Soldiers used to patrol school campuses in Killeen, Texas

[SerereWarrior]

I find soldiers acting in a law enforcement environment to be a bit disturbing. As a veteran I realize soldiers aren't trained to enforce laws. I also see this as a symptom of the citizenry giving up and allowing the police state to flourish.

 

[steveh_131]

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.

Well. I'm not sure what to make of this. I doubt many here would say that they trust much of anyone or anything. We carry firearms because we don't trust. We stock food and ammunition because we don't trust. I basically don't agree with anything you just said.

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.

Again...I don't agree with any of this. I don't even think it's true of the majority of the libertarians on this board.

You have a tendency to make grand statements of fact with absolutely no evidence or even reasoning to back it up.

I am a self proclaimed libertarian, I love God, I love my dad. I'm married. I value my family and faith over my libertarian political stances.

I am in the minority? Prove it.

 

[level.eleven]

Daddy issues? Trooper always delivers. This whole thread delivers. Close all public schools say the homeschoolers after a rousing lecture about people only acting in self-interest. Prisons! Indoctrination!!!! Feminists!!!!

 

[steveh_131]

Daddy issues? Trooper always delivers. This whole thread delivers. Close all public schools say the homeschoolers after a rousing lecture about people only acting in self-interest. Prisons! Indoctrination!!!! Feminists!!!!

Your face delivers.

 

[rambone]

Daddy issues? Trooper always delivers. This whole thread delivers. Close all public schools say the homeschoolers after a rousing lecture about people only acting in self-interest. Prisons! Indoctrination!!!! Feminists!!!!

+1
The logical conclusion of the existance of public schools is martial law! You asked for it! Also, ANARCHY!!! Daddy didn't love me!! Lolz

Happy new year ingo!

 

[steveh_131]

 

[88GT]

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.

Fine, but it's a wag the dog issue. It's missing the entire point to argue against a government-paid security team if you're still going to subordinate your rights as a parent to the school. I guess my point is why do some people think there's a line between them? Why is one bad and the other not? I don't see a line. The courts have ruled consistently for the last 20 years that the parents' authority about school matters is extremely limited. So why all of a sudden are people up in arms, pardon the pun, about how those schools are considering addressing security issues?

This is just an extension of the existence of government schools. It's not a new issue. It's not a separate issue.

You cannot create a solution that doesn't involve the government in a government school.

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.

I didn't say it was okay. I said it was a natural consequence of people cherry-picking when and where they DO want government in their lives. And I don't feel the least bit sorry for those that refuse to side with liberty on the school issue and are forced to face the evil side of that little perq.

If people don't want government in their lives, then they should stop sending their kids to government schools. I see a lot of *****ing on INGO about LE or military used as security, but nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that for 180+ days a year, about 3/4 of the parents (probably higher but I'm playing it conservative) on INGO INVITE the government into their lives. And I'm supposed to believe that they really have this major concern about how who administers those schools and how?

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

I won't hold my breath. It's not a trait of the passive aggressive.

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.

What's the difference between government control of your children by a teacher who still answers to the government and government security of the building your children are in by a soldier/LEO who still answers to the government? Degree is about the only thing I can see.

I just can't get passed the hypocrisy of whining about government control over government resources. What do people expect?

This is what you get. I'm not conjuring this crap out of thin air. I'm not making a bunch of conclusions that have no basis in reality. We're talking about government schools. And people can't understand why there isn't some liberty-loving, freedom-defending solution being considered when it comes to the security of the children within their authority?

I can see I'm being made to be the crazy homeschooler, but I'll be damned if I can understand the "I wanna screw the whore but can't figure out why I got the clap" mentality. Who in his right mind thought a GOVERNMENT school (honestly, just think about that for a minute, is there anything else administered/performed by the government that has approval in these parts?) was a good idea that didn't come with the BS and tyranny known to be associated with the government?

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.

Accepted. That point was not clear in your post.

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.

What I said has nothing to do with a moral code. As a political philosophy, libertarianism is premised on the sovereignty of the individual. The group does not exist. The collective does not exist. Government exists, as you as stated, for one purpose, but it is not separate nor above the individual. The only political entity of import in libertarianism is the individual. He may not have put a precise spin on it, but he was absolutely correct in that libertarianism values the the individual and nothing more.

 

[steveh_131]

You cannot create a solution that doesn't involve the government in a government school.

I agree completely, but we can create solutions that don't push even the current boundaries of militarization that we currently enjoy.

I didn't say it was okay. I said it was a natural consequence of people cherry-picking when and where they DO want government in their lives. And I don't feel the least bit sorry for those that refuse to side with liberty on the school issue and are forced to face the evil side of that little perq.

Agreed, 100%.

If people don't want government in their lives, then they should stop sending their kids to government schools. I see a lot of *****ing on INGO about LE or military used as security, but nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that for 180+ days a year, about 3/4 of the parents (probably higher but I'm playing it conservative) on INGO INVITE the government into their lives. And I'm supposed to believe that they really have this major concern about how who administers those schools and how?

Agreed, 95%. Let's keep in mind that some parents may face serious problems trying to homeschool their children, and the very existence of public schools creates a monopoly that strangles out any possibility of reasonably priced private education for their children.

What's the difference between government control of your children by a teacher who still answers to the government and government security of the building your children are in by a soldier/LEO who still answers to the government? Degree is about the only thing I can see.

It's all a matter of degree. I'm with you there. We're going to have government intrusion along with the government schools that almost everyone supports. But on the spectrum between liberty and tyranny...I'd like to keep it just as close to liberty as I possibly can.

Accepted. That point was not clear in your post.

No, it wasn't. It was only clear in my head

What I said has nothing to do with a moral code. As a political philosophy, libertarianism is premised on the sovereignty of the individual. The group does not exist. The collective does not exist. Government exists, as you as stated, for one purpose, but it is not separate nor above the individual. The only political entity of import in libertarianism is the individual. He may not have put a precise spin on it, but he was absolutely correct in that libertarianism values the the individual and nothing more.

Yes, libertarianism values the individual and nothing more. That does not mean that libertarians value the individual and nothing more. This is what trooper is trying to imply, and it's completely absurd.

 

[rambone]

I can see I'm being made to be the crazy homeschooler, but I'll be damned if I can understand the "I wanna screw the whore but can't figure out why I got the clap" mentality. Who in his right mind thought a GOVERNMENT school (honestly, just think about that for a minute, is there anything else administered/performed by the government that has approval in these parts?) was a good idea that didn't come with the BS and tyranny known to be associated with the government?

88gt, I agree with you that in a perfect utopia we wouldn't have compulsory government-run schools. In the meantime, I think government jurisdiction should be as restricted and localized as possible. A locally-run school regulating itself is far better than a federally-regulated school policed by soldiers.

The issue of who will do the policing reaches far beyond public schools, don't you think? Unless you no longer see the difference between an armed teacher, versus an armed sheriff's deputy, versus an armed Federal agent, versus an armed soldier? Does jurisdiction and enumerated powers play into your argument? Does the military roaming the streets for criminals bother you? Maybe society asked for it, when it asked for a government to exist to stop criminals? Have you gone full anarchist on us, unwilling to even entertain the idea of working within the system for better solutions?

 

[Survivalcookie]

I went to John Marshall HS in the early 70's armed cops were nothing in school after a race riot. Why not use the military to guard school. Most military would love to have duty station protecting kids. Saves money because they are already being paid. And most kids would think it is really cool.

 

[steveh_131]

Why not use the military to guard school.

Why not use the military to guard post offices?

Why not use the military to man sobriety checkpoints?

Why not use the military to guard bus stops?

Why not use the military to arrest domestic criminals?

Why not use the military to detain protesters?

 

[level.eleven]

False dilemma. Just because society has a need for public schools doesn't mean they have to be guarded by the military. The elimination of any middle ground is a classic fallacy. The scenario, most certainly, isn't hypocritical.

 

[poptab]

I went to John Marshall HS in the early 70's armed cops were nothing in school after a race riot. Why not use the military to guard school. Most military would love to have duty station protecting kids. Saves money because they are already being paid. And most kids would think it is really cool.

Kent State.


this thread is depressing.

 

[ATOMonkey]

IMO, there is a big difference between a parent, and that same person in uniform operating within the chain of command.

 

[Trooper]

What is wrong with using soldiers? What training does a police have that is any more professional? I have legal classes in the military. Classes on dealing with civilians (civil affairs). Humanitarian aid training. CLF is basically EMT training which has replaced traditional First Aid training. Had classes in constitutional law, to include rules of searches. I doubt that there is anything that a cop is trained in that I have not been as well.

And what would keep the states from putting National Guard officers and NCOs through the state police academy? Then giving them state badges and credentials?

Many European countries use the military as police. National Guard in Spain. The Carabinieri in Italy (Carabinieri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) are the national police and have had draftees in their ranks. Gendarmerie is the idea of using military police as a civilian police Gendarmerie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in France and over 20 other countries.

It has a long standing use. Wouldn't you rather that the police were your sons and daughters than having an elite warrior class which our police have become?

 

[steveh_131]

What is wrong with using soldiers? What training does a police have that is any more professional?

You are missing the point. It's not about training. It's not about the individual soldier. I think if the school wanted to hire a couple of ex-marines or something to guard the place, none of us would have an issue with it.

ATOMonkey nailed it. The real issue is the precedent of having uniformed members of the military participating in civilian life in authoritative positions. It is a bad precedent to set. It's already happening too much and we need to reign it in as much as possible.

 

[rambone]

You are missing the point.

I don't think so. Trooper likes centralized European governments that use the military on their own people, and force citizens into involuntary servitude to the state.

 

[McKinney19D]

After 8 pages I didn't notice anyone post this about the article - "At S.C. Lee Junior High School, members of its adopted unit, the 62nd Signal Battalion, have been on hand to help staff and students."

Just saying. I wouldn't be shaking in my boots when the Microsoft help desk soldiers started patrolling schools. They're great guys and gals. Helped us a ton overseas with IT and comms....but these are John Rambos mixed with Kent State.

Until there is actual infantry/cavalry/tanker/arty/mp/ranger/Rambo/MaGruber patrolling more than 1 college campus, I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep.

 

[Trooper]

You are missing the point. It's not about training. It's not about the individual soldier. I think if the school wanted to hire a couple of ex-marines or something to guard the place, none of us would have an issue with it.

ATOMonkey nailed it. The real issue is the precedent of having uniformed members of the military participating in civilian life in authoritative positions. It is a bad precedent to set. It's already happening too much and we need to reign it in as much as possible.

The Guard is not "military" in the federal sense. The Marines are.

I think that we should have everyone required to be either police reserves, National Guard or volunteer fire fighters. Get rid of the professionals and have the citizens defend their own communities. In fact it should be state law that every police and fire department be required to have a reserve force of part time people.

As for European countries, remember that most of those "countries" are smaller than many of our states. Only Europe is equal to us in size or population. There is no one European miltiary or police force that controls the whole continent. Thus one federal police force, or federal military, would not even be the question.

Our police are a para military force. Thus using the Guard as police would not be all that deferrent, especially if the Guard were to only be used as part timers and had to return to their civilian jobs. Too often the professionals are out of touch with the rest of us.

 

[Trooper]

After 8 pages I didn't notice anyone post this about the article - "At S.C. Lee Junior High School, members of its adopted unit, the 62nd Signal Battalion, have been on hand to help staff and students."

Just saying. I wouldn't be shaking in my boots when the Microsoft help desk soldiers started patrolling schools. They're great guys and gals. Helped us a ton overseas with IT and comms....but these are John Rambos mixed with Kent State.

Until there is actual infantry/cavalry/tanker/arty/mp/ranger/Rambo/MaGruber patrolling more than 1 college campus, I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep.

We might want to get rid of the support functions within the military. Or move all logistics (supplies, maintenance, IT, commo) over to the Navy and Naval Reserves. Let the Army and Marines be pure combat forces (infantry and MPs).