Comments on: Retired general: National Guard could help curb Chicago violence

By: Hill60

Hill60 — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:14:42 +0000

^^
I think the Sheeple are in for a big surprise!

By: AZfederalist

AZfederalist — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:06:17 +0000

Will these troops operate under Martial Law? If so all Chicagoans can kiss their civil liberties goodbye.

Hill60 on February 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM

… and Chicagoans will see this as different from what they have now, how?

By: Dusty

Dusty — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:04:24 +0000

Of course the national guard could. The question is whether it should and that question is answered by answering the question whether everything else has been tried.

And the answer to that is no, because the city hasn’t tried letting people exercise their 2nd amendment rights and arm themselves. Until that is tried, then the national guard should not be brought in.

By: Hill60

Hill60 — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:02:06 +0000

How delicious and absurd.

When the National Guard was called out to patrol our borders (here in Arizona, we had Guard troops assisting the BP for a few months) they couldn’t arrest any illegals coming in – will these troops have the authority to make arrests?

Will these troops operate under Martial Law? If so all Chicagoans can kiss their civil liberties goodbye. Under Martial Law, the military can set curfews, detain people without probable cause and they search people and vehicles without probable cause.

The libs had a hissy fit when Arizona passed SB1070, claiming it would authorize the police to “ask for your papers.” This is exactly the sort of thing that happens under Martial Law.

My God, this is crazy.

By: pauljc

pauljc — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:57:28 +0000

Let me speak as a National Guard vet and explain that there is no longer much if any meaningful distinction in state/federal powers when it comes to the NG. When the Federal government needs an NG unit they just put them on Title 10 orders. Simple as that. No input from the state government required. It’s how deployments work.

By: AZfederalist

AZfederalist — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:46:06 +0000

Old Country Boy on February 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Oh, I totally understand that the state National Guards are purely a state function, but still believe their use in cases like this sets a bad precedent for several reasons. First, it is the state using military force to fix a problem created by a local government. Granted Illinois state gun laws aren't much better than Chicago's, but they are somewhat better and it is the Chicago government's draconian gun laws that have created this mess in which the criminals are well armed and the law abiding citizens unarmed sheep. Secondly, if you don't think people on this forum understand the difference, the LIV's are even less likely to understand. Once they become inured to people in military uniforms enforcing the peace, they won't know the difference when real no-kidding federal troops are sent to occupy areas that resist federal encroachment. They have no idea what posse comitatus is, they'd guess it was some old spaghetti western. Finally, it doesn't do anything to advance individual freedom and liberty, but only serves to further repress it.

By: Old Country Boy

Old Country Boy — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:35:03 +0000

The National Guard is a STATE function. As a state function they can be tasked with keeping the peace. However, if it is nationalized, it can’t be used in its “keep the peace” function. Eisenhower did use active regular troops in enforcing the Supreme Court integration decision in Arkansas – which most people think violated posse comitatus. When used by the State, the NG does perform a “milita” function.

I have very little hope left for this country, and that loss of hope is accentuated by the extremely low knowledge of our laws and customs by the so-called “higher information” commenters on Hot Air. Just go up and review the comments and be appalled by the abysmal ignorance of the posters, even the ones I agree with. You all know what you know, but you don’t have any idea of what you don’t know and that is dangerous. If you want to know about posse comitatus (which does not apply to non-federalized National Guard) I suggest you go find a veteran or lawyer and have it explained to you.

By the way, even the Navy has to have a coastguards man with enforcement authority on board to make arrests.

By: AZfederalist

AZfederalist — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:00:27 +0000

Would set a very bad precedent. Better that the militia (i.e., armed citizens) be allowed to handle the problem. i.e, allow law abiding citizens in the cesspit known as Chicago to be able to defend themselves. Oh, and tell any of the inevitable “civil rights” lawyers from the perpetual grievance class who come to sue those who do protect themselves to get stuffed and toss them out of court on their backsides so hard they bounce. Twice. Yeah, I realize that’s a really radical concept, but it seems a tad less radical than sending in the National Guard to enforce martial law during peace time and absent a natural disaster.

By: jnelchef

jnelchef — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:58:28 +0000

With plenty of ammo and loose ROE's, he may be right. "Rule 303"

By: davidk

davidk — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:47:00 +0000

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

Dear CO Democrats: think of a gun as a rape whistle that makes the RAPIST urinate.