• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NG troops in DC will be armed.

MAGAnificent said:
www.nbcwashington.com

DC police commander suspended, accused of changing crime statistics

A D.C. police commander is under investigation for allegedly making changes to crime statistics in his district. The Metropolitan Police Department confirmed Michael Pulliam was placed on paid administrative leave in mid-May. That happened just a week after Pulliam filed an equal employment...
www.nbcwashington.com www.nbcwashington.com
Click to expand...
Unfortunate, but crime is still down. Do you still agree with military policing US cities?
 
The National Guard stood around in LA and the NG are standing around in DC. In DC it's mostly at monuments to include the Capitol building and Union Station while NG are not deploying to the longtime high crime area of Southeast DC.

Hegseth The Horrible has only authorized the use of firearms on mission purpose actions only, which translated means only if the NG is deployed into SE DC which remains to be seen or done. Hegseth has not ordered the mission purpose arming, he has only authorized it. No new weapons have been ordered to be issued.

The arming of the DC NG to, say, enter Southeast DC is delegated to the commanding general of the DC Guard who has not issued any order to arm everyone in the Guard or to arm only some Southeast DC "mission specific" members of the NG. No order to arm has been given by the CG of the DC Guard who is the issuing authority. No order is known to be issued or about to be given.
 
The 4-star Chief of the National Guard who's a member of the Joint Chiefs says any issuing of firearms would be limited to the SIG Sauer M17 service handgun sidearm -- and not rifles. Military rifles look nasty in a peaceful civilian setting whereas a holstered sidearm handgun is far less obtrusive and menacing to civilians than is the service semiautomatic combat rifle. The NG are not Icestapo with other Fedstapo goons running around in teams of several tackling and pounding on unarmed civilians to arrest.

ALL the MSM are hollering that the NG in DC "WILL BE ARMED" despite the foregoing facts pertaining to firearms and the NG in DC. There in fact is no plan or intention on the part of the interim CG of the DC NG to issue firearms to all or even some of the troops on the scene. NG stationed to high visibility monuments, the Capitol and so on will remain unarmed and are not likely to become armed. Indeed, opposing the NG deployment is one thing, but hysteria about weapons when no order to arm the troops has been given -- or is likely to be given -- is OTT.

MAGAs and Trump are not getting what they want out of this and the reason is that the Joint Chiefs led in this by the 4-star Chief of the National Guard -- who is a member of the JCS -- oppose arming the troops which would further scare all civilians in DC and throughout the country. The deployment is legal if awful yet it includes the only domestic guardrail in existence on the Generalissimo, which is the military that opposes arming the troops which is optional. The Joint Chiefs led by Air Force Gen. Dan "Razin" Caine are prevailing in this vital respect of not arming the troops deployed to the streets of DC.
 
Cosmik Debris said:
Are you OK with military policing in any US city based solely of the word of Donald Trump?
Click to expand...
Washington DC is a federal city. I am okay with it, and you should get over it. As for other cities, I would prefer that the governor deploys the national guard if the mayor does not get control. As to a president deploying National Guard to those states or cities, there are restrictions based on the Posse Comitatus Act. However, there are workarounds, such as when President GW Bush deployed the NG to New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Six presidents have deployed the NG 11 times since 1957. Four were republican, two were democrats. Not sure why those of you on the left seem to think Trump is the first.
 
MAGAnificent said:
Washington DC is a federal city. I am okay with it, and you should get over it. As for other cities, I would prefer that the governor deploys the national guard if the mayor does not get control. As to a president deploying National Guard to those states or cities, there are restrictions based on the Posse Comitatus Act. However, there are workarounds, such as when President GW Bush deployed the NG to New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Six presidents have deployed the NG 11 times since 1957. Four were republican, two were democrats. Not sure why those of you on the left seem to think Trump is the first.
Click to expand...

Do you think Chicago's situation is the same as what Katrina did to NO?

Did the mayor of NO tell him he didn't want them there?
 
Cosmik Debris said:
Do you think Chicago's situation is the same as what Katrina did to NO?
Click to expand...
Chicago's situation is more similar to DC.
Cosmik Debris said:
Did the mayor of NO tell him he didn't want them there?
Click to expand...
Only the governor or in some situations the president can activate NG troops in any given state. The mayors have no veto power in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom