TheGoodBits Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Because he's passed or even proposed so much anti gun legislation today?Fact is when the democrats tried to pass gun control legislation under Bill Clinton they learned their lesson. That issue more than anything else was responsible for the GOP taking the house and many senate seats. They've learned their lesson on gun issues. It wasn't a campagne issue other than for Dems to posse with their riffles. Sarcasm detector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I wish there were people like the oath takers at Waco Texas and that never happened. In David Koreshes cult, or outside of it? Wacko was a pretty terrible thing, but Koresh did stock pile weapons and he did fire on federal authorities including the military.... I agree the ATF could have should have handled it better, I would not say Koresh or his people were blameless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 That may have been true a few years ago, but I think the people who are growing more concerned are not just CTs. Well then, I guess the CT are getting more and more successful finding receptive ears for their fearmongering. I find that sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 That may have been true a few years ago, but I think the people who are growing more concerned are not just CTs. Are you trying to argue that this bat**** crazy "concern" is logical and commonly held by rational people? Obama isn't going to disarm you, take your freedoms, or put you in camps. Those that think he is are loons, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Sarcasm detector It's no sarcastic. I think Obama has a lot of things he wants to do. Healthcare, Power Grid, Energy Policy, foreign policy. Guns aren't even on his radar. That issue slaughtered the Democrats under Clinton. Obama is more focused and displined than that... I'm not being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Then you have no business in the Military.If you can not follow the orders of the President and your superiors in defense of the constitution for both foreign and DOMESTIC enemies why the hell would you want to be in the military. Why would you ever take the enlistment oath? Dear God, listen to yourself.first of all, I will probably never take an enlistment oath. I'm going to be commissioned, it's basically the same oath, but it is slightly different. but that is well besides the point. hypothetically speaking, who would you rather me be following orders from if a President started to phase out personal liberty in the name of security (or some other totalitarian scenario), that President, or a group of resistance fighters? if such a horrible situation were to occur, would you not agree that my duty would be to start or join a resistance in order to protect the Constitution from a domestic enemy??? secondly, when the **** did I ever say I wouldn't follow the President's orders? most likely he's going to be my boss. to not follow his orders would be cowardly and retarded, assuming Obama doesn't jump off the deep end and pull a Putin or something, which I 100% believe will not happen. I only said that if such a situation as the one I just laid out were to happen, then I could not and will not follow that persons orders. you need to chill the **** out and stop pouncing on anything that you see that remotely differs from what you're saying. I'm honestly sorry that you think I'm an unpatriotic traitor, I'll be sure to remember that when I'm being shot at in Afghanistan in a few years while you sit at home on Sundays and watch the Redskins win the superbowl. Jus sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Well then, I guess the CT are getting more and more successful finding receptive ears for their fearmongering. I find that sad. Are you fine with the military deciding that everybody needs to get a flu vaccine and if you don't, you will be quarantined? Are you fine with military or police coming into your home and taking your dog and having it put down, because they found it to have 10% terrier in it and passed the law a week ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Are you trying to argue that this bat**** crazy "concern" is logical and commonly held by rational people? Obama isn't going to disarm you, take your freedoms, or put you in camps. Those that think he is are loons, plain and simple. When did I say Obama was going to do anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I agree the ATF could have should have handled it better, I would not say Koresh or his people were blameless. "were blameless"? I'm sick of this stupid crap. They stockpiled weapons, fired on authorities, and ultimately caused their own destruction. They are ENTIRELY to blame. 100%. Authorities could have done better to save lives but the blame rests squarely with this cult of loons that decided to put their people at risk and basically set it up so that authorities storming the gate would result in tragedy. I wonder if people think suspects shot by cops after SHOOTING at the police are innocent victims too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Are you fine with the military deciding that everybody needs to get a flu vaccine and if you don't, you will be quarantined?Are you fine with military or police coming into your home and taking your dog and having it put down, because they found it to have 10% terrier in it and passed the law a week ago? What the hell are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Are you fine with the military deciding that everybody needs to get a flu vaccine and if you don't, you will be quarantined?Are you fine with military or police coming into your home and taking your dog and having it put down, because they found it to have 10% terrier in it and passed the law a week ago? you know, if there was a pandemic (let's say for a more dangerous disease than flu), I'm ok with the military doing that if they are ordered to by our government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 It's no sarcastic. I think Obama has a lot of things he wants to do.Healthcare, Power Grid, Energy Policy, foreign policy. Guns aren't even on his radar. That issue slaughtered the Democrats under Clinton. Obama is more focused and displined than that... I'm not being sarcastic. Well I wasn't trying to argue, but since you don't understand that I'm going to engage in a fake argument that Obama is going to take away guns, while being as sarcastic as possible. Hopefully you catch on. Well if you look at Democrats historic actions, gun banning has always been a goal of theirs. They just don't like guns. Probably the same reason they like to cut military funding and make America weaker. I have no reason to believe Obama is any different, and if you really look into it, he's probably worse then most. Mark my words, if he gets reelected in 2012, a gun ban will be a top priority for him. We need more people like the oath keepers to protect against that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 In David Koreshes cult, or outside of it?Wacko was a pretty terrible thing, but Koresh did stock pile weapons and he did fire on federal authorities including the military.... I agree the ATF could have should have handled it better, I would not say Koresh or his people were blameless. What did the women and children do that deserved to be sprayed with gas, set on fire and then run over with a tank, that would be blamed? He had guns and didn't pay his taxes. Same with Ruby Ridge. Their families were gunned down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 When did I say Obama was going to do anything? Never claimed you did. But you argued that this sentiment was growing and I countered by stating that only amongst loons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 All I need is the actual oath for me to refuse orders contrary to the constitution. Exactly right. And that's not by accident either. Only it's not orders contrary to the constitution. It's orders contrary to the uniform code of military justice. The enlistment oath says you will defend the constitution, it doesn't say you get to interpret that or use that disagree with your commanders. It says the orders you are asked to perform must be according to the uniform code of military justice. It would take a lot for me to refuse orders though. And it should. But that is a right, even an obligation which is recognized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 What did the women and children do that deserved to be sprayed with gas, set on fire and then run over with a tank, that would be blamed?He had guns and didn't pay his taxes. Same with Ruby Ridge. Their families were gunned down. I can see where this is going. Forget it. I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 What the hell are you talking about? Pandemic response bill of Mass. and the Denver Pit Ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Why do you think their ten part Oath specifically references "disarming the people," declaring a "state of emergency," or putting people into "camps?" What small segment of our population is is currently concerned that gun rights are about to be abolished, that a state of emergency is about to be declared, that people are going to be herded into camps? Here's a hint - go to resistnet or listen to Alex Jones. like I said, I'm suspicious of them, not the ideas they list. I really don't think that will likely happen in the near future, but if it were to happen, I would be ready to defend the Constitution from such unwarranted measures. But again, highly unlikely to happen anytime soon. I mean, do you not agree that if orders like the ones they say they won't follow were actually given, that it would be better to have people resist those? or would JMS's types rather have the military blindly follow them to our own destruction. I have great faith in the leadership in our military to discern and lead if such an unfortunate situation were to occur. ask most anybody whether their allegiance is to the gov't/President or to the Constitution, and you'll get an answer stacked 75 to 25 in favor of the Constitution. This is precisely why I think there isn't anything to worry about with Obama in terms of the likelihood of a totalitarian regime being created under his watch: our military leaders aren't concerned one bit, and you better believe that their allegiance (for the most part) is aligned with the people over the gov't any given day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Are you fine with the military deciding that everybody needs to get a flu vaccine and if you don't, you will be quarantined?There will very likely be a justifiable example of this not too far in the future, only I won't be accepting if it's the military that makes the decision. Are you fine with military or police coming into your home and taking your dog and having it put down, because they found it to have 10% terrier in it and passed the law a week ago? That's silly. Don't elect, or live in a place that elects, people who draft those sorts of laws. And no, it's not everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 What did the women and children do that deserved to be sprayed with gas, set on fire and then run over with a tank, that would be blamed?He had guns and didn't pay his taxes. Same with Ruby Ridge. Their families were gunned down. Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 What did the women and children do that deserved to be sprayed with gas, set on fire and then run over with a tank, that would be blamed?He had guns and didn't pay his taxes. Same with Ruby Ridge. Their families were gunned down. In Wacko, Koresh fired first and killed ATF agents. What should the ATF have done at that point go home? I agree the ATF shouldn't have been there in the first place, and incompently caused the entire confrontation. they should have realized they were dealing with loons and not played into their histarics. But after Koresh started firing and killing federal agents the Feds couldn't/ shouldn't have backed down. As for Ruby Ridge, that's a different matter. Same bumbling federal effort. The difference was in Ruby Ridge it was the feds who fired first. The feds just didn't stumble into a bad situation, they created it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Pandemic response bill of Mass. and the Denver Pit Ban. Neither are imposed by the federal government which people hate so much but the local government which is beloved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Neither are imposed by the federal government which people hate so much but the local government which is beloved. So what? I was speaking in a general term. And no, the local people of those respective states are the ones fighting those two thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Seriously? well, yes, this is a legitimate question that people often avoid because of its association with the Oklahoma Bombings. Timothy McVeigh is dead, and I and many others are extremely glad for this, but we cannot discount analysis of whether the government grossly overstepped the bounds of their power at Waco or Ruby Ridge simply because a crazy person used similar ideas to commit terrorism. By this logic, a Muslim should not consider the Koran because Al Qaeda uses it as justification of their actions on a daily basis.my point is this: perhaps we should have a discussion of whether of not the government's use of force was justified, excessive, or both. the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned in regard to my own views, but when I learned about what happened, it made me scratch my head. (I was only 2 or 3 when these incidents happened) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 KAO, other places are looking to inact the same BSL that Denver has. It was an old, unenforced law and then overnight, they started going to peoples homes without warning and taking the dogs. There was an underground railroad for people who couldn't move out fast enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.3d05d94a5044fa9ada2aa8cc7156fc2a.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.