"Will ex-military 'Patriots' form a more dangerous kind of militias?"

[Athan]

Well you all can say that finally the government is beginning to fear the people. Ha.
What a bunch of b.s. fear mongering this whole spectacle is. I can't tell if they are scaring people or themselves.

 

[silverhawks]

A failure to perceive who the domestic enemy is.

And I'll also add that I was labeled a "bigot" and "conspiracy theorist" for arguing against wishing patriots marching on Washington dead. I still have "traitor" and "extremist" to collect. Even so, I feel as if I've earned some kind of RPF scouting badge today.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

The only "Danger" the ex-military militia men could be, based on what I have observed so far, is their unsafe gun handling.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

The only "Danger" the ex-military militia men could be, based on what I have observed so far, is their unsafe gun handling.

Damn dude, nobody can accuse you of being humble

 

[Gideon]

Spoken like a true, ex-military militia man!

The only "Danger" the ex-military militia men could be, based on what I have observed so far, is their unsafe gun handling.

If they were unsafe back then, they are likely to be unsafe now...

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Oathkeepers.

 

[Pericles]

Google one word:


Freikorps

+1

I think you see two imperatives at work. (A) Maintain public order - which is why some think vets won't do anything - as this would seem to be supportive of law enforcement actions. This concept of public order means preventing murder, rape, and theft, not blind obedience. (B) Loyalty to the Constitution which we swore to do. It won't be a good day to be an enemy of freedom and individual rights (the purpose of a legitimate government), when the citizens won't take any more abuse.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

+1

I think you see two imperatives at work. (A) Maintain public order - which is why some think vets won't do anything - as this would seem to be supportive of law enforcement actions. This concept of public order means preventing murder, rape, and theft, not blind obedience. (B) Loyalty to the Constitution which we swore to do. It won't be a good day to be an enemy of freedom and individual rights (the purpose of a legitimate government), when the citizens won't take any more abuse.

Right now the fake-conservative right is trying to act like they are the victims. The plan is for the fake-liberal left to continue to screw up the country bad enough that people start acting like Germans in 1933.
Of course the fall of the nazis was the expansion of soviet power. But through that timeline millions died (the plutocrats love it when surplus populations get killed off) and the people behind the scenes made fortunes selling the ammo.

The end result for the tyrants is the same thing they desire regardless of whether or not they get a left wing socialist tyranny or a right wing fascist tyranny.

In the end, unless some new state of idealism is reached and people stop being of the sort to easily manipulated (and hence deserving of the horrors they bring on themselves), it will be us dangling on the ends of ropes.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Dangerous to who?
A militia is defensive by nature and definition.

this.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

Will ex-military 'Patriots' form a more dangerous kind of militias?

If a militia of military vets, or mostly military vets is formed it would be dangerous as hell. Dangerous to whom just depends on which people this militia is formed against. To anyone who's read Lt. Col. David Grossman's work, the answer to this question of a 'more dangerous militia' is obvious. To understand the complete and total retardation the words John Amato, or his proxy, spewed within his article, one must simply understand the mindset and capabilities of a modern combat soldier, where this mindset and capabilities came from, and why a trained vet would choose to put these attributes to use against his trainers.

If Amato, or the author of this article, were to read Grossman, he would discover that modern military indoctrination and training has one primary goal. That goal is to strip the recipient from his abhorrence to taking life. Grossman calls this the shooter to non-shooter ratio. As late as the Korean war, most combat soldiers simply would not shoot at their enemy directly. The average soldier, combat trained for that day and age, simply would not take the life of another human being. When one looks at American Civil war records, it's almost obvious. Two platoons of fifty men each would line up to shoot at each other at 50 yards, the technology of the rifled musket allowed accurate fire to hundreds of yards. Yet the conflict of 50 men to 50 men took several dozen volleys to resolve. Given the technology, the range, and assuming every man were a robot who would fire directly upon one another, the average platoon sized conflict would take three volleys to resolve. According to Grossman, the shooter to non-shooter ratio of WWI, WWII, and even back to the Napoleonic wars was 15%. Korea was 60% and Vietnam up until today is 95%. What changed? Was it morality? Was it people? Did people suddenly stop have an abhorrence against taking human life? Was it the training and indoctrination that changed? The latter answer is correct.

In other words, the U.S. Federal Government's training of it's own soldiers (sailors, airmen and Marines (especially), etc.) is what strips these combatants of their abhorrence to killing. U.S. Military indoctrination and training can take a youth from any neck of these United States and teach them to be a shooter. Federal training regiments turn people into killers. Not necessarily cold-hearted, and certainly not remorseless, but U.S. military indoctrination does make a man capable of killing.

The next logical question is, "How is this controlled?" If you take a man, and strip away his natural abhorrence to killing, like a sociopath, how do you then make a tool of that man? The answer is you teach him right from wrong. Military training and indoctrination might be chock full of exercises which strip away a man's normal abhorrence to killing, but at the same time it teaches a man when to kill, and when not to. This process is called disassociation. Modern military professionals are, in fact, trained killers. However, for the protection of the state, and the people, they are taught strict codes of conduct. Due to the nature and diversity of modern service men, these codes of conduct cannot be summarized down to a simple cheat sheet. This is reason why modern military training still includes classes and classes on lawful orders, honor, integrity, ethics and morality. It it is very hard to control a force, such as a man stripped of all natural avoidance of combat, without strengthening the real sense of right from wrong that man has grown up with.


Now we a have a columnist who is concerned because the Federal Government created men who are devoid of any abhorrence to killing, yet have moral and ethical standards which they will fight, and likely take life in the cause of.


In short, The Federal State created and trained men willing to take the life another in support of their duty, mission, friends, and justification as it was seen at the time. Now, this so-called columnist is worried about these very same men becoming an enemy of the State based on moral grounds? Maybe this columnist should re-examine his moral grounds before he makes enemies.

The answer is no.

Historically they are least likely to rebel, the lone exception is the http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htmThe Battle of Athens

Perhaps you are forgetting the American Civil War wherein nearly half of the U.S. Military and a considerable populace from the Officer's Corp's defected.

It takes time and reflection to be de-programmed.

You do not go from saluting authority to rejectng it without a lor of precious time.

You have no idea.

In the mean time, why don't you not worry about which authority the troops are saluting, and appeal more to the sense of whom they should be saluting. Treating veterans as if they were somone's pet to be re-trained generally isn't a good idea. We don't like to be told that we like saluting authority, because we don't, unless said authority is a good officer.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

The video in the article is from a Marine "Oath-Keeper" friend of ours...

It seems to me the chink in the shills armor is to point out that the r3VOLution condemned Bush, well before Obama. The comments indicated that many agreed with the message, as long as it was not directed at Obama, (who hasn't had enough "time")...

First, they ignore you
Then, they laugh at you
Then, they attack you
Then, you win

 

[Pericles]

If a militia of military vets, or mostly military vets is formed it would be dangerous as hell. Dangerous to whom just depends on which people this militia is formed against. To anyone who's read Lt. Col. David Grossman's work, the answer to this question of a 'more dangerous militia' is obvious. To understand the complete and total retardation the words John Amato, or his proxy, spewed within his article, one must simply understand the mindset and capabilities of a modern combat soldier, where this mindset and capabilities came from, and why a trained vet would choose to put these attributes to use against his trainers.

If Amato, or the author of this article, were to read Grossman, he would discover that modern military indoctrination and training has one primary goal. That goal is to strip the recipient from his abhorrence to taking life. Grossman calls this the shooter to non-shooter ratio. As late as the Korean war, most combat soldiers simply would not shoot at their enemy directly. The average soldier, combat trained for that day and age, simply would not take the life of another human being. When one looks at American Civil war records, it's almost obvious. Two platoons of fifty men each would line up to shoot at each other at 50 yards, the technology of the rifled musket allowed accurate fire to hundreds of yards. Yet the conflict of 50 men to 50 men took several dozen volleys to resolve. Given the technology, the range, and assuming every man were a robot who would fire directly upon one another, the average platoon sized conflict would take three volleys to resolve. According to Grossman, the shooter to non-shooter ratio of WWI, WWII, and even back to the Napoleonic wars was 15%. Korea was 60% and Vietnam up until today is 95%. What changed? Was it morality? Was it people? Did people suddenly stop have an abhorrence against taking human life? Was it the training and indoctrination that changed? The latter answer is correct.

In other words, the U.S. Federal Government's training of it's own soldiers (sailors, airmen and Marines (especially), etc.) is what strips these combatants of their abhorrence to killing. U.S. Military indoctrination and training can take a youth from any neck of these United States and teach them to be a shooter. Federal training regiments turn people into killers. Not necessarily cold-hearted, and certainly not remorseless, but U.S. military indoctrination does make a man capable of killing.

The next logical question is, "How is this controlled?" If you take a man, and strip away his natural abhorrence to killing, like a sociopath, how do you then make a tool of that man? The answer is you teach him right from wrong. Military training and indoctrination might be chock full of exercises which strip away a man's normal abhorrence to killing, but at the same time it teaches a man when to kill, and when not to. This process is called disassociation. Modern military professionals are, in fact, trained killers. However, for the protection of the state, and the people, they are taught strict codes of conduct. Due to the nature and diversity of modern service men, these codes of conduct cannot be summarized down to a simple cheat sheet. This is reason why modern military training still includes classes and classes on lawful orders, honor, integrity, ethics and morality. It it is very hard to control a force, such as a man stripped of all natural avoidance of combat, without strengthening the real sense of right from wrong that man has grown up with.


Now we a have a columnist who is concerned because the Federal Government created men who are devoid of any abhorrence to killing, yet have moral and ethical standards which they will fight, and likely take life in the cause of.


In short, The Federal State created and trained men willing to take the life another in support of their duty, mission, friends, and justification as it was seen at the time. Now, this so-called columnist is worried about these very same men becoming an enemy of the State based on moral grounds? Maybe this columnist should re-examine his moral grounds before he makes enemies.



Perhaps you are forgetting the American Civil War wherein nearly half of the U.S. Military and a considerable populace from the Officer's Corp's defected.



You have no idea.

In the mean time, why don't you not worry about which authority the troops are saluting, and appeal more to the sense of whom they should be saluting. Treating veterans as if they were somone's pet to be re-trained generally isn't a good idea. We don't like to be told that we like saluting authority, because we don't, unless said authority is a good officer.

I really don't put any stock in Grossman (http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/SLA_Marshall/Main.htm) who is really trying to build on Men Against Fire. Less than 10% of the Army has the task of "launching bullets". The majority are driving trucks, moving boxes, and turning wrenches. All of this is based on anecdotal evidence - and mine is that the people who "lose it" and can't come back to reality is a small number - the vast majority can turn off and on the "kill reflex" and realize the implications of what they are doing. If I had to generalize, low IQ types are the more probable to have the moral compass lose direction.

Some of the conclusions are just wrong - the Civil War analysis for example. Civil War soldiers carried 40 rounds into action - 20 ready to fire in the top of the cartridge box, and another 20 in 2 packs of 10 rounds each in the bottom of the tins. If you live fire a Civil War musket, you will note that it is really hard to fire more than a dozen rounds without cleaning the musket - the fouling makes it too hard to ram the round down to the breech. Even in a heavy action such as Gettysburg, the Federals averaged firing 30 rounds per man per day. Granted, there were units not engaged, and those heavily engaged, but the idea that a unit stood and fired dozens of rounds at another unit 50 yards away is rubbish.

At Antietam, the 1st Texas took 82% causalties in about 30 minutes - you had 20 rounds because that was the most you were going to fire before the action was settled one way or another.

And another thing - in the pre Civil War Army, about 35% of the officers resigned to become Confederates - few enlisted troops did because that would be desertion - they left when enlistments were up.

 

[muzzled dogg]

no they are gonna help form the constitutional kind

 

[john_anderson_ii]

I really don't put any stock in Grossman.

It doesn't really matter does it. Since Vietnam a majority of returning veterans have put their stock in Grossman whether you do or not.

Where does that leave you and the stock you have placed in Grossman?

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Regarding professional killing men.

Having a code of honor to make sure that "killer" instinct doesn't run rampant among the civilian population is a common theme throughout all civilizations with a powerful warrior class.

Today, modern American Soldiers refer to it as the "Warrior Ethos".

Japanese Samurai called it "Bushido".

Medeival knights called it "Chivalry".

Whatever it is called, it is this code of honor that is what all professional warriors have in common. That their trade is to be practiced only on enemy combatants on the battlefield. Any fighting man who violates that code has no honor. That is why torture of POWs, Pillaging, Theivery, Rape, or murder of the general populace is so abhorred by honorable warriors.

 

[Pericles]

Regarding professional killing men.

Having a code of honor to make sure that "killer" instinct doesn't run rampant among the civilian population is a common theme throughout all civilizations with a powerful warrior class.

Today, modern American Soldiers refer to it as the "Warrior Ethos".

Japanese Samurai called it "Bushido".

Medieval knights called it "Chivalry".

Whatever it is called, it is this code of honor that is what all professional warriors have in common. That their trade is to be practiced only on enemy combatants on the battlefield. Any fighting man who violates that code has no honor. That is why torture of POWs, Pillaging, Thievery, Rape, or murder of the general populace is so abhorred by honorable warriors.

QFT

Grossman has a big problem with selection bias to support his theory. Example - was Whitman a mass murderer because he was a Marine, or was he someone with that characteristic who served in the Marines?

Have a look at mass killers - how many of them had military service and how many of those with military experience had combat arms training and how many of that group actually experienced combat? Society seems to have devised a more effective method of producing sociopaths - Grossman examines the usual suspects (starting with video games), but his methodology of taking the military as a variable is flawed - the question is the impact military service has on those who would not otherwise be kooks.

I think it would be interesting to look at the impact of prisons - that is the real school to learn to be a sociopath.

Taking the Grossman viiew of sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves forward - wolves are social animals and live in packs - keeping the wolves in a pack (prison or for some of you based on your views, the military), keep the wolves under some type of structure that provides a control mechanism. Lose that control and chaos results. This brings us back to the ultimate question as to whether the wolves are born or made.

BTW, the Psych guys at West Point are in the Behavioral Science & Leadership department, and the cadets don't refer to it as the BS department for no reason at all.

 

[Kludge]

Dangerous to who?
A militia is defensive by nature and definition.

^ Where's he been?