[C]annot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Say hello Defense Department Directive 1404.10[PDF]. It's billed as a strictly support force for military operations overseas. What happens if there's nothing overseas to do? Do we as taxpayers pay them a salary to do nothing? Or will they be paid like the National Guard?
On the surface it looks benign. What will it look like after it begins to grow... perhaps fester? What will it look like when no one is able to buy a gun or keep it loaded and available for self-defense? Gun Owners of America offers an analysis of one particular current house bill [111th Congress] H.R. 45...
This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumb-printed and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semi-autos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established."
Took a while to get through the links, but my first question would be, why not just encourage more enlistment in the military? If the aim is just to assist, why not do it right and enlist? (Hmm. That rhymes.) If the military had a bigger pool of recruits, it would determine for itself who is best suited to fight and who to sweep up and all in between.
ReplyDeleteAs for further restrictions on gun ownership, that's what despots do.
posse comitatus?
ReplyDelete"posse comitatus?"
ReplyDeleteHuh?
Here are two links Marshall...
ReplyDeletePosse Comitatus (Common Law)
The Myth of Posse Comitatus
I'm inclined to agree with the second article but, even at that, what president Obama wants to do (assuming it also includes a civilian security force akin to the Hitler youth of Nazi Germany, with guns and arrest powers) has quite a few legal hurdles to cross. But given the public's lack of concern in regard to what government is actually doing, his desire may be our reality some time in the near future.
Is it likely? I would say not... but that's just me at my most optimistic.
Can it happen? It most certainly can, and don't you forget it. It's enough for me that he's feinting in that direction. What was it der Leader said during the campaign?
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
Here's another interesting perspective:
Change My Ass. More Posse Comitatus Violations To Come Under Obama