Lawless extremists pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab

[CMike]

They need to be fired for insubordination

They don't work for Obama.


Also Obama is the president he is not actually the emperor...yet.

 

[jtpr312]

You see they dont have a right to deside wether they like an order enough to obey it.


How well does a military work if the troops are allowed to say fuck you to the generals

Actually it's the soldier's duty to refuse to follow illegal orders and if he obeys an illegal order he cannot use the defense, but the General ordered me to do it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lawless extremists pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab

Of course, by “extremists” I mean senior law enforcement officers, and since there are so many standing up to tell the President and Congressional progressives where they can stick their fantasies of gun bans and confiscation, I guess I should further refine that down to the Utah Sheriff’s Association (USA).

Needless to say this makes no sense, given the fact there is no ‘gun grab’ planned by anyone, including Obama.

Otherwise, these state officials lied when they swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are indeed lawless extremists.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lawless extremists pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab

Of course, by “extremists” I mean senior law enforcement officers, and since there are so many standing up to tell the President and Congressional progressives where they can stick their fantasies of gun bans and confiscation, I guess I should further refine that down to the Utah Sheriff’s Association (USA).

Needless to say this makes no sense, given the fact there is no ‘gun grab’ planned by anyone, including Obama.

Otherwise, these state officials lied when they swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are indeed lawless extremists.

Dianne Feinstein said so in her assault weapons ban bill.

“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,”

 

[PaulS1950]

Truthmatters,
The sureme court hasn't made any judgements on the up-coming bills regarding the banning of "assault weapons". They have, in the past implied that any gun that would be useful to the militia is protected by the second amendment. Semi-automatic rifles and carbines fit into that "protected" group.

Through the interstate commerce act the feds have power to regulate the interstate transfer of goods but not the intrastate transfer. They do have the power to regulate interstate shippers in intrastate service but not the goods.

Any law that is passed that superceeds the powers granted to the legislature by the constitution is by its very definition unlawful. No one can enforce an unconstitutional law (see above definition) and everyone has the right to defend themselves from those who would try. (tested in the supreme court and won)

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb agrees with Lt Calley and his actions.

What? Killing the enemy? So do I.

The women and children? Really? Thank God you never served.

 

[Zoom]

Fuck this, the south will not rise again.

 

[Missourian]

Fuck this, the south will not rise again.

Don't look now, but your bigotry is showing.

The article is about Utah.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A number of Utah's sheriffs would fit right into Mississippi: buncha meatheads.

 

[Doc91678]

You see they dont have a right to deside wether they like an order enough to obey it.


How well does a military work if the troops are allowed to say fuck you to the generals

The "I was just following orders" defense does not shield soldiers from criminal culpability.

Nuremberg was proof to this.

bigreb agrees with Lt Calley and his actions.

What? Killing the enemy? So do I.

The women and children? Really? Thank God you never served.

The question still resides with the following:
Did he order the killing of the enemy or old men, women and children?
If it was the enemey then he was justified.
Were those soldiwers that assisted in the European genocide of WWII just as culpable as those that ordered the killing? What was the decison of the Nuremberg judges?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You see they dont have a right to deside wether they like an order enough to obey it.


How well does a military work if the troops are allowed to say fuck you to the generals

The "I was just following orders" defense does not shield soldiers from criminal culpability.

Nuremberg was proof to this.

What? Killing the enemy? So do I.

The women and children? Really? Thank God you never served.

The question still resides with the following:
Did he order the killing of the enemy or old men, women and children?
If it was the enemey then he was justified.
Were those soldiwers that assisted in the European genocide of WWII just as culpable as those that ordered the killing? What was the decison of the Nuremberg judges?

he was convicted of ordering the murder of women and children

got it?

 

[Missourian]

A number of Utah's sheriffs would fit right into Mississippi: buncha meatheads.

Strange for you call them meatheads after paying them such a obvious compliment.

 

[jgarden]

Lawless extremists pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab

Kennedy and Johnson experienced the same thing when governors and state authorities in the Southern States refused to protect the civil rights of "blacks."

The "Commander-in-Chief" always has the option of sending in the military and replacing these Utah sheriffs.

 

[Missourian]

Lawless extremists pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab

Kennedy and Johnson experienced the same thing when governors and state authorities refused to protect civil rights of "blacks."

The "Commander-in-Chief" always has the option of sending in the military and replacing these Utah sheriffs.

I can only hope and pray that THIS is route the President chooses.

Call out the troops to suppress a few sheriffs.


Cuz nothing says "you can trust us never to use the military to oppress you" like sending in the military to oppress.

 

[Doc91678]

The "I was just following orders" defense does not shield soldiers from criminal culpability.

Nuremberg was proof to this.

The women and children? Really? Thank God you never served.

The question still resides with the following:
Did he order the killing of the enemy or old men, women and children?
If it was the enemey then he was justified.
Were those soldiwers that assisted in the European genocide of WWII just as culpable as those that ordered the killing? What was the decison of the Nuremberg judges?

he was convicted of ordering the murder of women and children

got it?

That is exactly what I alluded to. Lt. Calley was convicted for killing old men, women and children not so;diers in combat. The ordinary soldiers that assisted in genocide during WWII, were also convicted, because they could have refused an unlawful order. Got it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question still resides with the following:
Did he order the killing of the enemy or old men, women and children?
If it was the enemey then he was justified.
Were those soldiwers that assisted in the European genocide of WWII just as culpable as those that ordered the killing? What was the decison of the Nuremberg judges?

he was convicted of ordering the murder of women and children

got it?

That is exactly what I alluded to. Lt. Calley was convicted for killing old men, women and children not so;diers in combat. The ordinary soldiers that assisted in genocide during WWII, were also convicted, because they could have refused an unlawful order. Got it.

It was a couple of GIs in the platoon that threatened to machine gun the others if they did not stop. They stopped, after several hundred dead.

 

[MDiver]

The bottom line is that if the white house gave orders to confiscate weapons (assault or otherwise), elements of the military would rebel (as many also privately own weapons) and tens of thousands would join in a rebellion against such action. Most likely, civil war would ensue.

 

[Oldguy]

Lawless extremists pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab

Of course, by “extremists” I mean senior law enforcement officers, and since there are so many standing up to tell the President and Congressional progressives where they can stick their fantasies of gun bans and confiscation, I guess I should further refine that down to the Utah Sheriff’s Association (USA).

Needless to say this makes no sense, given the fact there is no ‘gun grab’ planned by anyone, including Obama.

Otherwise, these state officials lied when they swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are indeed lawless extremists.

Dianne Feinstein said so in her assault weapons ban bill.

“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,”

Did you miss that part? NOT RETROACTIVELY means the ban will not apply to weapons you already own. In other words, nobody is coming to get your guns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Needless to say this makes no sense, given the fact there is no ‘gun grab’ planned by anyone, including Obama.

Otherwise, these state officials lied when they swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are indeed lawless extremists.

Dianne Feinstein said so in her assault weapons ban bill.

“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,”

Did you miss that part? NOT RETROACTIVELY means the ban will not apply to weapons you already own. In other words, nobody is coming to get your guns.

Did you miss the part about ban the possession of Assault weapons?
Did you also miss the part about banning the transfer meaning you can't will your firearms to your children. meaning they must be turned in or they will come and get them.

 

[jtpr312]

bigreb agrees with Lt Calley and his actions.

What? Killing the enemy? So do I.

The women and children? Really? Thank God you never served.

I did serve and woman and children die in war, it sucks but it is what it is, and if a village is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, they ARE the enemy and need to be eliminated. During WWII we killed tens of thousands of German, European and Japanese woman and children when we carpet bombed enemy cities or enemy occupied cities in an attempt to either destroy the enemy in those cities in the cases of European ones and to destroy the people's will to carry on the war in the case of German and Japanese cities. By the way scrote, I served four years as a Marine Rifleman being honoarbly disharged as a Corporal. Run along now pansy, it's obviously YOU are the one that never serverd............well other than fries with the burger that is.