individual. If that individual chooses to consider other factors--nation, God, family, friends, strangers--in his personal daily life choices, that's fine. But they can never be considerations in governance lest they be compelling others to live under an authority to which they do not acknowledge. Isn't that why mrjarrel gets his panties in a pinch so often over the "conservatives?"

And you're foolish to make any silly connections between religious belief and libertarian thought.

Didn't you just do that?

 

[steveh_131]

No, the fear of everyone else. The lack of trust is ending our freedom.

Please explain to me how the lack of trust is ending our freedom. You have not yet made a case to explain this.

And caring for your fellow man is a conservative principle, not a libertarian one. Libertarian view is that only caring about yourself is the most important thing. Family, God and community are all evil when compared to being an individual.

No. Seriously? No.

1. Explain how conservatism includes caring for your fellow man.
2. Libertarian view has nothing to do with selfishness and caring only for yourself. Libertarian view limits the government's intervention in caring for each other and leaves it up to the individual.
3. Libertarian view has absolutely no bearing on Family, God or community.

I am starting to understand that you have absolutely no concept of what it means (for most) to be a libertarian.

 

[steveh_131]

So private schools with armed security are police states too?

No. Has nothing to do with the armed security, I was more commenting on the very nature of our public schools.

Folks like me? Pray tell, what exactly is that? You seem to forget that I am among the precious few--here on INGO and IRL--that eschews the government's involvement in my life by NOT sending my children to be indoctrinated within their little proto-prisons. Seems to me I'm one of the few honest enough to have the conversation that perhaps we shouldn't be discussing whether or not this or that armed protection is appropriate but whether or not government schools are the inherent problem?

Now I see what you're saying about the 'real' issue that should be discussed, and I agree completely. Public schools should not exist. I can think of 3 or 4 threads where I've made the same argument. In lieu of abolishing government schools, however, I can still make an argument for or against something that I think is dangerous for our liberty.

When I say 'people like you' I mean good-intentioned people who point to the status quo as evidence that it is a-ok to continue putting government enforcers in our daily lives.

No, I'm pretty sure his point was that I can't see it if I don't see it his way. I just happen to have a different take on it, you know, actually having kids and this being more than a mere theoretical discussion for me.

We'll have to wait for him to comment, then.

Well, what do you want? Government "free" education or a "guarantee" of safety for your children? I think it's incredibly relevant.

Like you, I don't want either. I want the system abolished.

In lieu of that, however, I think there are a lot of viable solutions that don't involve a military presence. Once we open that door, it doesn't close.

This is why I can never muster much respect for self-described libertarians. This belief is as untenable, unrealistic, and illogical as the other utopian belief that people will act in opposition to their own self interest for the sake of the collective every single time. There will always be authority or there will be anarchy. If your version of liberty is anarchy, then I want nothing to do with it.

I agree that there will always be authority. And any wise person will always have a healthy distrust for that authority. As a libertarian, I think that any existence of authority over us should be as minimal as possible. Government should exist to protect our property and protect our liberties. To prevent the initiation of force. When I see that authority expanding, my instinct is to fight against it. Not because I have daddy issues. Because I believe in liberty.

That's kind of funny. I have NO duty to my fellow man beyond what my moral/religious beliefs demand of me. Curious what you would say to someone who had no moral code or religious tenet that demanded of him a concern and care for his fellow man. Would he be an enemy of liberty if he had no conscience to help his neighbor in need? How do you equate a moral code for the individual with a standard for liberty?

I was inserting my own moral code, not as a part of my libertarian beliefs, but in addition to my libertarian beliefs. The purpose of inserting this was to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have no bearing on one another.

He's right though. Libertarianism sets the individual as the supreme sovereign entity.

He's not right. Libertarianism is bound by politics, nothing more. It is not a complete moral code and should not be compared as such.

Didn't you just do that?

No.

 

[Trooper]

Please explain to me how the lack of trust is ending our freedom. You have not yet made a case to explain this.



No. Seriously? No.

1. Explain how conservatism includes caring for your fellow man.
2. Libertarian view has nothing to do with selfishness and caring only for yourself. Libertarian view limits the government's intervention in caring for each other and leaves it up to the individual.
3. Libertarian view has absolutely no bearing on Family, God or community.

I am starting to understand that you have absolutely no concept of what it means (for most) to be a libertarian.

If people do not trust a teacher with a gun then why do they trust their children to said teachers? If it is assumed that everyone is mentally ill, which is one of the big arguements from the left, then who do you trust?

A complex society such as ours is dependent on trust. We trust that food will be delivered, that fuel will come. We trust that lots of things get done so that we do not have to do these things. If no one is worth our trust then society breaks apart.

Ever notice that often many young mothers have huge trust issues? Every man is looked at as a possible predator. Can a society survive if there is no trust? What happens if we no longer trust the system to count votes? BTW, most of these trust issues are on the left.

As for libertarians, most that I have met tend to avoid all people. They hate G-D, they hate their fathers, and could not live peacefully with another person (often divorced). They value being an individual over faith or family. They want to answer to no one. I have met very few self labeled libertarians who do not act like this.

Those libertarians who are simply wanting less government often tend to be better educated. But they are in the minority.