THE ACCURATE RELOADING POLITICAL CRATER


Moderators: DRG
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Military deployed domestically? Login/Join 
One of Us
Picture of Scott King
posted
As usual I could well be wrong.
Recently here we discussed Trumps deployment of the National Guard in D.C. and it was almost universally condemned.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/17...ew-mexico-deployment

So now that a liberal governor has deployed the National Guard in a liberal state, is it Totalitarian/ Authoritarian or justified?

Mike and Mike, what do you have to say?
 
Posts: 10199 | Location: Dillingham Alaska | Registered: 10 April 2006Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
Very sad indeed!

This would never have happened if decent laws were applied instead of letting criminals get away with anything!


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 72205 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Scott King
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Very sad indeed!

This would never have happened if decent laws were applied instead of letting criminals get away with anything!


That's a fact. I appreciate the differences between D.C. and New Mexico, local law enforcement did not ask for military assistance in D.C. but in New Mexico they did.

Regardless, in either case, was Humvees on the streets and soldiers with m4's really necessary or required?

As I mentioned other place, Eisenhower thought the army should be used in Little Rock.
 
Posts: 10199 | Location: Dillingham Alaska | Registered: 10 April 2006Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
It basically tells you the failure of law and order.

Fire every single politician!

Send them to live in a homemade cabin in Alaska! clap


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 72205 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Very sad indeed!

This would never have happened if decent laws were applied instead of letting criminals get away with anything!


That's a fact. I appreciate the differences between D.C. and New Mexico, local law enforcement did not ask for military assistance in D.C. but in New Mexico they did.

Regardless, in either case, was Humvees on the streets and soldiers with m4's really necessary or required?

As I mentioned other place, Eisenhower thought the army should be used in Little Rock.


You answered your own question. The difference is that the state authorities asked for the help. trump's action on DC (like every other crazy thing he is doing right now) is designed to divert attention from the Epstein scandal.



 
Posts: 17509 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of MJines
posted Hide Post
This is a distinction with a difference.

"Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s state of emergency order issued for Rio Arriba County, the city of Española and area pueblos, was made at the request of the local governments, she said."


Mike
 
Posts: 22744 | Registered: 03 January 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
As usual I could well be wrong.
Recently here we discussed Trumps deployment of the National Guard in D.C. and it was almost universally condemned.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/17...ew-mexico-deployment

So now that a liberal governor has deployed the National Guard in a liberal state, is it Totalitarian/ Authoritarian or justified?

Mike and Mike, what do you have to say?


National Guards are not the Army.

There is federal law that prevents the regular army from being used for policing.

State governors retain the right in limited circumstances to deploy their states’ National Guards within the state.

National Guards are the modern evolution of the old state militia’s referenced on the 2nd Amendment and a few S. Ct., cases. Historically, before modernization the state militias were exclusively controlled by state governors.

There are fed laws that dictate the federalization of a state’s national guard.

The DC Guard is unique. It was created as a federal entity under control of the President as Commander and Chief. DC is not a state and does not have to protections of a state.

I have provided these laws previously.

Bad policy can be constitutional.

A governor deploying their state’s National Guard is governed by that state’s State Constitution and state law.

The Governor’s action may be legal, but bad policy. The Governor’s action might be in violation of state law. This is unlikely. We would have to go through the state’s controlling law.
 
Posts: 14758 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
Talking to friends in DC…they say the city has never enjoyed the peace it has right now. The citizenry is really digging the confidence in safety.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 39697 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Sure, too bad Trump did not care about safety on Jan 6.
 
Posts: 14758 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
He did. So much so that he preemptively authorized the DCNG to be utilized upon request. Wink


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 39697 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
As I mentioned other place, Eisenhower thought the army should be used in Little Rock.



In the face of more nonsense from ledvm, Scott, I'll point out that Eisenhower sent in troops and federalized the national guard because of white mob violence against nine black students who attempted to attend a segregated white high school--after the governor and mayor refused to stop the mobs and obey a federal court order. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Little-Rock-Nine

An episode of southern US apartheid doesn't provide you a good precedent.
 
Posts: 7816 | Location: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, USA | Registered: 08 March 2013Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
It was a state National Gusrd that he legally Federalized. This is a major distinction.
 
Posts: 14758 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
He did. So much so that he preemptively authorized the DCNG to be utilized upon request. Wink


He did not. Your misdirection will not carry.
 
Posts: 14758 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of MJines
posted Hide Post
. . . another one of Lane's posts where a friend told him, someone he knows that knows someone else told him, a person he is acquainted with mentioned to him, etc. supposedly validates his position.

Well, two can play that game, I have friend that knows several people that live in DC who say they are appalled to see soldiers, armed vehicles and humvees all over town . . . makes them feel like they are living in a war zone that has been militarized.

2020


Mike
 
Posts: 22744 | Registered: 03 January 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
Talking to friends in DC…they say the city has never enjoyed the peace it has right now. The citizenry is really digging the confidence in safety.


Uh huh....anecdotal, insupportable "evidence" from an imaginary buddy is always the best....Completely full of shit, as usual. The NG troops aren't deployed in areas with significant, or any crime. They're on the mall, around the monuments and in the rail stations.

Here's a good example of what they are actually doing:

"Near the Washington Monument over the weekend, troops posed for photos with tourists. The National Guard presence, with desert sand-colored vehicles parked near the capital’s most visited tourists spots, is now showing up regularly on social media feeds in posts by visitors to Washington."

Posing for pictures with tourists. It's a bullshit narrative that allows trump to divert attention from the pedophilia allegations associated with the Epstein matter. He is trying desperately to divert media attention away from the fact that he used to have sex with underage girls.

Makes you proud to be a supporter, eh Lane? You support a seditionist who is a convicted felon and a pedophile. Nice going buddy.



 
Posts: 17509 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of MJines
posted Hide Post
DC residents in new survey overwhelmingly oppose Trump police takeover

"The latest survey, released The Washington Post, shows 69 percent of participants said they “strongly” oppose the president’s decision to take federal control over the Metropolitan Police Department, and 10 percent said they “somewhat” oppose the move."

The Washington Post must not have polled Lane's imaginary buddy.

I wonder if 79% of the people in Lane's community opposed a federally mandated military presence and yet the President ordered such a presence, how that would make him feel? My guess is that the feds would be able to hear him squealing all the way in DC.


Mike
 
Posts: 22744 | Registered: 03 January 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Two most dangerous cities on the top 10 are in Texas.

Why not federalize TX Guard?

Oh, that is right, Texas is a red state.

Trump only wants to use the night of the Executive against Blue states/districts.
 
Posts: 14758 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
Moderator
Picture of jeffeosso
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
Two most dangerous cities on the top 10 are in Texas.

Why not federalize TX Guard?

Oh, that is right, Texas is a red state.

Trump only wants to use the night of the Executive against Blue states/districts.

Where you getting your days from?
List reads from gemini
Memphis
Detroit
Stl
Baltimore
Birmingham
KC
NO
Cleveland

From usnews.com
Memphis
Oakland
Stl
Baltimore
Detroit
Alexandria, la
Cleveland
NO
Monroe, la


...
Minneapolis #25

Texas doesn't appear in the worst 25 from usnews.com

Texas is big, but not that big


opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club

Information on Ammoguide about
the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR
What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR.
476AR,
http://www.weaponsmith.com
 
Posts: 42797 | Location: Conroe, TX | Registered: 01 June 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
I’ve done have you this
https://www.security.org/resou...st-dangerous-cities/

Newsweek this year has two Texas Cities at 20 and 27.

Look at all these Red States. When President Trump announced he would go to cities in states, he never mentioned any of these state’s cities.


https://www.newsweek.com/most-...ashington-dc-2112006
 
Posts: 14758 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeffeosso:
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
Two most dangerous cities on the top 10 are in Texas.

Why not federalize TX Guard?

Oh, that is right, Texas is a red state.

Trump only wants to use the night of the Executive against Blue states/districts.

Where you getting your days from?
List reads from gemini
Memphis
Detroit
Stl
Baltimore
Birmingham
KC
NO
Cleveland

From usnews.com
Memphis
Oakland
Stl
Baltimore
Detroit
Alexandria, la
Cleveland
NO
Monroe, la


...
Minneapolis #25

Texas doesn't appear in the worst 25 from usnews.com

Texas is big, but not that big


Houston and San Antonio are both in the top ten according to this:


https://www.security.org/resou...st-dangerous-cities/

The real point is that trump calling out the NG in DC is an ineffective political gesture designed to allow trump to beat his chest and, as I have repeatedly stated, to draw attention away from the ever-tightening Epstein noose.

There's no telling what the fucking idiot will do once those documents actually hit the street. He'll probably invade Mexico or something.



 
Posts: 17509 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Scott King
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
As I mentioned other place, Eisenhower thought the army should be used in Little Rock.



In the face of more nonsense from ledvm, Scott, I'll point out that Eisenhower sent in troops and federalized the national guard because of white mob violence against nine black students who attempted to attend a segregated white high school--after the governor and mayor refused to stop the mobs and obey a federal court order. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Little-Rock-Nine

An episode of southern US apartheid doesn't provide you a good precedent.


I aware of the details of Little Rock. I'm also aware of the public details of the New Mexico deployment.

The impression i got from the previous discussion of this topic on the pf was that using the Guard was "bad". Period. Bad optics, bad policy, bad procedure. I wouldn't know if deploying the Guard was appropriate or not this time, I'm not there and so have seen nothing.

Another impression i have is that frequently local authorities response is in adequate be it intentional or not. Rodney King, January 6th, BLM, ANTIFA in Portland are easy examples. Maybe the California wildfires could have used a healthy Guard deployment.

I was asked previously if I'd mind a Guard presence on the streets of Dillingham and my reply was not in the slightest. Today we as a society treat the bad guys too good and I'd get a kick out of seeing the cockroaches scurry back to the shadows.

Criminals used to fear their peers, maybe Momma and the cops. Today the criminals fear Noone. I wonder if it isn't high time to being back vigilantes, militias, citizen committees and Neighborhood Watch.

If my fellow Alaskan Guardsmen were deployed on my block I'd take em coffee and sandwiches.
 
Posts: 10199 | Location: Dillingham Alaska | Registered: 10 April 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
As I mentioned other place, Eisenhower thought the army should be used in Little Rock.



In the face of more nonsense from ledvm, Scott, I'll point out that Eisenhower sent in troops and federalized the national guard because of white mob violence against nine black students who attempted to attend a segregated white high school--after the governor and mayor refused to stop the mobs and obey a federal court order. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Little-Rock-Nine

An episode of southern US apartheid doesn't provide you a good precedent.


I aware of the details of Little Rock. I'm also aware of the public details of the New Mexico deployment.

The impression i got from the previous discussion of this topic on the pf was that using the Guard was "bad". Period. Bad optics, bad policy, bad procedure. I wouldn't know if deploying the Guard was appropriate or not this time, I'm not there and so have seen nothing.

Another impression i have is that frequently local authorities response is in adequate be it intentional or not. Rodney King, January 6th, BLM, ANTIFA in Portland are easy examples. Maybe the California wildfires could have used a healthy Guard deployment.

I was asked previously if I'd mind a Guard presence on the streets of Dillingham and my reply was not in the slightest. Today we as a society treat the bad guys too good and I'd get a kick out of seeing the cockroaches scurry back to the shadows.

Criminals used to fear their peers, maybe Momma and the cops. Today the criminals fear Noone. I wonder if it isn't high time to being back vigilantes, militias, citizen committees and Neighborhood Watch.

If my fellow Alaskan Guardsmen were deployed on my block I'd take em coffee and sandwiches.


It doesn't have anything to do with the NG being good or bad. It has to do with whether they are the right solution to the problem. If there is widespread violent civil disturbances, rioting, etc.? Yes, the NG might be a good solution.

Are they the solution to high rates of murder, burglary, rape, domestic violence, robbery? In other words, the kinds of crime that occur in all cities? No.

By the way, crime is down in the US. Not increasing.



 
Posts: 17509 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Texas has 3 cities in its top list. The highest being 9th.
 
Posts: 14758 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
As I mentioned other place, Eisenhower thought the army should be used in Little Rock.



In the face of more nonsense from ledvm, Scott, I'll point out that Eisenhower sent in troops and federalized the national guard because of white mob violence against nine black students who attempted to attend a segregated white high school--after the governor and mayor refused to stop the mobs and obey a federal court order. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Little-Rock-Nine

An episode of southern US apartheid doesn't provide you a good precedent.


I aware of the details of Little Rock. I'm also aware of the public details of the New Mexico deployment.

The impression i got from the previous discussion of this topic on the pf was that using the Guard was "bad". Period. Bad optics, bad policy, bad procedure. I wouldn't know if deploying the Guard was appropriate or not this time, I'm not there and so have seen nothing.

Another impression i have is that frequently local authorities response is in adequate be it intentional or not. Rodney King, January 6th, BLM, ANTIFA in Portland are easy examples. Maybe the California wildfires could have used a healthy Guard deployment.

I was asked previously if I'd mind a Guard presence on the streets of Dillingham and my reply was not in the slightest. Today we as a society treat the bad guys too good and I'd get a kick out of seeing the cockroaches scurry back to the shadows.

Criminals used to fear their peers, maybe Momma and the cops. Today the criminals fear Noone. I wonder if it isn't high time to being back vigilantes, militias, citizen committees and Neighborhood Watch.

If my fellow Alaskan Guardsmen were deployed on my block I'd take em coffee and sandwiches.


California did deploy the National Guard to the wildfires.
 
Posts: 14758 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2025 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia