One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Would our troops fire on citizens if ordered to do so?
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
Mar 28, 2013 19:20:26   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
shooterofgunmen wrote:
Understand now. Teachers: Over paid, under worked, disinterested, unable to teach, truly believe they are special, and, oh I could go on, nothing but a bunch of liberals teaching the liberal doctrine to a bunch of day old oatmeal brains. FRIENDS?


I taught American History and Government and certainly wasn't underworked since I was very interested in teaching those courses to kids and never had more than one period a day off.

I was a Democrat till they nominated an admitted socialist for President in 1972 but that drove me away. I tried to teach from a completely independent stance in either area and surely didn't teach from any kind of doctrine. Of course, I have been out since 1986 so maybe they changed after that. I am sorry that most of my kids weren't that kind. My last Government class had 8 boys who were a major part of our football team. They always got as near my desk as they could and all made either As or Bs all the time. Now maybe one of the girls may have been that smart back then but not many more.

FRIENDS. Hell I have thought we were from the beginning, just trying to get some of what I think in front of the people and using you to do it.

Reply
Mar 28, 2013 20:29:43   #
shooterofgunmen Loc: Colorado
 
oldroy wrote:
I taught American History and Government and certainly wasn't underworked since I was very interested in teaching those courses to kids and never had more than one period a day off.

I was a Democrat till they nominated an admitted socialist for President in 1972 but that drove me away. I tried to teach from a completely independent stance in either area and surely didn't teach from any kind of doctrine. Of course, I have been out since 1986 so maybe they changed after that. I am sorry that most of my kids weren't that kind. My last Government class had 8 boys who were a major part of our football team. They always got as near my desk as they could and all made either As or Bs all the time. Now maybe one of the girls may have been that smart back then but not many more.

FRIENDS. Hell I have thought we were from the beginning, just trying to get some of what I think in front of the people and using you to do it.
I taught American History and Government and certa... (show quote)


Hey I was more or less used for 30 years. Not really. I loved what I did and I loved my Marines. Thank you for your dedication and devotion to our youth.
Semper Fi---yes FRIENDS. Sometimes I just shoot off my big mouth-HABIT..

Reply
Mar 29, 2013 14:45:23   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
shooterofgunmen wrote:
Hey I was more or less used for 30 years. Not really. I loved what I did and I loved my Marines. Thank you for your dedication and devotion to our youth.
Semper Fi---yes FRIENDS. Sometimes I just shoot off my big mouth-HABIT..


I think we could well have made a serious mistake by misreading each other. Yes, we are buddies although I haven't got you down on the forum list, yet.

Reply
 
 
Mar 29, 2013 16:28:28   #
shooterofgunmen Loc: Colorado
 
oldroy wrote:
I think we could well have made a serious mistake by misreading each other. Yes, we are buddies although I haven't got you down on the forum list, yet.


I just started receiving this site yesterday

Reply
Mar 29, 2013 18:23:32   #
FEDUP
 
Richard94611 wrote:
That is NOT how Di Fi defines them. The bill they just shelved had an extensive list of makes and models in it. You demean a very intelligent woman when you post crap like that.

I think I have mad it clear why I would like them banned, but let me give it another try.

1. The local police are tired of being outgunned by thugs with assault weapons.

2. The Second Amendment was written at a time when assault weapons were not even conceived of, and it was surely not the intention of the writers and signers of the Constitution to allow them.

3. Were assault weapons AND large 30-round magazines not available, recent k*****gs at the school in Connecticut and also the movie theater in (where was it ?) Colorado would not have taken nearly as large a toll.

4. Nobody needs this type of weapon to go hunting. If it takes you 30 rounds to shoot a deer, then you better take up basket weaving instead.

5. I am a school teacher and I don't want any gunman at all to come into my school, and certainly not some insane i***t with an assault weapon.
That is NOT how Di Fi defines them. The bill they... (show quote)
I can understand why you would post such a stupid liberal statement, You are a teacher probably educated at Colorado State University . You certainly do not Know a dam thing about firearms or the Second Amendment. If you want, I can educate you on those subjects.

:roll:

Reply
Mar 29, 2013 19:40:55   #
shooterofgunmen Loc: Colorado
 
FEDUP wrote:
I can understand why you would post such a stupid liberal statement, You are a teacher probably educated at Colorado State University . You certainly do not Know a dam thing about firearms or the Second Amendment. If you want, I can educate you on those subjects.

:roll:


Well will somebody tell me what the hell is going on? The school teacher should probably get in another line of work.

Reply
Mar 29, 2013 23:01:30   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
All I have to add to this conversation is the following:

Civil War and the Litmus Test

Reply
 
 
Mar 29, 2013 23:27:01   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
I simply must jump in on this one.
Richard94611 wrote:
That is NOT how Di Fi defines them. The bill they just shelved had an extensive list of makes and models in it. You demean a very intelligent woman when you post crap like that.

I think I have mad it clear why I would like them banned, but let me give it another try.

1. The local police are tired of being outgunned by thugs with assault weapons.
Well, they better get used to it. Any new laws passed by the government WRT guns is only going to create an even larger class of criminals. That said, I have to ask the question, what assault weapons? I can't recall any reports of Police taking on fire from fully automatic weapons for quite some time. For that matter, the times that they have is extremely rare.

Quote:
2. The Second Amendment was written at a time when assault weapons were not even conceived of, and it was surely not the intention of the writers and signers of the Constitution to allow them.
Our forefathers had cannons, biological warfare (hurling diseased bodies of dead animals and people using catapults over city walls) was a concept that was known to them (though they probably didn't call it that), and they were probably better educated than the majority of politicians we have today. I assure you that they did not make any mistake in failing to make exclusions. They foresaw that the greatest enemy of the people would come from the government itself. They wanted the citizens to be as well armed as the forces that may be used against them. Things like "hunting" and "self-defense from criminals" were just a side benefit. That is the essence of the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
3. Were assault weapons AND large 30-round magazines not available, recent k*****gs at the school in Connecticut and also the movie theater in (where was it ?) Colorado would not have taken nearly as large a toll.
Perhaps not, but then there are other ways to k**l a lot of people quickly that don't require guns. The problem isn't the weapon, it's the intent of the individual.

Quote:
4. Nobody needs this type of weapon to go hunting. If it takes you 30 rounds to shoot a deer, then you better take up basket weaving instead.
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Read my earlier answer above.

Quote:
5. I am a school teacher and I don't want any gunman at all to come into my school, and certainly not some insane i***t with an assault weapon.
Who's going to come to your rescue if and when they do? My favorite picture is of a class of school children on a field trip. On the back of the teacher is a rifle. This picture was taken in Israel. You don't hear about mass shootings at schools in Israel.

The problem with you liberals is that you think the problem is with guns. Your failure in just about every respect is a simple one. You fail to acknowledge the element of Human nature. You deny, ignore, and outright lie about it, but you don't face it. People do evil things. The things they do evil with are not themselves evil. They are inanimate objects without an opinion, feeling, or remorse. You don't have to reason with the gun. You have to reason with the person holding the gun...if they are feeling reasonable. It's ironic that I'm talking about being reasonable with a liberal. Liberals are some of the most unreasonable people I have ever met.

Reply
Mar 29, 2013 23:35:46   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
shooterofgunmen wrote:
I would never, nor would I EVER order a United States Marine to fire on U.S. citizens NO MATTER WHO gave me the order regardless of the consequences to myself.
Hope this helps.
Yet that is exactly what is now going on. Military officers in the US armed forces are being asked if they would fire on American Citizens. http://www.infowars.com/civil-war-and-the-litmus-test-will-you-shoot-americans/
Voice of Reason wrote:
I think that if Obama or any other administration decided to use military forces against the American people, they would use UN troops or possibly "brownshirts" in the form of Homeland Security, not US military troops.
He/they will use anyone who will follow orders over their oath (to protect and defend the constitution). I submit to you that once any order is given to start confiscating weapons on ANY scale, BHO is no longer commander in chief. He would have f**grantly violated his oath of office, and no orders given by him from that time on would be lawful....or from anyone in his chain of command.

Reply
Mar 29, 2013 23:43:59   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
Voice of Reason wrote:
Yup, I've seen the speech. I don't know how many people are unaware of it, but the l*****ts just ignore it like they do all inconvenient things about The One.


He's even gotten his on version of Hit...um...Obama Youth corps. You should have seen them wearing their pro BHO shirts while exercising out to "Yes...we...can! Yes...we...can!"

Reply
Mar 29, 2013 23:47:00   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
Richard94611 wrote:
Just like we all must be missing the point about "freedom of speech" when it is prohibited to scream fire in the middle of a crowded theater, right ? My point is that most of the amendments have been modified to a certain degree that the courts and most people feel is reasonable. You evidently just want your rights exactly as the constitution declares them, without any modifications. You're too late.
You can yell "fire". You just can't hide behind the 1st amendment as a legal defense.

Reply
 
 
Mar 29, 2013 23:55:05   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
oldroy wrote:
Maybe it will take all 15 to get him down since 9mm isn't very large.
In doing research about lethality and bullet caliber, I came across some research that a former police officer turned gun instructor had compiled. While a police officer, he followed every case he encountered that involved using a weapon. What he discovered is that small caliber rounds were less effective than large caliber rounds. No surprise there. Additionally, what he discovered is that while .45 caliber rounds were slightly more effective, they were still effectively tied with 9mm rounds at about 50% each. That means that no matter what size bullet (in the large round category) you're going to have to spend an average of two rounds per opponent to take them out.

Reply
Mar 29, 2013 23:59:27   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
silverfox52 wrote:
Wh**ever force he decides to use, this revolution will certainly be more bloody that the first one was.
If we have a civil war, no matter what happens, this time around we lose. Yes it will be bloody. But inevitably we will end up fighting the world, and the United States of America will become a puppet of the UN. I don't see any scenario of the American people winning.

Reply
Mar 30, 2013 00:04:36   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
Richard94611 wrote:
No amendment says you cannot scream "Fire !" in a crowded theater. Nobody said any amendment states that. This is how the law has evolved. Even with an amendment that gives freedom of speech, you are not "free" to slander anyone or yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In other words, the amendment has had to be interpreted, just as the Second amendment will be sooner or later.
No, all that has been said is that you cannot commit a crime (where the intent is to cause panic or injury) and use the Constitution and its Amendments as protection from prosecution. Everyone can agree that it would make no sense for a person to shoot another and claim the 2nd Amendment as a defense. Again, it goes to intent.

I submit to you that the whole purpose of the Constitution and in particular, the Bill of Rights, is to secure a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When one person attempts to deny another of these fundamental rights, that's when they cannot use the constitution as a defense. So, as long as one does not do anything to violate another persons rights, then there is no problem.

For those liberally minded people out there, Building a house that blocks your view of the lake does not constitute a violation of your right to pursue happiness. The right is in the pursuit, not a guarantee of happiness.

Reply
Mar 30, 2013 07:16:30   #
silverfox52
 
memBrain wrote:
If we have a civil war, no matter what happens, this time around we lose. Yes it will be bloody. But inevitably we will end up fighting the world, and the United States of America will become a puppet of the UN. I don't see any scenario of the American people winning.


I doubt that the English saw any way for the American people to win either, but look what that got them. If you don't think you can win, you loose before you ever take the first step.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.