So, I ran across this today: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/10/chicago-lawmaker-send-national-guard-stop-violence/
I like this one sentence: She also asked that the governor appoint a task force to guide the behavior of the National Guard. We dont want them to have us fearing them also. We want them there for safety and protection. And then there's this one: Rep. Mary Flowers, also a Democrat, disagreed with Ms. Davis assessment that troops are needed, but concurs that the governor needs to do something. We must be respected in our community. We must have jobs in our community. So lets see, you want the National Guard to help with violence, but you don't want the people fearing them. Fair enough I guess, but what exactly do you want them to do? I mean, if they are not going to carry their weapons, and just escort people around unarmed, well I am sure that won't last long since the criminals will still have their weapons. If you arm the National Guard, you are going to have a VERY VERY restrictive ROE to draft. And what happens if one of the soldiers is shot at and they do what they are trained to do, which is shoot back? What if there is collateral damage? The questions go on and on. Personally I don't think that this is the right answer. There really has to be a better way to deal with the violence there. And gun control is obviously not the ans ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365434 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
