Dakota Meyer on Jocko Podcast.

[Averageman]

That's just the military's treat you like a 5yo, group punishment, so higher-ups can cover their asses type of thing. That's just how the military was, is, and probably always will be. I'm sure the tip-of-the-spear guys don' have to endure that adolescent treatment but then again they did at some point in their career before they went higher on the food chain.

On more than one occasion, a good Soldier has gotten a wild hair and
Beat his Wife.
Got a DUI.
Got in a shoot Out.
Drank way to much and did .....
That's okay, I expect that in a high testosterone environment. What I don't expect is a law suit and a Congressional Investigation, but that's what I got.
What was the first question I was asked?
"Did you administer a Safety Briefing to your Soldiers?"

And you ask why, well, Mom's feelings are hurt and she can't believe her Son was doing "X" when he, died, was shot, or got caught hot on a piss test.
I can appreciate that, but really? You ask why?
Because everything in your society is geared upon a total lack of personal responsibility and when that all goes to hell, get a Lawyer.
Sorry that's just the way it works.

[TomMcC]

More difficult to subjugate?

I can't recall ever seeing anyone that opposes another person being independent/prepared that didn't harbor some desire to commit a wrong against that person.

Could be. It's a bit strange to me that Meyer would be going off on guys that are doing things perfectly legal and questioning the motives of people he doesn't know. It sure sounds leftist to me, and leftists are some pretty dubious people. Haven't heard one yet you has my best interest at heart.

[okie]

I don’t agree.

Did you actually read article one like I suggested? Because if you had I don't think we would be having this conversation. The Militia became the National Guard, and that's when things started getting convoluted and confusing. People began to argue that the militia was so far from its original mission that it no longer existed, and sought to replace it with various state guards and then private militias. Which I suppose one could argue was our founders' intention.

In any case, I think we can all agree that civilians who are answering the call to arm and train are doing exactly what our founders wanted, and are expressing the Second Amendment in its purest form.

[okie]

Could be. It's a bit strange to me that Meyer would be going off on guys that are doing things perfectly legal and questioning the motives of people he doesn't know. It sure sounds leftist to me, and leftists are some pretty dubious people. Haven't heard one yet you has my best interest at heart.

It's statist. Statism is that place where far left and far right meet up in the middle. Even if unknowingly, he's advocating returning to the antiquated notion that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force, and should have the assumed right to appoint an exclusive warrior class for their sole use, and restrict weapons accordingly. I'm pretty sure he's not thought the implications through though. I think for him it's just about the need to feel superior, and that seems to be predicated on arms as an exclusive status symbol.

Making arms exclusive to the warrior class not only deprived the people of the weapons they might need to resist the state, it was a motivating factor to gain the loyalty of their warriors. By giving them weapons as status symbols, and setting them apart from the people by elevating them to a higher status, they put enmity between the people and the warrior class, who felt themselves superior.

Even in the 20th century, totalitarian governments have successfully used weapons as status symbols to gain the loyalty of their henchmen. Look at communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, etc. They all handed out guns to their party members, even if they didn't need them, purely as status symbols. No different than noblemen carrying swords, even in places and in eras where they were useless ceremonial trinkets.

[yellowfin]

Hell no less a great American than John Glenn gave us the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Which completely revoked his status of being a great anything.

[CRAMBONE]

Did you actually read article one like I suggested? Because if you had I don't think we would be having this conversation. The Militia became the National Guard, and that's when things started getting convoluted and confusing. People began to argue that the militia was so far from its original mission that it no longer existed, and sought to replace it with various state guards and then private militias. Which I suppose one could argue was our founders' intention.

In any case, I think we can all agree that civilians who are answering the call to arm and train are doing exactly what our founders wanted, and are expressing the Second Amendment in its purest form.

Yes and I have read it before. The article uses the terms militia, army and navy. During continental times the militia was the populace. I realize some people interpret the militia became the national guard. That is not my view point. Because if that were true the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the populace. Unless that is also your viewpoint? Do you not believe the 2nd Amendment applies to the general populace?

[ABNAK]

On more than one occasion, a good Soldier has gotten a wild hair and
Beat his Wife.
Got a DUI.
Got in a shoot Out.
Drank way to much and did .....
That's okay, I expect that in a high testosterone environment. What I don't expect is a law suit and a Congressional Investigation, but that's what I got.
What was the first question I was asked?
"Did you administer a Safety Briefing to your Soldiers?"

And you ask why, well, Mom's feelings are hurt and she can't believe her Son was doing "X" when he, died, was shot, or got caught hot on a piss test.
I can appreciate that, but really? You ask why?
Because everything in your society is geared upon a total lack of personal responsibility and when that all goes to hell, get a Lawyer.
Sorry that's just the way it works.

I get it, was just saying that's the way it is in the military.....and elements of society in general too. I don't agree with it, but there it is. You are correct, there is no personal responsibility and hasn't been for quite some time.

I run the home oxygen program at the facility I work at. There are people who, despite being on freaking OXYGEN, still smoke. It irks me. If I had my way they wouldn't get oxygen unless they could test negative for smoking (yeah, it sounds cold, but read on.....). Like being on a liver transplant list while knocking back a fifth of Jim Beam every day. One of the things you have to do if they admit to smoking is have them electronically sign what is essentially a home safety agreement saying they understand the risks of smoking near oxygen (duh!) and that they have been informed of the dangers and that if it happens it's on their head, not our facility's. And every time one of these jackasses sets themselves on fire smoking with oxygen on the first question asked is "Did they sign the agreement?"

So as you can see it ain't just in the military. Like I said, I get it. Also like I said, I don't agree with it. An 18yo in the Army who fvcks up is an ADULT and therefore responsible for their actions. A 75yo who sets themselves on fire while smoking with oxygen on is also an adult. In fact, one could argue they should have a somewhat better grasp of responsibility than an 18yo, but I digress. Nonetheless, when bad shit happens the first instinct is to see if that soldier had a safety briefing (where you told them the obvious) or that old dude signed the safety agreement (also spelling out the obvious). It's clown world.

[ddbtoth]

It’s sad he’s so “bro military” and made comments negative about civilians who train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. While he actually may be a candidate for bad ass king of the hill, sadly he sounds like a elitist shill.

[okie]

Yes and I have read it before. The article uses the terms militia, army and navy. During continental times the militia was the populace. I realize some people interpret the militia became the national guard. That is not my view point. Because if that were true the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the populace. Unless that is also your viewpoint? Do you not believe the 2nd Amendment applies to the general populace?

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Militia didn't mean back then what it means now. They wanted what we call the National Guard today to be the permanent ground force, along with a permanent Navy, and armies to be raised in need. They realized not all states had strategic coastlines, so they placed the Navy under federal control. They also gave congress the responsibility for arming all state militias with common arms and prescribing their training and tactics. That way if they're called up into federal service they all show up with the same weapons and can be integrated into an army.

People at the time didn't like this one little bit. Most people's exposure to the Red Coats was in the form of King George's militias. They had seen their own countrymen used against them. You also have to realize that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time of ratification. It came ten years afterwards, by which time the federal government was already doing things people didn't like. The Second Amendment was intended to make sure that history couldn't repeat itself. I.e. a militia comes and takes their guns away, which is precisely what King George had done to them to prevent them from raising their own militias in self defense. A lot of dissent, especially in Virginia, about this topic, and the states got together and basically forced the Bill of Rights on congress. It was going to be another revolution if Congress didn't ratify it.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." Translation: We recognize the need for this for our common defense.
"The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Translation: but they can never disarm us or limit our access to arms to resist them."

Article one already gives congress the power to arm, train, and call forth the militias. The Second Amendment is redundant and useless if people and militia are interchangeable.

You don't have to take my word for it though. It's a fact that the state militias simply changed their name to National Guard. Look up Militia Act of 1903 and National Defense Act of 1916.

We The People have the unlimited right to keep and bear arms, 100% irrespective of any involvement we may or may not have in any militia, or even our potential for being in a militia. An old Amish lady in a wheelchair has as much constitutional right to military grade weapons as anybody else.

[SteyrAUG]

It's statist. Statism is that place where far left and far right meet up in the middle. Even if unknowingly, he's advocating returning to the antiquated notion that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force, and should have the assumed right to appoint an exclusive warrior class for their sole use, and restrict weapons accordingly. I'm pretty sure he's not thought the implications through though. I think for him it's just about the need to feel superior, and that seems to be predicated on arms as an exclusive status symbol.

Probably the most astute observation in the entire thread. This is why I'm not left or right, because eventually they meet at a very bad place. But us in the middle are constantly shouted down by those on the extremes.

Fascism, Socialism, Communism..whatever...when the state exists at the expense of the individual...you have arrived at a very dark place.