Obama's "Civilian Security Force".....WhatTheHeck is that?

[Stepjam 118]

The mere suggestion of a "seperate" security force outside of the plethora of Federal law enforcement and military agencies that we already have should, at the very least, scare the crap out of any American. It smacks of totalitarianism.

What gives? Do any of you law enforcement guys have an opinion on this? For that matter, do any other intelligent, freedom-loving Americans have an opinion on this? Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'll maintain my "questioning attitude" and go do some stocking up while I still can. I'm thinking Liddy may have had it at least partially right back in the Clinton 90's, but everyone said he was nuts and the media was quick tp discredit him.

I wonder if Michael Moore has any movie ideas about our new Leader? Somehow, I doubt it. The new regime might make him bathe.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Stepjam

[antiquefirelt 994]

When I think "Civilian Security Force" I think Militia. So I'm happy to see the President Elect changing his tune on the Second Amendment.

[AFS1970 504]

He is not changing his tune at all. This new force will likely be the ones charged with coming into your home and taking away your guns. Remember what the last civilized nation to disarm it's populace was.....that's right Nazi Germany.

[FFPCogs 863]

When I think of "civilian security force" I think of Brownshirts, swastikas and stiff upraised arms with chants of Hiel Hitler. Hitler by the way was viewed as the "change" candidate in his time, a unifier and like Obama promised better days for everyone.

History does indeed repeat itself.

Be afraid..be very afraid.

Cogs

[27east 19]

It already started when the Black Panthers blocked polling places in Pennsylvania. We are going to need the Militia to fight Obama's "civilian security force." It will come down to us.

Fear the government that fears your gun!

[JM15 386]

I haven't heard or read anything about this anyone have some links?

[turk182 37]

Yea I heard about this too. I heard it will be called "BLACK WATER" . Wait a minute isn't that the name of Bush and Cheney's private security force(that we have spent untold millions with).

[M' Ave 1,466]

When I think of "civilian security force" I think of Brownshirts, swastikas and stiff upraised arms with chants of Hiel Hitler. Hitler by the way was viewed as the "change" candidate in his time, a unifier and like Obama promised better days for everyone.

History does indeed repeat itself.

Be afraid..be very afraid.

Cogs

Really? Come on.......

The only thing he's gonna do is enforce the assault weapons ban. Good! Should you be able to have guns to hunt and sport shoot? Sure. Should you have the right to keep a gun for protection in your home? Sure (Even though most people just kill a family member by mistake). Do you need a .50 Cal sniper rifle or some sort of automatic rifle? NO, YOU DON'T.

Stop with the 2nd amendment stuff. It was written when we needed citizen militia to defend the counrty......200 years ago!

I'm all for guns, guns in reality and with HUGE safeguards and background checks.

[turk182 37]

Check out this video with Obama talking about your guns. Sounds like any with a gun should be really scared.

[27east 19]

Really? Come on.......

The only thing he's gonna do is enforce the assault weapons ban. Good! Should you be able to have guns to hunt and sport shoot? Sure. Should you have the right to keep a gun for protection in your home? Sure (Even though most people just kill a family member by mistake). Do you need a .50 Cal sniper rifle or some sort of automatic rifle? NO, YOU DON'T.

Stop with the 2nd amendment stuff. It was written when we needed citizen militia to defend the counrty......200 years ago!

I'm all for guns, guns in reality and with HUGE safeguards and background checks.

While I may or may not agree with you, the Second Amendment is still in the Constitution, and until it's changed, the government still has to uphold it. So therefore a ban on assult rifles, or a city (or district) banning handguns is unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment does apply to individual citizens, not just the militias.

[SpartanML 0]

Here is the video of PresElect Obama discussing this so called security force from the campaign season.

Why this was not posted sooner is beyond me.

[FFPCogs 863]

Really? Come on.......

The only thing he's gonna do is enforce the assault weapons ban. Good! Should you be able to have guns to hunt and sport shoot? Sure. Should you have the right to keep a gun for protection in your home? Sure (Even though most people just kill a family member by mistake). Do you need a .50 Cal sniper rifle or some sort of automatic rifle? NO, YOU DON'T.

Stop with the 2nd amendment stuff. It was written when we needed citizen militia to defend the counrty......200 years ago!

I'm all for guns, guns in reality and with HUGE safeguards and background checks.

My post has nothing to do with guns, it has everything to do with what amounts to a "civilian" political police force. The Nazi Brownshirts come to mind as well as the institutionalized network of informers employed by the NKVD/KGB. These too started out as "civilian security" forces to protect the innocent from the bad guys who disagreed with their government (KGB) ) or opposed a political party(NAZIs).

He calls for a force equal to the military in strength and funding...for what?....domestic tranquility? Why not spend that money and resources on the military to begin with? He says "A force to achieve the national security objectives that WE set". Who is the we? And are we going to send "civilians" to fight our wars now?...don't civilians usually stay home..hence civilians? Are we expecting a war here? Are they going to be armed? Who will become the "terrorist"? Who will be the enemy for this "security" force to guard against?

Alot of questions with NO answers....what is this 1932 Germany?

He's gone so far left he's on the right.

Cogs

Edited November 12, 2008 by FFPCogs

[Guest]

Change we can are forced to believe in.

[grumpyff 1,159]

Really? Come on.......

The only thing he's gonna do is enforce the assault weapons ban. Good! Should you be able to have guns to hunt and sport shoot? Sure. Should you have the right to keep a gun for protection in your home? Sure (Even though most people just kill a family member by mistake). Do you need a .50 Cal sniper rifle or some sort of automatic rifle? NO, YOU DON'T.

Stop with the 2nd amendment stuff. It was written when we needed citizen militia to defend the counrty......200 years ago!

I'm all for guns, guns in reality and with HUGE safeguards and background checks.

Fully automatic weapons have been regulated since 1934, with the National Firearms Act. The Assualt weapons ban under Clinton banned semi automatic weapons (one bullet for each pull of the trigger) based upon the name of the weapon such as the AR-15, the Ak-47, the M-16, or based upon looks such as flash supppressor, bayonet lug, folding stock, all parts the have no effect on how fast you fire rounds by pullling the trigger. Gun owners be very afraid of Obama. PLenty of safeguards and background checks are already in place, why not actually enforce them, instead of passing more useless legislation. It will be really interesting when the first piece of legislation makes it to Obama's desk, will he vote Present?

Edited November 12, 2008 by grumpyff

[helicopper 1,050]

Has anyone been able to find out exactly what he means by "civilian security force" or are we all just speculating?

[ltmdepas3280 1]

Has anyone been able to find out exactly what he means by "civilian security force" or are we all just speculating?

Take the tin hats off...It a Civilian service corp .....to be used in the rebuilding of infrastructure and other W.P.A type projects. Also it can be used to respond to disaters to repair damage to essentail and critical infrastructure (ie: leves from a Katrina, wild fires in California...ect) instead of using the national gaurd or the Army corp of engineers...who can be freed up for more important job.....like national security!

Edited November 12, 2008 by ltmdepas3280

[FFD941 20]

I voted for Senator McCain!

On a more serious note I had a discussion with one of the guys at the station today and after somewhat of a debate we think that the President-Elect could be refering to our Local Law Enforcement because they technically are not Military personnel. So, maybe in his eyes they are civilian security.

I don't know about you, but I still don't agree. I think it's a LARGE streach

Edited November 12, 2008 by FFD941

[FFPCogs 863]

He says "A force to achieve the national security objectives that WE set".

His words not my interpretation

Take the tin hats off...It a Civilian service corp .....to be used in the rebuilding of infrastructure and other W.P.A type projects. Also it can be used to respond to disaters to repair damage to essentail and critical infrastructure (ie: leves from a Katrina, wild fires in California...ect) instead of using the national gaurd or the Army corp of engineers...who can be freed up for more important job.....like national security!

He DOES NOT say a civilian "service" corp like the WPA, but SECURITY force. And nowhere does he say "to free up the military for other jobs like national security"..he says ""A force to achieve the national security objectives that WE set". That's a pretty big difference.

A WPA type organization which would put people to work is fine, and has precedent..a force or "Corp" composed of civilans to achieve "national SECURITY objectives" is quite another.

Again these are HIS words not an interpretation. And they too have precedents... any two bit dictator voted in by a well meaning, and desperate populace that got more of a "change" than they bargained for.

Cogs

[Guest]

Maybe he'll talk to Bloomberg next on how to extend term limits...

[ltmdepas3280 1]

His words not my interpretation

He DOES NOT say a civilian "service" corp like the WPA, but SECURITY force. And nowhere does he say "to free up the military for other jobs like national security"..he says ""A force to achieve the national security objectives that WE set". That's a pretty big difference.

A WPA type organization which would put people to work is fine, and has precedent..a force or "Corp" composed of civilans to achieve "national SECURITY objectives" is quite another.

Again these are HIS words not an interpretation. And they too have precedents... any two bit dictator voted in by a well meaning, and desperate populace that got more of a "change" than they bargained for.

Cogs

Well according to the hot air balloon Rush limbugh and he's the source Im using...he scoffed at the notion of uses people for these jobs...you know community service and all that. But hey who am I to break up a good ol fashion *&^Cing...oh and by the way I would consider a distruction of a major city and the rebuilding there of a national security objective.

[JrCapt 0]

A "Civilian (innocuous sounding to lull the masses) Security Force" is a dangerous agenda to attempt to solve society's problems by blurring the civilian/military divide. Samuel Huntington called this the "Societal Imperative" in his work on Civil-Military relations. Our nation fundamentally functions on the well-being of this divide, and the fact that the military stays separate from civil affairs so as to prevent the onset of a totalitarian state, the misuse of the military by civilian leadership, the politicizing of the military, or the degradation of the military's fighting ability.

If you would like to read the theory (widely acknowledged as the most authoritative on the subject of civil-military relations in a liberal-democratic society such as ours), check out:

The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957)

If you would like to see where this will lead, please read this thesis by a USAF LtCol:

www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p087.pdf

As for the guns, whoever mentioned about the superficial aspects of the "assault" weapons ban was spot on. As for laws restricting purchase, this quote is apt:

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt.

When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults.

The people who register their guns are not the ones responsible for gun-related crimes. Think about it. Outlawing guns just provides the criminals more impunity. To quote Chris Rock, "Don't go to parties with metal detectors. Sure it might feel safe inside, but what about [all those people] with guns on the outside. They know you ain't got one."

[ltmdepas3280 1]

This is from FOX news.. again from the files of paranoid wing nut

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun's remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure -- an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.

Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Edited November 12, 2008 by ltmdepas3280

[FFPCogs 863]

Thanks for the large type, I didn't need my reading glasses for those parts of your post.

As innocuous and worthy as Obama's statements would seem, history is full of examples of leaders who used just such talk to justify an increase in government interference into the lives of their citizens, and the subsequent loss of liberties by those citizens.

As a patriotic American I support our Constitution, and whoever is President. As a responsible American I don't take everything politicians say at face value.

Cogs

[JM15 386]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

Thomas Jefferson

[AFS1970 504]

Once again I am going to make a point that I fear I will have to make much more often in the coming four years.

If we go with the concept that the 2nd Amendment is out of date, it is not so much of a stretch to declare the whole constitution as out of date. If we re-write the basic ideals that formed our country, then anything is possible.

There are some that say only guns that were around when the constitution was written should be protected, yes that is right, we can all go get our muskets ready. I would say that if we want to outlaw modern weapons then lets apply the same standard to the rest of the amendments. So Freedom of the Press will now only apply to single page, hand set type, local papers. All TV, Radio and Internet news outlets will have to submit to government control, since after all the founding fathers never saw them. Anyone think the New York Times will agree to this?

As for the term assault weapons, I would like anyone to show me a weapon that can not be used to assault someone? No you can't, this term was invented by the anti-gun lobby to frighten the masses into abdicating their basic rights.

As for extending term limits, why bother with a law, once this new Security Force is in place there will no longer be term limits or even elections. The King is dead, long live the King!

[firefighter36 52]

As a patriotic American I support our Constitution, and whoever is President. As a responsible American I don't take everything politicians say at face value.

Cogs

Right on. Couldn't agree more.

[ex-commish 490]

I was recently recruited by a member of the NY Guard which falls under the NYS Division of Military Affairs. They are a regulated militia that answer to the govenor. Many of the missions that this proposed civilain security force are allready being fulfilled by the NY Guard. Now I will firthur investigate this organizaiton but it seems we allready have something in place to support the military.

[Guest MVFD334]

I think Mr Obama has a few other thinks to worry about before enacting any type of civilian police force. But if it did effect gun owners, Im sure our backwood militia's that are armed to the teeth, (waiting for the return of the Russians (seems they thought Red dawn was a real life event) will straighten this problem right out.

[27east 19]

I think Mr Obama has a few other thinks to worry about before enacting any type of civilian police force. But if it did effect gun owners, Im sure our backwood militia's that are armed to the teeth, (waiting for the return of the Russians (seems they thought Red dawn was a real life event) will straighten this problem right out.

It comes down to the Good ol' boys. They did it back in 1776, and hopefully they are ready to defend us again now. We'll need the Second Amendment to protect us from tyranny.

[IzzyEng4 427]

What are you all worried about???? They'll never get rid of the Second Amendment or the first or any other one. Why??? HELLO PROHIBITION and look a lot of good that did! Why do you think it was repealed 13 years later?

Every time a new president comes in its either "The Dems are going to take my gun rights away" or "The Republicans are gonna censor my rights to free speech!" WAH-WAH-WAHHHHHBULANCE TIME!!

Come on fellas and gals you do really think that Congress or the Legislature is gonna pass something with all of the special interest groups floating around??? Come on. What about the Patriot Act, basically the same thing and don't think that the FBI or CIA isn't going to look into you for something. They have every right too and is that a violation of your privacy, completely regardless of the good that it does but it gives them the right too look at all the dirty pictures you downloaded of Taliban women. HECK people were against the New Deal projects FDR placed to help us get out of the depression in the 30s and get people back to work.

I'm not worried one bit and besides I'm very liberal..........................................on how I use my bullets.