|
|
Registered User Currently Offline
|
Posts: 116
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
All Concerned,
I can accept, not agree with, but accept most of what you are saying but I cannot agree with the statement "The fact is disaffected vets are a prime breeding grounds for these kinds of groups, just as they always have been" Why are vets a prime breeding ground? Because they served the government, because they know how to organize, or work in a group, or kill a person? If this is the case then civilians have to be "more" of a prime group because most of the militia is made up of non-vets.
Vets may be prime to recruit because he or she is just that; a trained person, someone who has worked in a group, understand tactics, and weapons etc. This is not to say civilians cannot do or learn this but just that vets already have this experience.
I spent 28 plus years in the US Army and, in my opinion, the majority, would find "taking up arms' against our government very distasteful. They may, as we all do at some point, disagree with something that is going on but all those that enlisted or are commissioned swear to uphold and defend the Constitution (literally), and those that are serving or have served (and probably most of us) take that commitment seriously.
But alas, as mentioned, I may be taking this story to seriously.
Thanks for listening
|