MilProGuy
Regular Member
Last edited:
Well handled .... but: what would have been the next step had those showing disrespect not complied?
Yes, I was a soldier and I'm still very proud of that fact since you ask.:lol:
I hate to be the odd man out, but as a former Marine I have standing to comment.
The First Amendment is not suspended at shrines.
Giggling and joking is far, far from deliberate, calculated disrespect, such as, say, the preacher who was going around to military funerals saying dead soldiers were God's wrath for America's tolerance of homosexuals.
It is one thing for the guard to request--which he did. And, the noisy ones shut up. But, they could just as well have continued--and we would be very wise to support their right to do so.
Majority opinion and majority speech needs no protection in a democratic republic.
Who is the government to decide to seize our tax dollars under threat and then assert that all must be silent and respectful at the locations it chooses?
Especially when the demanded respect helps glorify the dead the government helped get killed? Glorification, honoring the dead? These play right into the hands of the sociopaths who lie us into war, I suspect. Below is a link to a very interesting video--a clip from an old movie. When taken together with Gen. Smedley Butler's (USMC) book, War is a Racket, the clip is definitely food for thought.
So, while we may or may not be personally affronted by the giggling and laughing, I would recommend against supporting too strongly the government (guard) shutting up the "offenders"
The mother has been pretending her husband and son are still alive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIeYppX-lRg&feature=related
In public hearings, courts and events officials have always had the authority to regulate unruly behavior. The government has the authority to enforce respect and silence at memorials by a mandate from the majority of people who understand what is and is not tolerable in a civilized society.
Uh-huh. Suuuuuuure.
Thanks for giving some thought to the rest of what I wrote, too.
It is requested that everyone maintains a level of silence and respect
You are correct, of course, even though I joked earlier about the pointy end of the boomstick.The First Amendment is not suspended at shrines.
...
So, while we may or may not be personally affronted by the giggling and laughing, I would recommend against supporting too strongly the government (guard) shutting up the "offenders"
If they build a memorial to obozo, marx and john lennon with rules against acting like an ass I would simply avoid it rather than put myself in a position where I would get chastized by someone charged with guarding it. It's public property bottom line, and all of the public should have the right to visit such property without being disturbed by people who have no common sense. Whether you like it (or believe it) or not, the government gets it's authority to exist, enforce regulations, tax, imprison, wage war, steal and redistribute wealth depending on what the majority of the public demands or tolerates.
I would stick with the clear majority that holds disrespectul (*&%*'s in contempt.
Uh huh.
You understand it wasn't all that many years ago that OCers were the target of very similar--shall we say--rationale?
It was thoughtless to OC--cause it made people nervous. It was within the government's legitimate sphere to seize (detain) and investigate lawful OCers because, well, they might be up to something. And, (gasp!) they were doing something "intolerable"--carrying a gun. Or, so the "rationale" went.
What you have written about government power and majority is called legal Positivism. It holds, among other things, that any law is legitimate because laws are all man-made. Positivism is the antithesis of natural rights, Natural Law--whether called the law of God or Nature. The concept of a Natural Law and natural rights holds that man-made laws, in order to be legitimate, must abide by or align with the law of Nature or God. Meaning, there is a higher law than man-made laws--the law of how the universe works, and how Man's mind and spirit work.
Positivism. Natural Law. Natural rights. I'll let you all figure out which seems to take into account more truth. And, which you would prefer to live under.