Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[JakeStarkey]

If the order is not legal in the soldier's mind does not get him off the hook if the military judge disagrees. So, yeah, this is a toughy of a situation. Do me a favor, conhog, explain what Curved is trying to state. Just what is the basic premise there? Even if I am not bright, I am still not dumb, and I don't get it.

 

[ConHog]

If the order is not legal in the soldier's mind does not get him off the hook if the military judge disagrees. So, yeah, this is a toughy of a situation. Do me a favor, conhog, explain what Curved is trying to state. Just what is the basic premise there? Even if I am not bright, I am still not dumb, and I don't get it.

well yeah, under the UCMJ a soldier can't just say "sounded illegal to me" and you're off the hook.

As for Curved. I really don't know what he's driving at. He is using two examples from 40 and 50 years ago during highly charged times to prove some theory that the military would fire on civilians. Plus I get tired of that Kent State bullshit anyway, those weren't innocent protesters, they were terrorists, plain and simple.

And on his confusion on the 2nd, he's confused me as well. He claims that he is PRO gun ownership , but then he argues that the 2nd limits gun ownership.

Honestly, based on other threads I've been involved in with Curved, I think he loves to argue but doesn't have the mental capabilities required to intelligently debate an issue. So he gets beat up on facts, argues in circles and then when people get frustrated and stop talking to him, he claims a win. If you know that clown Sangha, he uses the same technique.

The funniest thing is when he starts calling others stoopid. First of all, absolutely nothing is funnier than spelling or grammar errors when insulting another s intelligence or education, second of all anyone with any ability to read can see that someone like me is not stupid or uneducated.

 

[CurveLight]

Still waiting for your qualifications to pontificate on the Constitution. So far, all we've got is a Comparative Religion class.

Did Gunny institute a new rule about needing to be experts on thread topics before debating them? Or are you so *****-slapped-drunk your blurred vision leaves you wandering in the fields of distraction desperation?

No. Anyone can comment on any subject. But when someone insists other people's views are wrong, you'd better have something more to back it up than "because I say so!".

What do you think it accomplishes to pretend I've not explained my position? (Other than embarrassing the hell out of yourself)

 

[ConHog]

Did Gunny institute a new rule about needing to be experts on thread topics before debating them? Or are you so *****-slapped-drunk your blurred vision leaves you wandering in the fields of distraction desperation?

No. Anyone can comment on any subject. But when someone insists other people's views are wrong, you'd better have something more to back it up than "because I say so!".

What do you think it accomplishes to pretend I've not explained my position? (Other than embarrassing the hell out of yourself)

Speaking of embarrassing yourself. I'm still waiting for you to tell me which state college the national guard had to force to allow black students...........

 

[daveman]

Did Gunny institute a new rule about needing to be experts on thread topics before debating them? Or are you so *****-slapped-drunk your blurred vision leaves you wandering in the fields of distraction desperation?

No. Anyone can comment on any subject. But when someone insists other people's views are wrong, you'd better have something more to back it up than "because I say so!".

Thank you. There's hope.

Still waiting for what you've done to merit that arrogance. Gotta tell you...I'm not very optimistic.

 

[CurveLight]

Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about what might be call domestic terrorist groups. I agree, the military would fight someone like that.

I was speaking more in terms of like you said. If Obama were to issue an executive outlawing guns and sent the Army to collect them. They would refuse that order, to a man. As you suggested there would probably be in effect a coup as the President was removed from power for issuing such an order.

Yes, I am in full agreement. This is what I meant by 'civic virtue'. I guess I wasn't clear enough, so my bad. Americans who are civically virtuous understand that the military is subordinate to civilian control, and that only in the most extreme of situations would the military refuse to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief and possibly strike back with a coup d'etat.

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

 

[daveman]

Did Gunny institute a new rule about needing to be experts on thread topics before debating them? Or are you so *****-slapped-drunk your blurred vision leaves you wandering in the fields of distraction desperation?

No. Anyone can comment on any subject. But when someone insists other people's views are wrong, you'd better have something more to back it up than "because I say so!".

What do you think it accomplishes to pretend I've not explained my position? (Other than embarrassing the hell out of yourself)

Oh, I dunno, I think stating the obvious pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[daveman]

Yes, I am in full agreement. This is what I meant by 'civic virtue'. I guess I wasn't clear enough, so my bad. Americans who are civically virtuous understand that the military is subordinate to civilian control, and that only in the most extreme of situations would the military refuse to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief and possibly strike back with a coup d'etat.

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

Yes, they are. And they are obligated to report what they consider illegal orders. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action. And if the illegal order involves war crimes, they will be punished for not reporting the illegal orders.

 

[CurveLight]

Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about what might be call domestic terrorist groups. I agree, the military would fight someone like that.

I was speaking more in terms of like you said. If Obama were to issue an executive outlawing guns and sent the Army to collect them. They would refuse that order, to a man. As you suggested there would probably be in effect a coup as the President was removed from power for issuing such an order.

Yes, I am in full agreement. This is what I meant by 'civic virtue'. I guess I wasn't clear enough, so my bad. Americans who are civically virtuous understand that the military is subordinate to civilian control, and that only in the most extreme of situations would the military refuse to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief and possibly strike back with a coup d'etat.

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

Blanket claim? I did no such thing. I may as well make the claim that you made the blanket claim that NO founding fathers believed women and blacks were equal to white men even though I just presented evidence that proves that some believed exactly that.

Check out some of my previous posts, I have been clear that in actuality the founding fathers didn't agree on much at all. That's why they only had 10 original Amendments and allowed for a way to add more. Quite clearly there was a debate from the VERY beginning on whether blacks and women were part of the citizenry and thus afforded certain rights or not. SOME of the framers believed so, some did not. I am sorry I failed to include the word SOME in my original post, but I thought you were smart enough to deduce that for yourself. I over estimated you, won't happen again.

No blanket claim?

Posted by Cochog:

"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."

You claimed the DEFINITION of "Militia" in the 2nd applied to any able bodied person.

Hoky **** man. ***** slapping you has become so easy it's boring.

You are beyond stupid Curved. NOWHERE in that statement does it say ALL framers.


Now stop deflecting. Was your statement that the national guard was called in to make sure blacks could get in the order about Kent State?

Holy shit. You are unbelievably dishonest. Once again:

Posted by Cochog:

"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."


I'm also still waiting for you to show where one person in this thread said we don't have the right to own guns.

 

[ConHog]

Yes, I am in full agreement. This is what I meant by 'civic virtue'. I guess I wasn't clear enough, so my bad. Americans who are civically virtuous understand that the military is subordinate to civilian control, and that only in the most extreme of situations would the military refuse to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief and possibly strike back with a coup d'etat.

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

Ummm that's taught If I remember correctly, in week 4 of basic, you have the absolute right and responsibility to interpret your orders and determine are they legal. That is why " I was following orders " is not a defense for committing a violation of the UCMJ.

Seriously Curved, I have you completely outgunned stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to argue with me. You haven't scored a single point against me EVER

 

[CurveLight]

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

Yes, they are. And they are obligated to report what they consider illegal orders. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action. And if the illegal order involves war crimes, they will be punished for not reporting the illegal orders.

No. Anyone can comment on any subject. But when someone insists other people's views are wrong, you'd better have something more to back it up than "because I say so!".

What do you think it accomplishes to pretend I've not explained my position? (Other than embarrassing the hell out of yourself)

Oh, I dunno, I think stating the obvious pretty much speaks for itself.

Oh man. You accused me of not explaining my position even after I've already done so. Keep being this dishonest and Cochog will feel jealous.

 

[ConHog]

Yes, I am in full agreement. This is what I meant by 'civic virtue'. I guess I wasn't clear enough, so my bad. Americans who are civically virtuous understand that the military is subordinate to civilian control, and that only in the most extreme of situations would the military refuse to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief and possibly strike back with a coup d'etat.

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

No blanket claim?

Posted by Cochog:

"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."

You claimed the DEFINITION of "Militia" in the 2nd applied to any able bodied person.

Hoky **** man. ***** slapping you has become so easy it's boring.

You are beyond stupid Curved. NOWHERE in that statement does it say ALL framers.


Now stop deflecting. Was your statement that the national guard was called in to make sure blacks could get in the order about Kent State?

Holy shit. You are unbelievably dishonest. Once again:

Posted by Cochog:

"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."


I'm also still waiting for you to show where one person in this thread said we don't have the right to own guns.

If I make the statement

"The posters of USMB think that Curved is an idiot"

does that mean that ALL the posters think that? No it doesn't. It means that posters on USMB think you're an idiot. Although I can't imagine that ALL wouldn't apply here

If I had meant ALL, I would have wrote ALL.

Now, what state college are you talking about? Stop dancing.

 

[daveman]

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

Ummm that's taught If I remember correctly, in week 4 of basic, you have the absolute right and responsibility to interpret your orders and determine are they legal. That is why " I was following orders " is not a defense for committing a violation of the UCMJ.

Seriously Curved, I have you completely outgunned stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to argue with me. You haven't scored a single point against me EVER

In the Air Force, we get recurring Law of Armed Conflict annually. The obligation to report illegal orders, and the consequences for failure to do so, is stressed.

 

[daveman]

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

Yes, they are. And they are obligated to report what they consider illegal orders. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action. And if the illegal order involves war crimes, they will be punished for not reporting the illegal orders.

What do you think it accomplishes to pretend I've not explained my position? (Other than embarrassing the hell out of yourself)

Oh, I dunno, I think stating the obvious pretty much speaks for itself.

Oh man. You accused me of not explaining my position even after I've already done so. Keep being this dishonest and Cochog will feel jealous.

You misunderstand. I'm saying you back up your claims with nothing more than "because I said so". For that to carry any weight, we'll need to see your qualifications.

Got any besides the Religion classes? And you do realize, don't you, that they don't really go into the Constitution that much?

 

[CurveLight]

If I make the statement

"The posters of USMB think that Curved is an idiot"

does that mean that ALL the posters think that? No it doesn't. It means that posters on USMB think you're an idiot. Although I can't imagine that ALL wouldn't apply here

If I had meant ALL, I would have wrote ALL.

Now, what state college are you talking about? Stop dancing.

Holy shit dick *****. Look at what you said. Again:

Posted by Cochog:

"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."


You claimed the DEFINITION of Militia included all able bodied persons. What did you base that claim on? The "...framers believed...."

You're getting ***** slapped so bad you can't even read your own posts you ******* loser.

Then you called the Kent State victims "terrorists!" You're just a fat ass pathetic coward who is so sad you have to try to find ways to force women to be around you per your jubilee of applying to join sororities because they can't reject you based on gender discrimination.

You have "degrees" in History but you don't know in 62' Kennedy sent Federal Troops to Ole Miss for desegregation nor how he sent the National Guard to the University of Alabama in 1963 to remove Wallace from the front door.

Yeah.....your claim I'm "outgunned" by you sure is neato. Get your fat stoopid ass back to your fantasies.

 

[CurveLight]

Yes, they are. And they are obligated to report what they consider illegal orders. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action. And if the illegal order involves war crimes, they will be punished for not reporting the illegal orders.

Oh, I dunno, I think stating the obvious pretty much speaks for itself.

Oh man. You accused me of not explaining my position even after I've already done so. Keep being this dishonest and Cochog will feel jealous.

You misunderstand. I'm saying you back up your claims with nothing more than "because I said so". For that to carry any weight, we'll need to see your qualifications.

Got any besides the Religion classes? And you do realize, don't you, that they don't really go into the Constitution that much?

I've stumbled into Stoopidville and you're the Deputy Mayor sucking Conhog's dick for the the Chief position. I don't go into the Constitution? What the **** did you think I did when I posted the 2nd and used the entire sentence to explain my position?

When someone explains their position they are not simply pulling the "because I said so" bullshit you keep trying to claim. The only reason I mentioned one of my majors was to point out the familiarity with examining outdated texts by their contemporary meanings. That was it. Nothing more. You keep on pretending an explanation of a position is "because I said so."

You sure as hell can't debate a ******* lick. I've seen squirrels have better debating skills against an on coming cement truck at 50 mph you dumbass ****.

 

[ConHog]

double post

 

[ConHog]

If I make the statement

"The posters of USMB think that Curved is an idiot"

does that mean that ALL the posters think that? No it doesn't. It means that posters on USMB think you're an idiot. Although I can't imagine that ALL wouldn't apply here

If I had meant ALL, I would have wrote ALL.

Now, what state college are you talking about? Stop dancing.

Holy shit dick *****. Look at what you said. Again:

Posted by Cochog:

"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."


You claimed the DEFINITION of Militia included all able bodied persons. What did you base that claim on? The "...framers believed...."

You're getting ***** slapped so bad you can't even read your own posts you ******* loser.

Then you called the Kent State victims "terrorists!" You're just a fat ass pathetic coward who is so sad you have to try to find ways to force women to be around you per your jubilee of applying to join sororities because they can't reject you based on gender discrimination.

You have "degrees" in History but you don't know in 62' Kennedy sent Federal Troops to Ole Miss for desegregation nor how he sent the National Guard to the University of Alabama in 1963 to remove Wallace from the front door.

Yeah.....your claim I'm "outgunned" by you sure is neato. Get your fat stoopid ass back to your fantasies.

LOL you really can't read

A) we've covered the militia thing to death you are just wrong
B) The kent state "victims" were terrorists
C I didn't say anything about not knowing about either OM or Alabama, I simply wondered which events you were talking about
D) Stupid is not spelled stoopid.


By the way , just for argument's sakes Kennedy sent US Marshals to Ole Miss, not Guardsmen. He did federalize the Guard for Alabama though. Not sure why the difference.

 

[CurveLight]

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

Ummm that's taught If I remember correctly, in week 4 of basic, you have the absolute right and responsibility to interpret your orders and determine are they legal. That is why " I was following orders " is not a defense for committing a violation of the UCMJ.

Seriously Curved, I have you completely outgunned stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to argue with me. You haven't scored a single point against me EVER

In the Air Force, we get recurring Law of Armed Conflict annually. The obligation to report illegal orders, and the consequences for failure to do so, is stressed.

This is just more of your intellectual dishonesty. In general, our Troops are trained to obey orders. Period. This is why when the illegal orders were issued to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were given most went along with it even though some actually followed the UCMJ and challenged the legality. In two cases I know of regarding Iraq, the soldiers who challenged the orders were victorious by virtue of not being sent to prison for disobeying those orders. One soldier I know of, Tillman, was shipped out of Iraq for his protesting of the illegal invasion and shortly after returning to Afghanistan he was killed by our own troops.

Who in the **** do you punks think you are fooling?

 

[CurveLight]

If I make the statement

"The posters of USMB think that Curved is an idiot"

does that mean that ALL the posters think that? No it doesn't. It means that posters on USMB think you're an idiot. Although I can't imagine that ALL wouldn't apply here

If I had meant ALL, I would have wrote ALL.

Now, what state college are you talking about? Stop dancing.

Holy shit dick *****. Look at what you said. Again:

Posted by Cochog:

"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."


You claimed the DEFINITION of Militia included all able bodied persons. What did you base that claim on? The "...framers believed...."

You're getting ***** slapped so bad you can't even read your own posts you ******* loser.

Then you called the Kent State victims "terrorists!" You're just a fat ass pathetic coward who is so sad you have to try to find ways to force women to be around you per your jubilee of applying to join sororities because they can't reject you based on gender discrimination.

You have "degrees" in History but you don't know in 62' Kennedy sent Federal Troops to Ole Miss for desegregation nor how he sent the National Guard to the University of Alabama in 1963 to remove Wallace from the front door.

Yeah.....your claim I'm "outgunned" by you sure is neato. Get your fat stoopid ass back to your fantasies.

LOL you really can't read

A) we've covered the militia thing to death you are just wrong
B) The kent state "victims" were terrorists
C I didn't say anything about not knowing about either OM or Alabama, I simply wondered which events you were talking about
D) Stupid is not spelled stoopid.


By the way , just for argument's sakes Kennedy sent US Marshals to Ole Miss, not Guardsmen. He did federalize the Guard for Alabama though. Not sure why the difference.

Once again:

Posted by Cochog:

"Your definition of militia is likewise wrong because the framers believed that the militia was any individual capable of bearing arms. Including young, old, black,white, male or female, whomever."

So show us where the definition of the Militia in the 2nd fits your claim. You won't because you can't and your fat lazy ass is completely incapable of admitting an error.

Your attempt to hide behind the "we've covered the militia thing to death" is simply your slimy weasel way of trying to squirm away you ******* coward.

You've still never shown where a single person in this thread claimed we don't have a right to own guns. I've ***** slapped you to the point you can't do a ******* thing but keep lying and dodging.