AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
 - Sep 17, 2003
 
- Messages
 - 5,369
 
- Location
 - Right behind you so ... BOO!
 
- Basic Beliefs
 - non-theist, anarcho-socialist
 
One key difference is that there's no draft.
If you were a young person in 1970, you had a chance of your number being called. You probably knew someone who'd been drafted. Maybe a family member or friend went to Vietnam. Maybe they wound up dead. Maybe you'd wind up dead.
For a couple million conscripts during the Vietnam era, shit was very real.
Well, the cops are killing more people, but less of a big deal is being made about it.
Well, the cops are killing more people, but less of a big deal is being made about it.
Well, the cops are killing more people, but less of a big deal is being made about it.
It was the National Guard, Nixon's "tin soldiers", that did the killing at Kent State, not the police.
Of course, our police are becoming increasingly militarized, so maybe the comparison is not all that far off.
It was the National Guard, Nixon's "tin soldiers", that did the killing at Kent State, not the police.
Of course, our police are becoming increasingly militarized, so maybe the comparison is not all that far off.
It's really a potato/potahto type of situation.
They're the guys with guns who are sent there to enforce the laws. It's not altogether relevant what you decided to name each of the particular groups.
It's really a potato/potahto type of situation.
They're the guys with guns who are sent there to enforce the laws. It's not altogether relevant what you decided to name each of the particular groups.
Yes and no. Using the NG implies a much more serious breakdown of order.
Yes and no. Using the NG implies a much more serious breakdown of order.
So does calling in SWAT. When you're talking about government forces with guns shooting people, it's generally moot which particular force did the shooting.
So does calling in SWAT. When you're talking about government forces with guns shooting people, it's generally moot which particular force did the shooting.
Only if understanding the situation is of no importance.
Only if understanding the situation is of no importance.
Like the understanding of the situation which was shown by the Governor who called in the National Guard to Kent State? You do realize that they weren't actually anti-American revolutionaries who's goal was to destroy higher education in Ohio, don't you? He didn't.
Like the understanding of the situation which was shown by the Governor who called in the National Guard to Kent State? You do realize that they weren't actually anti-American revolutionaries who's goal was to destroy higher education in Ohio, don't you? He didn't.
Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks for proving my point.
You were making the point that when National Guard troops are called in to perform policing functions at a time when there's no need to use the National Guard instead of the police, it's silly to draw a distinction between their roles?
My apologies. I missed that from your arguments. I'll make a point of reading them more closely in the future.
You were making the point that when National Guard troops are called in to perform policing functions at a time when there's no need to use the National Guard instead of the police, it's silly to draw a distinction between their roles?
My apologies. I missed that from your arguments. I'll make a point of reading them more closely in the future.
You're quite the dancer.
You're quite the dancer.
My point is that the distinction between them is moot as it relates to the current discussion. If you're talking police, national guard troops brought in to perform a policing role, civilian volunteers who are deputized to work with the police or any other variation thereof, they should all be judged the same when they're acting in those roles.
When you bring the national guard in to reinforce the police officers, they are there in a policing function and the rules which govern them should be identical to the rules which govern every other cop. They are not there as soldiers.
My point is that the distinction between them is moot as it relates to the current discussion. If you're talking police, national guard troops brought in to perform a policing role, civilian volunteers who are deputized to work with the police or any other variation thereof, they should all be judged the same when they're acting in those roles.
When you bring the national guard in to reinforce the police officers, they are there in a policing function and the rules which govern them should be identical to the rules which govern every other cop. They are not there as soldiers.
NG units trained to maneuver and fire together are not aggregates of police officers. And, as you pointed out, why they were there at all is nontrivial.
"Middle America" did not go to college back then.
Only the kids of well off parents did.
This is why going to college got the guys an exemption from the draft.
Guys who went to trade school or blue collar workers were the pool of draftees.
"Rich man's war, poor man's fight" as the old saying goes.
Honestly, the current generation thinks nothing of this event. If it even rings a bell.
Mass shootings on campuses is a horrific, though regular thing now.
A single incident like this over 50 years ago is just a blip.