@Fred_Snerd In the oath of enlistment it specifically states follow orders of the constitution and the Pres.. And because constitution is listed first, as it SHOULD and MUST ALWAYS BE the first duty is to IT, not the Pres. I hope this distinction in being clearly spelled out to new members of the armed forces and understood clearly because if not it should be. However, you do often have to place faith in the overall integrity of the leadership at the helm, that is true, at certain points in time, and cannot divert just because something is appearing off. Clear, flagrant violations of the constituion are where the order of committment in the oath is key and where individuals are responsible for upholding it themselves, if being directed otherwise from the top.

"They're sworn to protect the constitution, not us." Correct, but the constitution is what ultimately protects us, our society.

@Fred_Snerd This is humourous? I absolutely fail to find ANYTHING funny! You are talking about the linchpin of our nation, our democracy, freedom in the world. How is it funny? This is not something to brush over or make light of. I don't get it.

@Fred_Snerd At what point, in your mind, does the government have a responsibility to act? For instance with these protestors. How many buildings do they get to deface? How many days do they get to occupy a space before something can be done, in your mind? When can law enforcement do it's job without getting labeled "the brute squad"? I don't agree with the very harsh tactics that have been used at points, but the "peaceful protestors" are causing destruction and guess who gets to foot the bill for all of it? The taxpayer! The "peaceful protestors" have also managed to alienate fellow democrats, so what is their point again?

Okay so then what is it? Why do they, the local law enforcement, deserve the name, "brute squad"? I thought you were referring to the federal agents with the comment.