Democrat Senator Mark Kelly Faces Court-Martial After Department of War Launches Review of Allegations of Misconduct

His wife taking a bullet to the head had a lot to do with that

Even Reagan revised his views of the second amendment after he was shot
No he didn't. Bush was the anti gun president, not Reagan.
 
No he didn't. Bush was the anti gun president, not Reagan.

Ronald Reagan spoke several times in support of restrictions on automatic and assault-style weapons. The most commonly cited quote comes from a 1989 op-ed he co-wrote in the New York Times supporting the Brady Bill:


“This level of violence must be stopped. These weapons are not for sporting purposes or needed for the defense of the home.”
— Ronald Reagan, March 28, 1989


Another well-known line came in a 1991 letter urging Congress to pass the federal assault-weapons ban:


“I do not believe the Second Amendment prohibits restrictions on automatic weapons.”
— Letter to Rep. William Hughes, May 3, 1991
 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

Article 92 – Failure to Obey an Order
  • Service members must obey lawful orders.
  • An order must:
    1. Come from competent authority,
    2. Relate to military duty,
    3. Not violate the Constitution or laws of the United States.

An unlawful order is not protected by Article 92.

2. Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders


U.S. military law has long held that personnel have an affirmative duty to refuse an order that is patently illegal.


This principle traces to:


  • The Nuremberg Principles
  • U.S. military case law (e.g., United States v. Calley regarding My Lai)
 
Ronald Reagan spoke several times in support of restrictions on automatic and assault-style weapons. The most commonly cited quote comes from a 1989 op-ed he co-wrote in the New York Times supporting the Brady Bill:


“This level of violence must be stopped. These weapons are not for sporting purposes or needed for the defense of the home.”
— Ronald Reagan, March 28, 1989


Another well-known line came in a 1991 letter urging Congress to pass the federal assault-weapons ban:


“I do not believe the Second Amendment prohibits restrictions on automatic weapons.”
— Letter to Rep. William Hughes, May 3, 1991
And westwall has left the chat
 
18 US Code 2387.webp
 
Every recruit is told that they must disobey illegal orders.

I guess we will be court martialing every drill sergeant and recruiter in America.
 
By members of congress, via social media? Apropos of nothing?
Does it matter who tells them ?

They take an oath when they sign up that says just what these Congresspeople said
 
So yeah, put it on a 20 year old soldier to defy his commanding officer and chuck his career. That's just super advice. FFS you people are nuts.
Yea **** the military code of justice!
 
15th post
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

Article 92 – Failure to Obey an Order
  • Service members must obey lawful orders.
  • An order must:
    1. Come from competent authority,
    2. Relate to military duty,
    3. Not violate the Constitution or laws of the United States.

An unlawful order is not protected by Article 92.

2. Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders


U.S. military law has long held that personnel have an affirmative duty to refuse an order that is patently illegal.


This principle traces to:


  • The Nuremberg Principles
  • U.S. military case law (e.g., United States v. Calley regarding My Lai)
From a former Colonel: "I’m not sure I’ve ever been angrier at Democrats than I am right now.

As a career Army officer, I take this latest nefarious chicanery from these filthy Congressional Democrat veterans quite personally,
It is loathsome and disgusting. You know, I know, they know and even their brainwashed acolytes know that what they are REALLY doing is encouraging active duty service members to refuse to follow lawful orders under the guise of pretending the orders are “unlawful.”

What these Democrat filth are doing is encouraging a form of military coup where service members get to decide not to do things they disagree with politically by pretending those otherwise lawful things are “unlawful.”

This is the greatest threat to US internal stability since the last time Democrats started a civil war. A military ruled by politics is no military at all. Instead, it is a group of armed thugs akin to the South American military juntas of the 1970s.

I cannot overstate what an extreme threat this situation is to our nation.

This is a precursor to civil war, initiated and deliberately created by traitorous elected officials hiding behind the honor of the uniform they once wore but now disgraced.

I have never been angrier.
🤬
"

- Cynical Publius
 
All of the people who said they cared about lawfare 5 seconds ago should be up in arms over this. Mark Kelly has a First Amendment right to express his opinion. This administration truly detest freedom of speech.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom