After almost 18 years, no one has tried to teach me anything about HOW to view our Constitution, at least from the Institutional perspective. No one has told me guns are good or bad. Outside of an occasional discussion with M4C-types and the Ignorants who are always listening, it’s a non-issue. Most firearm opinions come from what folks learned as kids. Which is exactly why a lot folks join in the first place.
We understand that we are limited in the expression of our Rights a little more than most, but we also understand that we stand for the protection of said Rights.
I think a part of it has to do with where you were brought up, and what your prejudices were before you joined the service.
I am not and have not been in the service. I did grow up near Ft Devens so went to church with and had as Boy Scout leaders as a kid a lot of military people including 10SFG. And my brother was in the Utah guard and now in Arizona guard.
Around here, most of the people in the guard units are very pro 2A. Because they come from the general populace, which is generally very pro 2A in Utah.
I would think a guard unit in NYS or CA might be a bit more mixed and a bit less 2A, depending on whether they were country folk or city folk.
With active duty units, which mix people from all over the country and territories/possessions together, you will probably find a lot more varied opinion and willingness to follow such unlawful orders as disarming citizens if it were to come to.
I’m with Mjolnir though: a lot probably rests on the officer corp, which at a certain level, have to play the politics to get ahead.
Chad, I understand what you’re saying, but this “officer playing politics” is almost always overstated. I will not say that is doesn’t happen and there are bad apples in every bunch, but by-and-large, most officers just want to lead and take care of the troops. I have yet to meet one who talks about “the little people.”
Same as my limited observations. My bro-in-law is attached to an SF unit. He says he hasn’t come across anyone, officer or enlisted, that isn’t pro 2nd. I visited for a few hours with a pilot with the 160th SOAR last weekend. He was as 2nd as anyone I’d met and says most of his unit shares his views. Those conversations, coupled with pro 2nd conversations with my local State troopers, make me feel good about this country.
As you would expect, they are largely being taught to follow orders, but there is, I think, a world of difference between being directed to teach a “lifting of DADT” class, and disarming the American populace in a time of distress. Both may be morally objectionable, but the latter crosses a more well-defined Constitutional line that isn’t merely a reflection of individual beliefs. Most troops I know have a pretty good understanding of what the 2nd Amendment is about, and if a new Platoon Leader shows up from the academy (or ROTC – OCS guys tend to have a better grounding in such things, simply because of their background), I’m sure we’ve no shortage of Platoon Sergeants who will gladly reeducate them on this point, just as they show them the ropes everywhere else.
Warrant Officers? You can’t get them to follow orders in the first place, so there is nothing to fear from them.
Warrant Officers? You can’t get them to follow orders in the first place, so there is nothing to fear from them.
That’s kinda what I gathered from my new CW4 friend
I don’t think I blamed officers. Just that it was more likely to rest on the officer corp. They are the ones who will have to lead and carry out orders through their men. For good and for bad.
And at least at the higher level of officers, it seems to get more and more about politics the higher you go. The Lts and Capts and Majors not so much, but the higher you go, the more you have to please someone.
(My BIL is, I think, a Lt Col in the Army Reserve (not guard). He was supposed to get a new position here in Utah and be promoted to Colonel, but all of a sudden the position was done away with. The scuttlebutt is that the other officers who had control over that position don’t like Mormons too much and so just did away with the position to block him. I don’t know if that is true or not, but this sort of position (which I forget what it was) is still a normal position in Army Reserve organizations. Only in this case was it done away with. And he cannot get promoted unless he can get into another Colonel level position.)
The biggest commissioning source is ROTC DoD-wide as well as for every individual service besides the Marines. Those cadets/officers are being taught whatever their university of choice teaches them. I personally had no military classes on the constitution, nor any classes on how to treat civilians (besides with respect).
As far as officers playing politics, it is there after about O-3; it’s not national-level politics, but politics in the most basic sense.
I know that there are quite a few Soldiers that don’t understand private ownership of firearms without restrictions. It astounds me how they don’t understand the very document they swore to uphold and protect. Many of them don’t even own a personal firearm and feel that they can protect themselves with a baseball bat. I can’t track there logic at times. How do you carry a pistol and a rifle for a year for protection then claim that you don’t need one for protection stateside?
I got out in December, and am still in LEO rookie school, but let’s just say the cops around here that arnt pro 2a never open their mouth about it. EFF linked in, the range is the way to network around here.
I know you’re not blaming officers. And I won’t pretend to know much about the USAR in regards to your BIL. But I do know that cannot happen on the active side. Branch may choose not to fill a position, but they certainly cannot “do away” with a position on a whim. And there are politics that exist, but not because it’s the military. Politics exist in ALL organizations. But in my experience, those who played politics the hardest had neither the support of their troops, nor did they get very far up the ladder.
Again, most (not all) officers are pro-2A, and an order to disarm the populace will be ill-advised, not lawful, and not likely to be followed.
Something like that happening on the active side would surprise me greatly, and in fact, I know several officers the grade of O-6 who are LDS. It’s a complete non-factor, and for whatever one thinks of Mormons as a group, as individual officers, they just happen to make great leaders more often than not.
When you’re talking Guard or Reserve, there are so few positions to fill at that level that the usual problem is more one of favoritism (i.e. they want to see a particular guy moved up) than of discrimination, and in most instances, those making the decision wouldn’t even know or care about a particular religious preference. Things may be different in Utah, but if so, I would actually suspect it to work the other way around.
I don’t doubt it is a non factor on the active side. Too much other politics . I’ve known quite a few LDS upper level officers in my time living near Ft Devens, as well as having done missionary service in Germany 86-87, when US strength was pretty much at a high point, and being in 7 or so areas where the US military was strongly represented, meeting or seeing these people on Sunday.
The point of the store was that politics does play a role. And at the “General” level, I would think it plays a pretty strong role. I think there have been some M4C topics about this recently if my memory serves e right.
When you’re talking Guard or Reserve, there are so few positions to fill at that level that the usual problem is more one of favoritism (i.e. they want to see a particular guy moved up) than of discrimination, and in most instances, those making the decision wouldn’t even know or care about a particular religious preference. Things may be different in Utah, but if so, I would actually suspect it to work the other way around.
Most of the upper reserve hierarchy here in Utah is non-LDS from what I am told. It is probably not religious-discrimination, but rather, since LDS is the predominant group in Utah, and rightly or wrongly seen as “controlling the state,” it is probably more a “sticking it to the [ersatz] man” type of move.
From what I understand, he was basically told the position was his. Then, the position disappeared completely, and word got around it was because he is LDS (obviously unofficially, office scuttlebutt). I have no way of gauging that beyond what was told to me.
I don’t know if “do away with” really means that, or it was just decided all of a sudden to not fill it at all and, for all intents and purposes, have it be done away with, even if it is on a piece of paper on some org chart still. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the position suddenly re-appear once my BIL finds another position, moves out of state [my sister, his wife, has applied for a job back East], or retires due to lack of promotions.
Of course, all organizations have politics. That is not in dispute, or actually relevant. My point was that the higher you go in military hierarchy, the more relevant politics becomes [talking probably O6 or O7 or above if my chart I am referencing is correct]. Doesn’t Congress or the President get involved at some level?
Left the USAR last year (June 2012) but am still in the IRR and currently considering re-joining the ARNG or the USAR (I need 3 “good yeaars” to have my 20 for retirement). Most of the Soldiers I served do not consider “civilians” as a separate group who should not be allowed to own AR-15s or any such firearms. They also do not consider the Constitution as obsolete or not-applicable.
Seems I read a somewhat lengthy thread about a guy stopped in NY/NY somewhere up there and was given the business. IIRC several active LEO said openly that they would uphold the law as it was given to them by their leaders. I believe they even challenged any LEO that would not, to make himself heard… I coukld be wrong. but I believe I read all that… Cheers… Ron
Off the top of my head, I believe the president appoints GOs, with Senate confirmation. But also, I believe the Senate confirms the promotions of a lot of other officer grades, as selected by boards, too.
In all, my point is that the military is a lot less political than most folks think, and definitely less political than I was expecting when I came in. Having said that, I cannot pretend to know what goes on at the GO level. Obviously, when you get into presidential appointments, politics are part of the equation, but I feel it has more to do with not embarrassing the administration versus toeing any ideological line (McChrystal).
What I have observed over the past year or two working for a 4-star is that GO appointments are made very carefully, with political confirmation, but almost always based upon reputation. In other words, when you’re up for Major or Lieutenant Colonel, a board of senior officers reviews your records, official photo and report cards, and votes on the strength of your file. The higher the total aggregate score, the more likely you will end up with a promotion sequence number.
When you’re up for Brigadier General, a constellation of stars sits at a table and has a very frank closed-door conversation about what they have observed in your past performance, decision-making and potential to accept even greater responsibility. In other words, the most successful officers are seeking to identify those behind them with the greatest potential to ultimately take these same reins themselves. It is less political than it is an assessment of who has been a solid performer in key positions (command, XO, S3) as a subordinate.
By the time you get your second star, your report card doesn’t even contain the all-important “block check” that numerically racks and stacks you against your peers (i.e. Above Center of Mass, Center of Mass, Below Center of Mass). The same holds true for CW5s, by the way, but that is largely just because they no longer care about such things.
