Which side do you come down on

[Ame®icano]

Yep, was in the Navy and i assure you that if you ever put an unregulated patch on any uniform, whether your working uniform or dress uniform, you would be going to captains mast (a sort of mini court where the Captain is the judge and jury, its also one step below a court martial). I would imagine if you made this mistake on my base in Lemoore, California, youd get sent to the jail crew to pick up trash for a month, with half months pay. The captain could send you for up to 2 months though if he felt like it.

The Navy is much more lenient though than the other armed forces, like the Marines for example. If you pulled that crap on a Marine uniform, they would lose their minds and go fucking ape shit on your ass. If any of you have ever served in the military for long periods with Marines, you know exactly what im talking about. They take that shit really seriously. Hell, they will lose their minds if you are simply wearing a wrinkled shirt.

It must take a big set of brass balls to put that patch on and wear it in front of other military personell. I dont see how you could possibly last even a day without getting busted.

What if wearing that patch is encouraged by the commanders? What if those patches are reminder to soldiers of their constitutional duties? What if they are reminder to commanders not to issue orders that were unconstitutional?

Soldier under Oath to Constitution and patch at his shoulder does not need research time so that he can twist and turn constitutional meanings. He knows his stance going in. This is a point of honor and integrity, of having sound foundation and of knowing where you are so that split decisions came be made.

Those who would like to dismiss a badge of honor as a cute little patch are not making any effort to understand the heart and soul of a soldier. Those do not understand the commitment to serve, the cost that it asks of one who makes this oath to uphold the Constitutional or how ridiculous it is for them to hear criticism from someone whose greatest commitment is to buy a Big Mack and a Red Bull.

I don't think that anyone in the armed forces would complain about those patches, because they know and believe to what they stand for.

then the commanders should face charges for pushing a radical right wing political group, and the American flag patch and unit designation patch that is authorized and worn upon the uniform are the badge of honor not this groups patches.

Should they also remove the American flag from their shoulder?

I told you earlier, maybe you go there and ask them to remove it?

Because of those like you I support them wearing those patches. You know why? Because there are no loons like you in a war zone demanding they take them off.

 

[noose4]

What if wearing that patch is encouraged by the commanders? What if those patches are reminder to soldiers of their constitutional duties? What if they are reminder to commanders not to issue orders that were unconstitutional?

Soldier under Oath to Constitution and patch at his shoulder does not need research time so that he can twist and turn constitutional meanings. He knows his stance going in. This is a point of honor and integrity, of having sound foundation and of knowing where you are so that split decisions came be made.

Those who would like to dismiss a badge of honor as a cute little patch are not making any effort to understand the heart and soul of a soldier. Those do not understand the commitment to serve, the cost that it asks of one who makes this oath to uphold the Constitutional or how ridiculous it is for them to hear criticism from someone whose greatest commitment is to buy a Big Mack and a Red Bull.

I don't think that anyone in the armed forces would complain about those patches, because they know and believe to what they stand for.

then the commanders should face charges for pushing a radical right wing political group, and the American flag patch and unit designation patch that is authorized and worn upon the uniform are the badge of honor not this groups patches.

Should they also remove the American flag from their shoulder?

I told you earlier, maybe you go there and ask them to remove it?

Because of those like you I support them wearing those patches. You know why? Because there are no loons like you in a war zone demanding they take them off.

the American flag is an authorized patch the oathkeeper one is not, how hard is that for you to understand? and for the record i served in the military and while i was there i would have confronted anybody that belonged to a radical group like this one, and at least in the Marine Corps it was forbidden to make political statements while wearing the uniform so if the same holds true for the Army the guy in that uniform is breaking his oath by disobeying a lawful orderso so much for being an oath keeper,and as far as the war zone goes i am guessing you have never been in the position to even have the possibility of going to one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Oathkeeper patch is not permitted for authorized wear. If a soldier wears it, s/he will be ordered to remove it. If s/he refuses, then the soldier will face nonjudicial or judicial hearings. If it is "a point of honor" to be confined to station or quarters, reduced in grade, fined, etc., hey, advise the bozo to "go for it".

 

[bodecea]

What if wearing that patch is encouraged by the commanders? What if those patches are reminder to soldiers of their constitutional duties? What if they are reminder to commanders not to issue orders that were unconstitutional?

Soldier under Oath to Constitution and patch at his shoulder does not need research time so that he can twist and turn constitutional meanings. He knows his stance going in. This is a point of honor and integrity, of having sound foundation and of knowing where you are so that split decisions came be made.

Those who would like to dismiss a badge of honor as a cute little patch are not making any effort to understand the heart and soul of a soldier. Those do not understand the commitment to serve, the cost that it asks of one who makes this oath to uphold the Constitutional or how ridiculous it is for them to hear criticism from someone whose greatest commitment is to buy a Big Mack and a Red Bull.

I don't think that anyone in the armed forces would complain about those patches, because they know and believe to what they stand for.

then the commanders should face charges for pushing a radical right wing political group, and the American flag patch and unit designation patch that is authorized and worn upon the uniform are the badge of honor not this groups patches.

Should they also remove the American flag from their shoulder?

I told you earlier, maybe you go there and ask them to remove it?

Because of those like you I support them wearing those patches. You know why? Because there are no loons like you in a war zone demanding they take them off.

The American Flag is an authorized part of the uniform.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I haven't seen anyone project like the rope .
I wish he'd just go ahead and take it.

 

[noose4]

I haven't seen anyone project like the rope .
I wish he'd just go ahead and take it.

hey gary the retard makes an appearance!!!!

 

[Ame®icano]

then the commanders should face charges for pushing a radical right wing political group, and the American flag patch and unit designation patch that is authorized and worn upon the uniform are the badge of honor not this groups patches.

Should they also remove the American flag from their shoulder?

I told you earlier, maybe you go there and ask them to remove it?

Because of those like you I support them wearing those patches. You know why? Because there are no loons like you in a war zone demanding they take them off.

the American flag is an authorized patch the oathkeeper one is not, how hard is that for you to understand? and for the record i served in the military and while i was there i would have confronted anybody that belonged to a radical group like this one, and at least in the Marine Corps it was forbidden to make political statements while wearing the uniform so if the same holds true for the Army the guy in that uniform is breaking his oath by disobeying a lawful orderso so much for being an oath keeper,and as far as the war zone goes i am guessing you have never been in the position to even have the possibility of going to one.

You're guessing. Where does it say it's not authorized?

You say Oathkeepers are radical group. I say they are patriots.

Oath to defend the constitution is no more political statement then Oath to defend America.

These man who swore to defend the Constitution above their Oath of Enlistment probably did it because they see that direction where country is going is not called in the Constitution. Those things the oath talks about have not taken place. The oath doesn't say they have, but insinuate they might in the future. What the oath says is, if they are called upon in the future to do any of those things they will refuse to do so. Soldiers may not use the excuse, "I was just following orders.", if they feel an order is immoral or a war crime. There have been prosecutions for obeying such orders in the past. Since soldiers have been prosecuted for following illegal orders in the past it seems only prudent that they let it be known in advance that they will not follow those orders in the future.

To make it simple, it's a warning.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Oathkeeper patch is not permitted for authorized wear. If a soldier wears it, s/he will be ordered to remove it. If s/he refuses, then the soldier will face nonjudicial or judicial hearings. If it is "a point of honor" to be confined to station or quarters, reduced in grade, fined, etc., hey, advise the bozo to "go for it".

Tell me who's going to order them to remove the patch that simbolize an oath to Constitution.

 

[noose4]

Should they also remove the American flag from their shoulder?

I told you earlier, maybe you go there and ask them to remove it?

Because of those like you I support them wearing those patches. You know why? Because there are no loons like you in a war zone demanding they take them off.

the American flag is an authorized patch the oathkeeper one is not, how hard is that for you to understand? and for the record i served in the military and while i was there i would have confronted anybody that belonged to a radical group like this one, and at least in the Marine Corps it was forbidden to make political statements while wearing the uniform so if the same holds true for the Army the guy in that uniform is breaking his oath by disobeying a lawful orderso so much for being an oath keeper,and as far as the war zone goes i am guessing you have never been in the position to even have the possibility of going to one.

You're guessing. Where does it say it's not authorized?

You say Oathkeepers are radical group. I say they are patriots.

Oath to defend the constitution is no more political statement then Oath to defend America.

These man who swore to defend the Constitution above their Oath of Enlistment probably did it because they see that direction where country is going is not called in the Constitution. Those things the oath talks about have not taken place. The oath doesn't say they have, but insinuate they might in the future. What the oath says is, if they are called upon in the future to do any of those things they will refuse to do so. Soldiers may not use the excuse, "I was just following orders.", if they feel an order is immoral or a war crime. There have been prosecutions for obeying such orders in the past. Since soldiers have been prosecuted for following illegal orders in the past it seems only prudent that they let it be known in advance that they will not follow those orders in the future.

To make it simple, it's a warning.

its a radical stance, if you ever took the oath you would know its not necessary to join a group saying you will keep it, that is already taken into consideration when you take the oath, these are just timothy mcveigh types, if you support em dont shed any tears when one of them pulls an oklahoma city type bombing.

 

[noose4]

The Oathkeeper patch is not permitted for authorized wear. If a soldier wears it, s/he will be ordered to remove it. If s/he refuses, then the soldier will face nonjudicial or judicial hearings. If it is "a point of honor" to be confined to station or quarters, reduced in grade, fined, etc., hey, advise the bozo to "go for it".

Tell me who's going to order them to remove the patch that simbolize an oath to Constitution.

any one who outranks them, it is an unauthorized patch, you cant just wear anything you like on your uniform.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The Oathkeeper patch is not permitted for authorized wear. If a soldier wears it, s/he will be ordered to remove it. If s/he refuses, then the soldier will face nonjudicial or judicial hearings. If it is "a point of honor" to be confined to station or quarters, reduced in grade, fined, etc., hey, advise the bozo to "go for it".

Tell me who's going to order them to remove the patch that simbolize an oath to Constitution.

Symbolize, The constitution is the enemy of the movement , its all about the revolution, social justice, environment justice, redistribution of wealth

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Kind of tough to win against the you hate black people argument I guess that why they play it.
Obama & the progressive movement "to big to fail".

 

[pinqy]

You're guessing. Where does it say it's not authorized?

AR 670-1 states what is authorized for shoulder sleeve insignia.

28–16. Shoulder sleeve insignia-current organization
a. Authorization. Shoulder sleeve insignia (SSI) of a design approved by The Institute of Heraldry, U.S. Army, are
authorized and prescribed for wear on the service and utility uniforms of the following echelons:
(1) MACOMs (as defined by AR 10–5).
(2) Armies.
(3) Corps.
(4) U.S. Army Reserve Command.
(a) Regional readiness commands.
(b) U.S. Army Reserve commands
(5) Divisions.
(6) Corps Support Command.
(7) Separate TOE brigades (not organic to divisions).
(8) Separate regiments (not organic to a group, brigade, or division), except training support regiments/battalions,
which will wear the SSI of the training support division to which assigned.
(9) General officer commands, USAR.
(10) U.S. Army element of unified commands.
(11) DA field operating agencies based on the following:
(a) An identifiable command structure.
(b) A valid justification in terms of unit mission, improving unit morale, and degree of unit permanency.
(c) At least 250 military personnel assigned to the organization.
(12) Other organizations, except U.S. Army garrisons, meeting the following criteria.
(a) An identifiable command structure.
(b) A valid justification in terms of unit mission, improving unit morale, and degree of unit permanency.
(c) At least 500 military personnel assigned to the organization.
b. Approval of design. Units meeting the criteria established above will submit requests for authorization of SSI
through command channels, with a copy of permanent orders activating the unit, to: Director, The Institute of Heraldry,
U.S. Army, 9325 Gunston Road, Room S112, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–5579.

I'm willing to bet the Institute of Heraldry has NOT approved a non-unit patch for wear. You can always prove me wrong.

These man who swore to defend the Constitution above their Oath of Enlistment probably did it because they see that direction where country is going is not called in the Constitution. Those things the oath talks about have not taken place. The oath doesn't say they have, but insinuate they might in the future.

And how exactly is the existing oath of enlistment inadequate for supporting and defending the Constitution, and how do you reconcile the fact that some of the things in the Oathkeeper oath directly violate the oath of enlistment? How is that patriotic...to violate an oath to your country?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

A valid justification in terms of unit mission, improving unit morale, and degree of unit permanency.
Seems to meet that criteria .

 

[noose4]

A valid justification in terms of unit mission, improving unit morale, and degree of unit permanency.

some one else who doesnt understand military procedure.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I understand you would do nothing to uphold the oath.

 

[pinqy]

A valid justification in terms of unit mission, improving unit morale, and degree of unit permanency.
Seems to meet that criteria .

You have to read it in context. That part falls under ;

11) DA field operating agencies based on the following:
(a) An identifiable command structure.
(b) A valid justification in terms of unit mission, improving unit morale, and degree of unit permanency.
(c) At least 250 military personnel assigned to the organization.

So (b), which you cite, is only part of the criteria allowe for DA field operating agencies. So it doesn't apply.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Well It isn't for me to say they haven't done the proper leg work to have it authorized .

 

[pinqy]

Well It isn't for me to say they haven't done the proper leg work to have it authorized .

It is for me. It's not authorized, and I would rip it off of any of my soldiers who tried to wear it.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Well It isn't for me to say they haven't done the proper leg work to have it authorized .

It is for me. It's not authorized, and I would rip it off of any of my soldiers who tried to wear it.

Well Id be all in supporting them beating your ass hollow.