|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 362 of 404:
| 
Jan 24 05:02 UTC 2006 |
happyboy is with da poh-leese
|
cross
|
|
response 363 of 404:
|
Jan 24 05:38 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 364 of 404:
|
Jan 24 06:25 UTC 2006 |
Cross, the problem is I am a nice guy too! Ask my friends. I do have
friends, some of whom even post on grex! But I am older than you. I
am not going to tell you a thing about military life, how to obey
orders, or what to do in a combat situation. NOT my area of expertise.
But I have 43 years of handling and dealing with arms and ammo. I
learned to shoot from an expert, and I have never failed to get an
expert rating in any qualifications I have done.
Is a 9mm going to penetrate your vest? No. It won't even penetrate my
vest. Isn't kevlar wonderful thing. But nobody in their right mind is
going to shoot you in the chest with a 9mm from 21 feet away. You aim
for the head in that situation, or you get a bigger gun, something that
will penetrate body armor, and there are a lot of hunting rifles out
there with more punch than an M-16 or even an M-1.
Do I have fantasies about overthrowing the U. S. Government? Quite the
opposite. A civil war is the last thing I want to see or deal with
from either side. That doesn't mean I don't study the art of war.
I support and defend the Constitution. I have studied it for longer
than you have been alive cross, it was required reading in my house.I
have heard all the arguements thru the 60's, 70', and thru today on
what the constitution says, and every generation wants to have their
own say as to the interpretation of it.
The only time the SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd ammendment with regards
to the militia has been discussed here before. They did not rule that
only the militia should have guns. They ruled that a sawed off shotgun
was only appropriate as a militia weapon. they said nothing about
hunting rifles or hand guns.
And if you read the Constitution of the State of Michigan, you will
find that we are all a part of a well regulated militia. All able
bodied citizens between the age of 17 and 60 in the State of Michigan
are members of the militia, and a part of the state military
establishment.
We have had this discussion before as well.
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
4 Militia.
Sec. 4.
The militia shall be organized, equipped and disciplined as provided by
law.
6 Bearing of arms.
Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
himself and the state.
MICHIGAN MILITARY ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 150 of 1967
32.509 State military establishment; composition; organized and
unorganized militia.
Sec. 109.
The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known
as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of
this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard,
the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in
existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of
all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied
citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have
declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who
shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject
to state military duty as provided in this act.
So, in effect, you and I are the militia as provided for under state
law.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 365 of 404:
|
Jan 24 06:50 UTC 2006 |
"The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the
Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional
enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm
individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a
militia or other such public force."
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/)
|
johnnie
|
|
response 366 of 404:
|
Jan 24 14:06 UTC 2006 |
>I can't think of a situation where the US Military would be used against
>a large civilian rebelion.
If memory serves, the Reagan administration (through the office of VP
Bush) worked up plans for using troops to impose martial law should
their not-completely-legal activities in Central America lead to
"violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against
a US military invasion abroad".
|
cross
|
|
response 367 of 404:
|
Jan 24 14:57 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 368 of 404:
|
Jan 24 19:38 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:260: The ACLU has limited resources, so they have to put their
resources where they'll do the most good. There are already
well-funded groups defending the 2nd Amendment. It's the one amendment
conservatives really seem to care about.
Re resp:268: The thing is, once you start arguing that free speech is
only allowed if it doesn't intimidate anyone, you've seriously limited
political debate and discussion. I happen to find a lot of the stuff
said at Republican conventions pretty intimidating, but that doesn't
mean I should be able to shut them down.
Re resp:295: If I were a minority I don't think I'd carry a gun. If
you're not white, having any gun-like object on you seems to greatly
improve the chances of being killed by a cop.
Re resp:311: Regardless of how badly the government handled Ruby Ridge
and Waco, they both prove that being armed with civilian weapons
doesn't help you at all if the government "goes wild." For that
reason, I find it odd that gun rights types use those two events as a
rallying cry.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 369 of 404:
|
Jan 24 22:32 UTC 2006 |
Dang you David for making us go back and reread what you're responding
to. :)
> Re resp:260: The ACLU has limited resources, so they have to put their
> resources where they'll do the most good. There are already
> well-funded groups defending the 2nd Amendment. It's the one amendment
> conservatives really seem to care about.
That is a perfectly acceptable reason to not take up 2nd amendment
cases. If that were the ACLU's stance, my response would be, "oh. okay.
keep up the good work." Hell, I'd accept it if they just kept quiet on
the issue. But instead they go on the offensive AGAINST gun rights.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 370 of 404:
|
Jan 24 23:11 UTC 2006 |
But the ACLU SUPPORTS the 2nd Amendment. What are you talking about? When
have they gone on an "offensive AGAINST gun rights: (as provided by the
2nd Amendment)?
|
bru
|
|
response 371 of 404:
|
Jan 25 05:39 UTC 2006 |
cross, I thought you were in your 20's
The ACLU has said they belive the 2nd is a collective right, not an
individual right.
Ruby Ridge and Waco were both proof of a government out of control and
we all know who was president then, don't we. How many officers died
in the aborted raid on waco? How long did the standoff last? How many
waco's would it take to paralyze the government? The people at the
Branch Dividian Church were not out to overthrow the government. They
were not out on the offensive. All they wanted was to be left alone.
The sheriff should have thrown the feds out after the first week and
taken over the problem.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 372 of 404:
|
Jan 25 05:45 UTC 2006 |
"all they wanted was to be left alone."
yeah, so koresh could continue fucking teenage girls!
|
cross
|
|
response 373 of 404:
|
Jan 25 06:44 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 374 of 404:
|
Jan 25 12:24 UTC 2006 |
Re: 372 Yeah, we sure helped out those poor teenage girls
|
naftee
|
|
response 375 of 404:
|
Jan 26 00:21 UTC 2006 |
you'll still be able to get drunk, though, cross !
|
eprom
|
|
response 376 of 404:
|
Jan 26 01:10 UTC 2006 |
Re: 374
Sometimes you have to destroy a village to save it.
|
twenex
|
|
response 377 of 404:
|
Jan 26 01:13 UTC 2006 |
In Defence of Wac(k)o. How Bru-tal.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 378 of 404:
|
Jan 26 03:54 UTC 2006 |
I am sorry, but going back and justifying the government's actions in
the standoff with the Branch Davidians because it was later found out
that David Koresh was molesting girls is EXACTLY THE SAME as the
government trying to justify an invasion of Iraq based on mass graves
they're only finding out about now. And if you don't believe that guns
were the main reason the government was there, all you need to look at
is the fact that it was a BATF raid, not an FBI one.
The situation was unique in that it wasn't your standard
contain-and-wait barracaded gunman. There was confusion as to whether
some of the people were hostages. They also knew there were children
inside. And time was not on the government's side because the cult-angle
dictated a probable mass-suicide on its way. I'm not defending, nor
criticising the government's actions during the raid, because despite a
few bad choices, there was not much they could have done.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 379 of 404:
|
Jan 26 04:10 UTC 2006 |
I don't know if it's *exactly* the same, but I agree that in neither
case is the retroactive attempt at justification successful.
|
bru
|
|
response 380 of 404:
|
Jan 26 05:04 UTC 2006 |
The thing is no matter what the government thought, they went in with
guns blazing, litteraly. Here again, as in Ruby ridge, they went after
the dogs first. Dogs are dangerous. Kill the dogs.
If they had merely wanted to arrest Koresh as they said, the sheriff
could have picked him up in town at any time. The sheriff had in fact
arrested him on murder charges a few years early, with no violence
involved.
But ATF was looking to make a point that they needed more money in
their budget, and a big raid, (with the TV crews parked out front
acting as a dead giveaway that something was up)was going to give them
proof that they could show congress.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 381 of 404:
|
Jan 26 18:54 UTC 2006 |
But here's the point that the vast majority of people get which some of you
just won't acknowledge: When government men show up at your door with guns,
you surrender. Or you will most likely die. End of story.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 382 of 404:
|
Jan 27 01:32 UTC 2006 |
>If they had merely wanted to arrest Koresh as they said, the sheriff
>could have picked him up in town at any time.
"If", sure--but they also had warrants to search the compound. Hard to
do that from town.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 383 of 404:
|
Jan 27 01:51 UTC 2006 |
Certainly, if he wanted to be riddled full of bullets.
|
bru
|
|
response 384 of 404:
|
Jan 27 05:43 UTC 2006 |
I also suspect if the sheriff had shown up at the compound with
deputies and a couple of ATF agents, that they would have been allowed
to search without incident.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 385 of 404:
|
Jan 27 14:13 UTC 2006 |
What do you base that on? The fact that he had a good 'in public'
relationship wtih the sheriff?
|
bru
|
|
response 386 of 404:
|
Jan 30 04:28 UTC 2006 |
The fact that they found no illegal weapons in the burned out complex.
|