obama just committed political suicide.

[bigrebnc1775]

He isn't saying what you claim he's saying bigrednec.
Yet again you fail to either watch or understand your own link.

What you failed to grasp is that any gun confiscation with out due process would be unconstitutional. Meaning he will not obey any unlawful order. or didn't you listen to the whole video?

He said that they can refuse an unlawful order, not the same thing as an unconstitutional order.
In fact he wisely dodged that question.

It's OK bigrednec...it's all a bit tricky I know.

An unlawful order would be an unconstitutional order. But since you're not an American you would never understand that concept.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not sure what the issue is.
The gun advocates tell me that one of the major reasons they need to hang onto their guns is so that they can repulse any threat on their freedoms.
Apparently this was the whole idea of the Second Amendment.
So, I wouldn't sweat too much about the Patriot Act or whatever...just shoot them - you're allowed to, it's in the constitution.

The issue is an encroachment on our freedoms with zero positive results. The issue is the need for the left to control what I own because they want to without showing any evidence it serves a public need. The issue is the way the left is wiping their asses with the constitution.

THE ISSUE IS WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS AND THOSE LAWS ARE BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION. You cannot support this nation on one breath and then ignore the rights given to us in the constitution. If you want stricter gun control then make a ******* AMENDMENT. Until then, move on.
(not all directed at you idb since you are not an American )

Haha, that's all good.
As I am informed by some of your gun-owning colleagues, a major reason for the Second Amendment was to insure against the government coming in and invading your town or trampling all over your rights.
My point was that, if the president turns up at your door demanding your guns then, according to the intent behind the 2nd (as I understand it) , you have the right to shoot him...apparently.

That is the major reason for the second amendment. It is not a matter of the president showing up at my door, it is an inherent right for the people to be able to protect themselves from a runaway government. It is quite clear what the intent of the amendment was. Just because the left wishes it were not that way does not make it so. The funniest thing is that the left treats this amendment in the same way they scream foul when the right rationalizes the freedom of religion in the first amendment. For some reason it is terrible when the right steps on the constitution but if they do it themselves then it's okay. I am not going to shoot anybody coming for my guns though I know some that would, but that does not preclude me from fighting for my rights.

Most American, and many Democrats I know, are pro-2nd Amendment and belong to the NRA. Those Americans who are wiggy boo over the issue have masturbation fantasies of running around in cami with guns along with daveman and bigreb and the other wacks of confronting the 'gubmint.'

Morons.

The 2nd Amendment does not protect us against a government that controls nukes, carriers, jets, gunships, Delta Force, green beanies, airborne rangers, and several hundred thousand regulars, reserves, and guards.

Militia meatheads, lissen up: you go and try anything of the sort and you will be face down when it is all over.

If you believe that then you have no clue about an insurgency. Americans have far more weaponry than the military has and the military men and women that would be willing to fight the American people are few and far in-between. The military weaponry is far superior but there is major advantages that comes from being an insurgent.

He isn't saying what you claim he's saying bigrednec.
Yet again you fail to either watch or understand your own link.

What you failed to grasp is that any gun confiscation with out due process would be unconstitutional. Meaning he will not obey any unlawful order. or didn't you listen to the whole video?

He said that they can refuse an unlawful order, not the same thing as an unconstitutional order.
In fact he wisely dodged that question.

It's OK bigrednec...it's all a bit tricky I know.

Then you fail to understand what an unlawful order is. He dances around the question because you are not supposed to say you will disobey an order so he defaulted to the PC answer. He may be willing to fight Americans but I can assure you that should the event come to pass people like that are going to be rare. I can tell you that my base would be practically empty. Remember, these are not strangers that we would be asked to fight but friends, neighbors and family. Not likely to happen. If you remember the civil war the military split and fought on both sides. That is a more likely scenario than they will be turned on the people.

 

[Right of Neocon]

What you failed to grasp is that any gun confiscation with out due process would be unconstitutional. Meaning he will not obey any unlawful order. or didn't you listen to the whole video?

He said that they can refuse an unlawful order, not the same thing as an unconstitutional order.In fact he wisely dodged that question.

It's OK bigrednec...it's all a bit tricky I know.

Please explain to all of us dumbasses what the difference is.... if it is unconstitutional, then its unlawful.

LMMFAO!!! Glad you responded to that before I did!


I would also like to know what makes the Libs, think that ANY PRESIDENT in this Country has the right to use the Military???

FYI! The Military CANNOT be used as a police force, Military forces refused orders by the New Orleans Mayor to police the city. Those within the Military that gave the orders faced disciplinary charges for dereliction of duty and willful disregard for rules of engagement. Some had other charges brought about them for issuing live rounds.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By the way, the far right miscreants subvert the Republic, reactionary to its purpose, and revisionist of our religious and secular history and education. Zeit would have been very happy in Puritan Boston, unless he was a Quaker; or very happy in Jamestown, unless he was a Catholic; over very happy in Brigham Young's Great Salt Lake City, unless he was a protestant; or very happy in Irish Catholic Hell's Kitchen, unless he were a Jew.

Yeah, zeit knows history like Bo knows broken legs.

 

[idb]

What you failed to grasp is that any gun confiscation with out due process would be unconstitutional. Meaning he will not obey any unlawful order. or didn't you listen to the whole video?

He said that they can refuse an unlawful order, not the same thing as an unconstitutional order.In fact he wisely dodged that question.

It's OK bigrednec...it's all a bit tricky I know.

Please explain to all of us dumbasses what the difference is.... if it is unconstitutional, then its unlawful.

Well, I could go back and google constitutional law I suppose, but I don't need to.
I am reliably informed on this very message board that all sorts of new laws enacted by this government are in fact unconstitutional.
That may or may not be true but they are still law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The military forced New Orleans to follow the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. You reactionary revolutionaries have the right only if you can pull it off. You won't, and you will be stood against the wall if you try it. The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to obstruct lawful, just government. You can vote against it, but if you raise violence against a constitutionally elected government, you will be cut down. Pure and simple. Think not, think Lincoln.

 

[Dr Grump]

He said that they can refuse an unlawful order, not the same thing as an unconstitutional order.In fact he wisely dodged that question.

It's OK bigrednec...it's all a bit tricky I know.

Please explain to all of us dumbasses what the difference is.... if it is unconstitutional, then its unlawful.

Well, I could go back and google constitutional law I suppose, but I don't need to.
I am reliably informed on this very message board that all sorts of new laws enacted by this government are in fact unconstitutional.
That may or may not be true but they are still law.

Didn't you know that anything Obama does is unconstitutional?

 

[Queen]

So when is Obama supposed to be taking away your guns, again?

 

[zeitgeist2012]

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

 

[JakeStarkey]

I keep looking in the Constitution that states "You don't have to follow any law passed that is supported by a man named Obama."

 

[idb]

As I understand it, a law may be judged to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (I'm not sure if they are the appropriate body or not) and repealed.
But until that's done how can a soldier or anyone else interpret the constitutionality or otherwise of a law...it is still the law?

For a recent example, and I don't know the details, the City of Chicago received a judgement from the Supreme Court that gun control laws that they had enacted were unconstitutional.
Until then, the city police had presumably been following unconstitutional orders in enforcing the city law.
Was it up to them individually to judge the law as constitutional or otherwise?
Did they even have that right?
Nevertheless, until it was repealed it was the law.

Don't bother trying to shoot me on the facts of the actual case, it is an illustration of my point.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

By the way, the far right miscreants subvert the Republic, reactionary to its purpose, and revisionist of our religious and secular history and education. Zeit would have been very happy in Puritan Boston, unless he was a Quaker; or very happy in Jamestown, unless he was a Catholic; over very happy in Brigham Young's Great Salt Lake City, unless he was a protestant; or very happy in Irish Catholic Hell's Kitchen, unless he were a Jew.

Yeah, zeit knows history like Bo knows broken legs.

Here is some history for you....

Famous Firsts by African Americans

Famous Firsts by African Americans (Inventors, Government, Law, Literature, Film) — Infoplease.com

National Black Republican Association

National Black Republican Association | National Black Republican Association

 

[idb]

I could lie about receiving a medal in Afghanistan - it's in the constitution!
US appeals court panel: Law against faking receipt of military medals is unconstitutional - FoxNews.com

 

[FA_Q2]

As I understand it, a law may be judged to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (I'm not sure if they are the appropriate body or not) and repealed.
But until that's done how can a soldier or anyone else interpret the constitutionality or otherwise of a law...it is still the law?

For a recent example, and I don't know the details, the City of Chicago received a judgement from the Supreme Court that gun control laws that they had enacted were unconstitutional.
Until then, the city police had presumably been following unconstitutional orders in enforcing the city law.
Was it up to them individually to judge the law as constitutional or otherwise?
Did they even have that right?
Nevertheless, until it was repealed it was the law.

Don't bother trying to shoot me on the facts of the actual case, it is an illustration of my point.

As I understand it, a law may be judged to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (I'm not sure if they are the appropriate body or not) and repealed.
But until that's done how can a soldier or anyone else interpret the constitutionality or otherwise of a law...it is still the law?

For a recent example, and I don't know the details, the City of Chicago received a judgement from the Supreme Court that gun control laws that they had enacted were unconstitutional.
Until then, the city police had presumably been following unconstitutional orders in enforcing the city law.
Was it up to them individually to judge the law as constitutional or otherwise?
Did they even have that right?
Nevertheless, until it was repealed it was the law.

Don't bother trying to shoot me on the facts of the actual case, it is an illustration of my point.

Yes, all true. In this case you are looking at the police, not the military. There is a difference and the military are not to be used in the country as a police force. For military members, they are supposed to make a judgment call at the time the order is issued. Normally this is quite clear. In some cases it is not and the military member can be jailed until a court marshal reviews the case to decide if the members actions were in keeping with lawful orders or not. The second amendment is not something that is thrown around every time the government makes a bad call (though some do try to do this). The idea is to prevent a runaway government. Even at the breakneck pace to model ourselves after China we are still nowhere near a point of runaway government. It will happen someday, as all bureaucracies do, but not likely in the near future.

 

[FA_Q2]

I could lie about receiving a medal in Afghanistan - it's in the constitution!
US appeals court panel: Law against faking receipt of military medals is unconstitutional - FoxNews.com

Absolutely disgusting.

As a side note, I would like to point out that the marine in the video was actually wrong when he stated that military members have a right to disobey an unlawful order. That is not true, there is no right. It is an outright OBLIGATION. Even to the point that following such orders can get you a prison sentence if the crime was large enough and the violation clear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By the way, the far right miscreants subvert the Republic, reactionary to its purpose, and revisionist of our religious and secular history and education. Zeit would have been very happy in Puritan Boston, unless he was a Quaker; or very happy in Jamestown, unless he was a Catholic; over very happy in Brigham Young's Great Salt Lake City, unless he was a protestant; or very happy in Irish Catholic Hell's Kitchen, unless he were a Jew.

Yeah, zeit knows history like Bo knows broken legs.

Here is some history for you....

Famous Firsts by African Americans

Famous Firsts by African Americans (Inventors, Government, Law, Literature, Film) — Infoplease.com

National Black Republican Association

National Black Republican Association | National Black Republican Association

Good for you. None of the above demonstrates how much you don't know about history. And God wants a plural diverse people religiously as part of his American creation, in my opinion. An that purpose makes me feel fully validated in my Christian walk and faith.

 

[idb]

As I understand it, a law may be judged to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (I'm not sure if they are the appropriate body or not) and repealed.
But until that's done how can a soldier or anyone else interpret the constitutionality or otherwise of a law...it is still the law?

For a recent example, and I don't know the details, the City of Chicago received a judgement from the Supreme Court that gun control laws that they had enacted were unconstitutional.
Until then, the city police had presumably been following unconstitutional orders in enforcing the city law.
Was it up to them individually to judge the law as constitutional or otherwise?
Did they even have that right?
Nevertheless, until it was repealed it was the law.

Don't bother trying to shoot me on the facts of the actual case, it is an illustration of my point.

Yes, all true. In this case you are looking at the police, not the military. There is a difference and the military are not to be used in the country as a police force. For military members, they are supposed to make a judgment call at the time the order is issued. Normally this is quite clear. In some cases it is not and the military member can be jailed until a court marshal reviews the case to decide if the members actions were in keeping with lawful orders or not. The second amendment is not something that is thrown around every time the government makes a bad call (though some do try to do this). The idea is to prevent a runaway government. Even at the breakneck pace to model ourselves after China we are still nowhere near a point of runaway government. It will happen someday, as all bureaucracies do, but not likely in the near future.

Fair enough, I never did any digging to find a military example but maybe waterboarding might be one.
As far as I know it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, but does that mean it is constitutional, or even lawful?
How do you judge before deciding to carry out the order?

But, of course, the very purpose of having the Guantanamo Bay prison on foreign soil is at least partly to shelter it from the constitution.

 

[idb]

I could lie about receiving a medal in Afghanistan - it's in the constitution!
US appeals court panel: Law against faking receipt of military medals is unconstitutional - FoxNews.com

Absolutely disgusting.

As a side note, I would like to point out that the marine in the video was actually wrong when he stated that military members have a right to disobey an unlawful order. That is not true, there is no right. It is an outright OBLIGATION. Even to the point that following such orders can get you a prison sentence if the crime was large enough and the violation clear.

Yep, found that while digging around.

The obligation that you mention has terrible ramifications when applied to a soldier in possession of deadly force, in a war zone with superior officers breathing down his neck.
I'd suggest that it's is one type of bravery to operate in a war zone but another to oppose the machine and have total faith in your own judgement.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He said that they can refuse an unlawful order, not the same thing as an unconstitutional order.In fact he wisely dodged that question.

It's OK bigrednec...it's all a bit tricky I know.

Please explain to all of us dumbasses what the difference is.... if it is unconstitutional, then its unlawful.

Well, I could go back and google constitutional law I suppose, but I don't need to.
I am reliably informed on this very message board that all sorts of new laws enacted by this government are in fact unconstitutional.
That may or may not be true but they are still law.

There are something about America you must realize. We have 8 basic rights that cannot be infringed upon.
The government cannot hinder our voice, or mandate what the press reports, nor can they force religion on us, we also have the right to have our grievances addressed.

The second Amendment is to the point so no need to mention it

We cannot be coerced to house any troops in a time of peace or war but only what the law says.

We cannot be harassed by the law unless they have a search warrant. And to obtain a warrant they must have probable cause.

We cannot be forced to be a witness against himself, nor can we be tryed for the same offense twice

We have a right to a fair and speedy trail juried by our peers.

We have a riht to not be locked up without due process.

And we have a right to tell the federal government to go **** itself if it steps over it's authority.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

By the way, the far right miscreants subvert the Republic, reactionary to its purpose, and revisionist of our religious and secular history and education. Zeit would have been very happy in Puritan Boston, unless he was a Quaker; or very happy in Jamestown, unless he was a Catholic; over very happy in Brigham Young's Great Salt Lake City, unless he was a protestant; or very happy in Irish Catholic Hell's Kitchen, unless he were a Jew.

Yeah, zeit knows history like Bo knows broken legs.

Here is some history for you....

Famous Firsts by African Americans

Famous Firsts by African Americans (Inventors, Government, Law, Literature, Film) — Infoplease.com

National Black Republican Association

National Black Republican Association | National Black Republican Association

Good for you. None of the above demonstrates how much you don't know about history. And God wants a plural diverse people religiously as part of his American creation, in my opinion. An that purpose makes me feel fully validated in my Christian walk and faith.

God bless you, Too...

http://my.billingsgazette.com/post/...w_age_spartans_or_new_age_global_babylon.html