Is this a cause for concern?

godot · January 18, 2013, 02:25 PM

When did the 2nd amendment fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20.../panetta-guns/

Much like we have a separation of Church & State, I've always believed that there was some buffer between the military and domestic policy, barring some extreme circumstances.

BGutzman · January 18, 2013, 02:42 PM

The individual military person is heavily restricted in the field of politics. Suffocated to the point of bumper stickers having been at times directed to be removed and other pettiness on the part of some commands. Now just to be fair I do think its wise that the military as a whole has some limits in this arena as they have all the best weapons and history has shown that in other nations the military can and does take over on occasion.. I do not see this being a problem in our military provided we maintain a Constitutional Government.

The soldier asking about the 2A is typical of the fervent belief on our Constitution and Bill of Rights many military people have.. I myself served for the my belief in these documents. Unfortunately we do not teach people the actual history of how and why our rights came into being. Often political leaders do not understand the depths of patriotism in individuals, this is no different in civilian leaders of our military.

These leaders don't understand for many in the military it is our sense of duty to these documents and concepts that cause such selflessness on the battle field and in training.

These leaders don't understand that the lone sailor on a watch on a ship or out in -40 degree weather on the plains isn't just doing it out of some contractual obligation, they are doing it out of belief.

win-lose · January 18, 2013, 03:57 PM

He's appointed.... I expect him to pull the party line. I find the comments section in the link far more concerning. These ivory tower, elitist, pseudo-intellectuals calling for the repealing of the constitution are far more of a concern to me. They don't even realize that is the constitution that allows them to make these statements!!!!!!

NWPilgrim · January 18, 2013, 04:05 PM

Another, "I am a duck hunter so I can speak with authority on civilian gun policies," gun grabber. Does he crawl through the swamps like Kerry does deer hunting? Probably uses his favorite favorite .30-30 over/under shot thingy too.

godot · January 18, 2013, 04:23 PM

I have no problems with individual soldiers saying whatever they want. I think the Secretary of Defense should confine himself to matters that are related to his office. The United States is not a "banana republic" run by the general of the day. Something about this strikes me as just WRONG.

Evan Thomas · January 18, 2013, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godot

I have no problems with individual soldiers saying whatever they want. I think the Secretary of Defense should confine himself to matters that are related to his office.

He was speaking to a group of soldiers, which seems to me to be a task related to his office. One of them asked a question about President Obama's proposals, and he answered it honestly. Should he have declined to comment, or lied about his opinion?

He's a cabinet official, i.e. a member of the current administration. It would be odd if he didn't support his boss.

Willie Sutton · January 18, 2013, 04:54 PM

^^^ and please note that he is NOT in the military... he's a civilian.

The military will, in the end, defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe that the tipping point of defending it against domestic enemies will be reached within the lifetime of some of you youngsters reading this. I fear that this is true, I sincerely do not hope that it is true.

I suspect that it will start with a National Guard at the state level defending a state against federal intrusion into it's soverign powers. We are already seeing the bud of this tree growing in states that are considering laws regarding criminalizing enforcement of new federal gun controls. It's not a far stretch of the imagination to contemplate a governer putting teeth into the defense of his state. History lesson: Use of National Guards to attempt to prevent school integration in the 1960's. Those who forget history are damned to repeat it.

Willie

.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 18, 2013, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Sutton

^^^ and please note that he is NOT in the military... he's a civilian.

But he is in every soldier's (and seaman's, and airman's) direct chain of command. In fact, the SecDef is the number 2 in the chain of command, immediately below the POTUS/CinC himself.

godot · January 18, 2013, 05:49 PM

I kind of doubt the State National Guard would oppose Federal action as they didn't in Little Rock. They actually wound up enforcing the National policy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14080752

For better or worse, I think the state's National Guard is best viewed as an extension of the Federal Government.

Willie Sutton · January 18, 2013, 06:48 PM

But he is in every soldier's (and seaman's, and airman's) direct chain of command. In fact, the SecDef is the number 2 in the chain of command, immediately below the POTUS/CinC himself.

I am well aware of that, as I work within those paradigms professionally. I was addressing the posters previous who were opining on "generals" and what they say.

The good thing about the civil chain of command is that they can be voted out.

Willie

.

January 18, 2013, 02:25 PM	#1
godot Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2004 Posts: 105	Is this a cause for concern? When did the 2nd amendment fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense? http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20.../panetta-guns/ Much like we have a separation of Church & State, I've always believed that there was some buffer between the military and domestic policy, barring some extreme circumstances.

January 18, 2013, 02:42 PM	#2
BGutzman Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: Frozen Tundra Posts: 2,414	The individual military person is heavily restricted in the field of politics. Suffocated to the point of bumper stickers having been at times directed to be removed and other pettiness on the part of some commands. Now just to be fair I do think its wise that the military as a whole has some limits in this arena as they have all the best weapons and history has shown that in other nations the military can and does take over on occasion.. I do not see this being a problem in our military provided we maintain a Constitutional Government. The soldier asking about the 2A is typical of the fervent belief on our Constitution and Bill of Rights many military people have.. I myself served for the my belief in these documents. Unfortunately we do not teach people the actual history of how and why our rights came into being. Often political leaders do not understand the depths of patriotism in individuals, this is no different in civilian leaders of our military. These leaders don't understand for many in the military it is our sense of duty to these documents and concepts that cause such selflessness on the battle field and in training. These leaders don't understand that the lone sailor on a watch on a ship or out in -40 degree weather on the plains isn't just doing it out of some contractual obligation, they are doing it out of belief. __________________ Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; January 18, 2013 at 09:11 PM.

January 18, 2013, 04:54 PM	#7
Willie Sutton Junior member Join Date: January 26, 2012 Posts: 1,066	^^^ and please note that he is NOT in the military... he's a civilian. The military will, in the end, defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe that the tipping point of defending it against domestic enemies will be reached within the lifetime of some of you youngsters reading this. I fear that this is true, I sincerely do not hope that it is true. I suspect that it will start with a National Guard at the state level defending a state against federal intrusion into it's soverign powers. We are already seeing the bud of this tree growing in states that are considering laws regarding criminalizing enforcement of new federal gun controls. It's not a far stretch of the imagination to contemplate a governer putting teeth into the defense of his state. History lesson: Use of National Guards to attempt to prevent school integration in the 1960's. Those who forget history are damned to repeat it. Willie . Last edited by Willie Sutton; January 18, 2013 at 05:01 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 18, 2013, 03:57 PM	#3
win-lose Senior Member Join Date: August 3, 2009 Posts: 509	He's appointed.... I expect him to pull the party line. I find the comments section in the link far more concerning. These ivory tower, elitist, pseudo-intellectuals calling for the repealing of the constitution are far more of a concern to me. They don't even realize that is the constitution that allows them to make these statements!!!!!!

January 18, 2013, 04:05 PM	#4
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	Another, "I am a duck hunter so I can speak with authority on civilian gun policies," gun grabber. Does he crawl through the swamps like Kerry does deer hunting? Probably uses his favorite favorite .30-30 over/under shot thingy too.

January 18, 2013, 04:23 PM	#5
godot Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2004 Posts: 105	I have no problems with individual soldiers saying whatever they want. I think the Secretary of Defense should confine himself to matters that are related to his office. The United States is not a "banana republic" run by the general of the day. Something about this strikes me as just WRONG.

January 18, 2013, 05:49 PM	#9
godot Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2004 Posts: 105	I kind of doubt the State National Guard would oppose Federal action as they didn't in Little Rock. They actually wound up enforcing the National policy. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14080752 For better or worse, I think the state's National Guard is best viewed as an extension of the Federal Government.

January 18, 2013, 06:48 PM	#10
Willie Sutton Junior member Join Date: January 26, 2012 Posts: 1,066	But he is in every soldier's (and seaman's, and airman's) direct chain of command. In fact, the SecDef is the number 2 in the chain of command, immediately below the POTUS/CinC himself. I am well aware of that, as I work within those paradigms professionally. I was addressing the posters previous who were opining on "generals" and what they say. The good thing about the civil chain of command is that they can be voted out. Willie .