U.S. Soldiers now raiding U.S. gun shops

[ocsdor]

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

Which one will you end up being?

 

[jeremy]

Beat me to it. The Nazis got away with so much of what they did because so few had the guts to speak out/stand up against it.

I suppose you are a Scholar on Germany and the Nazi Movement?!

 

[jeremy]

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

Which one will you end up being?

Depends on if I get to choose before you or after...

 

[jeremy]

I agree that they were serving warrants for stolen military property. I hope they don't plan on making it a habit though.

I as well...

I do not like thieves...

 

[ocsdor]

I suppose you are a Scholar on Germany and the Nazi Movement?!

Can't attack the message, so let's attack the messenger.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I think there are more than a few people in here who are really missing the point.

There was a theft of Air Force property, more than likely on an Air Force Base on Air Force property.

"Since it happened on a Military base first and foremost the agency that has jurisdiction is AFOIS.

It's their baby, other agencies get to play follow the leader unless it takes a different turn and then there is a hand off."

The above was a exact quote from a longtime friend who just retired after 30 years of service in the Air Force and had a working experience with AFOSI.

So AFOSI which was brought into existence on August 1, 1948 (no newcomer) has been investigating crimes and threats related to the Air Force for over 63 years.

So to me this is not a Alphabet Agency, they're the Air Force's law enforcement division that get's to play with bigger and better toys.

 

[HICKMAN]

Can't attack the message, so let's attack the messenger.

the message was wrong... soldiers did not invade a gun store.

 

[Expat]

Can't attack the message, so let's attack the messenger.

A little quick to play the martyr card after using the Nazi reference. Come on man, there is a rhythm to these things.

Seriously ever watch NCIS?

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

I think that it is reasonable that the air force law enforcement would be involved in the investigation.

 

[steveh_131]

the message was wrong... soldiers did not invade a gun store.

Definition of SOLDIER

1
a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
b : an enlisted man or woman
c : a skilled warrior

They're soldiers, according to webster. STFU about it, you're just being obnoxious.

The real point here is that many of us don't think that members of any military branch should be officially allowed to police U.S. citizens. I don't particularly care if it's "legal", and I don't care when this agency was formed.

This investigation should have been conducted as if it was a theft from any other person in the nation. A search warrant should have been issued, local law enforcement should have confiscated the items, and the air force should have then been allowed to identity the items.

None of you have provided a single good reason why this essential boundary between military and local law should have been breached unnecessarily.

 

[jsgolfman]

If the Air Force agents were not performing law enforcement duties, I don't see an issue here.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So we fought against German civilians in WW2 and English Subjects invaded the Colonies? They couldn't have been soldiers because neither were a part of the "US Army, Army Reserve and National Guard." I'm not the dictator of terms, but to me, ground troops equals soldiers. Airmen = troops who are in the air. When an "airman" lands on the ground, picks up a rifle, and raids a store, he is no longer an "airman", since he no longer has anything to do with the air, he's a soldier, or ground troop. It doesn't matter to me if you came from a boat or a plane. I like organzied sections and defined terms, which is why I'm picky about this. If they dropped a bomb on the gun store, I'd be fine calling them "airmen." But they raided it, on the ground.

Since you're obviously NOT a serving member of the Armed Forces, it doesn't matter what you think about how those who've served and are serving choose to define ourselves and our Service. Neither does your lack of service bar you from choosing your own definition of our Service. But if you choose to use different definitions than ours, expect to be corrected by those more informed than you - repeatedly.

That's funny, I know someone who works for his fire department as a paramedic. I don't think he would be insulted if I called him either/or, because he is.

That is because in most cases, he IS both at the same time. The same isn't true for military personnel. And the terms "firefighter" and "paramedic" are relatively MUCH newer than most military monikers, with the exception of aviation-related designations.

I didn't respond the first time, because that isn't my fight here. My argument is about calling a spade a spade. I don't care if what they did was legal or not, seeing as how I believe their partners in this, ATF, FBI, are actually illegal to begin with, I wouldn't know where to start. My gripe is that some of you guys have a bias when it comes to the Feds, who pay the military, which employed several of you. When the Feds really do start busting gun stores, and not because military hardware was stolen, I want to be clear with everyone that I consider the (insert any Fed agency dressed as soldiers) to be soldiers. Soldiers implies a war is going on, which sane people aren't comfortable with, so they avoid that term to their own detriment. The Feds want our means of defense and at their first opportunity, they will grab for them.

I think our bias is more that YOU and some others seem to think that there are NO legitimate functions of government to be performed, and that military personnel, BECAUSE they work for the government, are just naturally going to be slavishly approving of whatever the government decides to do. That we may argue against some of your rants doesn't mean that we approve of everything the government does. That we are here on the 2nd Amendment Forum discussing Second Amendment issues is proof of that.

By the time that happens, I'd like the debate to be settled. The last thing we need during that time is a bunch of ex-military guys getting butt hurt about people like Rambone or myself "misusing" the term "soldier" or "troop".

If you found something wrong with Rambone's research, or lack of research, then stick to that. I think it's wrong to call him an idiot (like Silverado did) because he called a soldier a soldier. I think it's false to say that he is part of the problem. Most INGOers hold Dan Coats in higher regard, and he directly voted to steal your freedom. That's where you guys lose me.

Maybe the real problem with the country is that we have too many forums, and too much time on our hands, so we argue about what a soldier is instead of constantly screaming at our elected representatives about how stupid their decisions are.

Well, you aren't close enough to hand to slap you upside the head when you misname us, so we have to settle for correcting you, in various ways. If you don't want your rant message to get lost in side issues, perhaps you should consider using the correct terminology for the audience you want to reach. Then we'll choose some other avenue to drift off topic, based on the way I've seen most of these threads go.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

They're soldiers, according to webster. STFU about it, you're just being obnoxious.

The real point here is that many of us don't think that members of any military branch should be officially allowed to police U.S. citizens. I don't particularly care if it's "legal", and I don't care when this agency was formed.

This investigation should have been conducted as if it was a theft from any other person in the nation. A search warrant should have been issued, local law enforcement should have confiscated the items, and the air force should have then been allowed to identity the items.

None of you have provided a single good reason why this essential boundary between military and local law should have been breached unnecessarily.

Webster wasn't a military type, so I suspect he didn't have the same perspective as most of us modern military types. Since it's our avocation or profession being talked about, don't tell us to STFU. *****.

Whether many of you don't think that members of any military branch should be officially allowed to police U.S. citizens or don't particularly care if it's "legal" doesn't really matter. It's federal law. If you want it changed, work to get it changed. However, you won't convince ME with any of the non-arguments you've used so far.

I suspect you have no idea what steps were taken to comply with the law in the investigation and conduct of this case. Certainly you can't rely on news media for an accurate story. While this is a two-edged sword, you are reasoning from your particular dislike of this situation, not demonstrating why this is particularly wrong.

The only "essential boundary" between civilians and military is that the U.S. Military is subject to civilian command and control. That's the way it has been from the founding of the country and the way it remains today. Each military person takes an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"; what that oath means to each individual is a personal issue. The main defense of civilians against the military has always been the right to keep and bear arms, and no one here disputes that. But authorized federal agents conducting authorized law enforcement actions doesn't constitute a "breach" of any "essential" boundary.

 

[Cwood]

If the Air Force agents were not performing law enforcement duties, I don't see an issue here.

Ah but the AF Agents are Federal Law Enforcement Officers with the same police powers as the FBI but they only deal with AF criminal matters.

 

[HICKMAN]

They're soldiers, according to webster. STFU about it, you're just being obnoxious.

No... I am not.

I EARNED the title you toss around like another word.

As did my:

Father
Brother
Wife
Uncles
Cousins
Friends

and oldest SON who recently enslisted.

I will honor my enlistment oath to uphold and defend until the day I die.

 

[steveh_131]

Webster wasn't a military type, so I suspect he didn't have the same perspective as most of us modern military types. Since it's our avocation or profession being talked about, don't tell us to STFU. *****.

"Soldier" is a word. It is being used by it's correct definition. I don't particularly care about your jargon, but if it makes you feel elite, then knock yourself out. Nevertheless, it is NOT a relevant part of this discussion, it is simply members of the military attempting to point out how superior they are to the rest of us.

Whether many of you don't think that members of any military branch should be officially allowed to police U.S. citizens or don't particularly care if it's "legal" doesn't really matter. It's federal law. If you want it changed, work to get it changed. However, you won't convince ME with any of the non-arguments you've used so far.

I think it should be changed. That's my point. That's Rambone's point. This is a forum full of people expressing their opinions and I just expressed mine. Is that ok with you? Or do I need to present you with a list of all the things I personally do to change federal laws before I am allowed to express my opinion?

If my property was stolen, would I be allowed to strap up my HiPoints and join in on the raid to recover it? No? Then neither should the Air Force.

It was not necessary for them to be there. Period.

 

[steveh_131]

No... I am not.

I EARNED the title you toss around like another word.

As did my:

Father
Brother
Wife
Uncles
Cousins
Friends

and oldest SON who recently enslisted.

I will honor my enlistment oath to uphold and defend until the day I die.

I earned the title I have at my job too.

That doesn't mean I crap my britches when they call a train driver an "Engineer".

 

[rambone]

None of you have provided a single good reason why this essential boundary between military and local law should have been breached unnecessarily.

Don't you watch NCIS??

 

[greyhound47]

Lumping our military in with the ATF and DHS is just moronic. Tin hats will never get anywhere if they think bashing "ex-military" guys is a good idea.

So quickly they forget.......I do believe these are some NG Troops raiding homes and taking individual's 2nd amendment rights.

Hickman, you going to say "move along, nothing to see here?" or just argue if these are really soldiers?

 

[MTC]

Tin hats will never get anywhere if they think bashing "ex-military" guys is a good idea.

Others have tried to caution him in a more low-key manner, apparently to no avail.

STFU about it, you're just being obnoxious.

No, he doesn't have to STFU and if anything, is exercising self-restraint.

The real point here is that many of us don't think that members of any military branch should be officially allowed to police U.S. citizens. I don't particularly care if it's "legal", and I don't care when this agency was formed.

He might have stuck to that, instead of using a false, misleading or sensationalistic title, or simply changed the thread title to something more accurate that would foster constructive discussion on Posse Comitatus which, presumably, is what he wanted.

Instead of accusing active and former military personnel here of pedantry for pointing out inaccuracies, one might at least consider that such a thread title, when viewed in light of the OP's posting history, is the rough equivalent of posting on a gun owner site something like, "Gunmen robbing stores with assault banana clips."

Well, you aren't close enough to hand to slap you upside the head when you misname us, so we have to settle for correcting you, in various ways. If you don't want your rant message to get lost in side issues, perhaps you should consider using the correct terminology for the audience you want to reach.