Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[ConHog]

Thank you, Conhog, for giving up the discussion with me. That is wise.

I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.

I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.

They have in the past though.

Sure, 40-50 years ago under some HIGHLY charged times , in salutations where SOME witnesses suggest they were attacked first.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The KSU students were throwing rocks and bottles. The NG lieutenant made a very bad call (in my opinion), but the NG was the lawful authority, was withdrawing up the hill and being pursued by the students, and the situation was fraught with disaster.

I wonder if that is in the back of the minds of the Tea Party members who are wacko? Most of the Tea Party is not violent. They just like to talk tough is all, but it is hot air. But a few are whacked.

 

[Jeremy]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVZobzVJrSo]YouTube - Ferris Bueller's Day Off - After Credits Scene[/ame]

 

[ConHog]

The KSU students were throwing rocks and bottles. The NG lieutenant made a very bad call (in my opinion), but the NG was the lawful authority, was withdrawing up the hill and being pursued by the students, and the situation was fraught with disaster.

I wonder if that is in the back of the minds of the Tea Party members who are wacko? Most of the Tea Party is not violent. They just like to talk tough is all, but it is hot air. But a few are whacked.

Oh , it was more than that Jake, they were burning buildings, they threatened the NG Lt and ran him off the first time he approached them to order them to disperse, there are reports that shots were fired from the crowd. And remember, this went on for FOUR days before the NG fired. It was NOT a peaceful demonstration. Of course today we would hope that they would use non lethal to end the situation, but let's consider what they had in 1970.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.

I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.

They have in the past though.

Sure, 40-50 years ago under some HIGHLY charged times , in salutations where SOME witnesses suggest they were attacked first.

With people like you saying it would never happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perspective: no verified confirmation exists that gunshots were fired from the crowd at the NG. The students were throwing rocks and bottles and threatening the NG. The NG was poorly trained as was the LT. The situation was a tinderbox in which Americans killed Americans. A tragedy.

 

[ConHog]

They have in the past though.

Sure, 40-50 years ago under some HIGHLY charged times , in salutations where SOME witnesses suggest they were attacked first.

With people like you saying it would never happen.

I didn't say it would NEVER happen, I said it would take VERY extreme circumstances, and they wouldn't simply on the orders of the President.

Kent State was more complex than many want to imagine.

 

[ConHog]

Perspective: no verified confirmation exists that gunshots were fired from the crowd at the NG. The students were throwing rocks and bottles and threatening the NG. The NG was poorly trained as was the LT. The situation was a tinderbox in which Americans killed Americans. A tragedy.

Poorly trained for what Jake? Controlling a crowd of high, violent, angry college students?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kent State was awful. No one who was not alive then has any concept the strain the country was under in those spring months. How Americans did not kill more Americans than what happened still amazes me.

 

[ConHog]

Kent State was awful. No one who was not alive then has any concept the strain the country was under in those spring months. How Americans did not kill more Americans than what happened still amazes me.

How there were not more civilian vs soldier confrontations is truly amazing. On one side you had drugged out hippies calling soldier baby killers and on the other side you had drugged out soldiers being spit on people who they felt hid from their duty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So true.

Hey, late last summer some wackos here were saying soldiers were never spit on during Vietnam. Wow!! Double fricking wow!!!

 

[ConHog]

So true.

Hey, late last summer some wackos here were saying soldiers were never spit on during Vietnam. Wow!! Double fricking wow!!!

Probably Sangha in a previous incantation.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

I was told that I had to obey lawful orders, and given a couple of examples of unlawful orders, one day in boot camp. I hardly think that amounts to training, as even military lawyers wonder about what, exactly, amounts to an illegal order. Unless the Army does a lot better job of training and educating soldiers in military law than the Navy did I doubt that today's soldiers are actually trained to know if a lawyer is legal, especially if they are in the middle of a heated situation and have to make a snap judgement.

Sure, 40-50 years ago under some HIGHLY charged times , in salutations where SOME witnesses suggest they were attacked first.

With people like you saying it would never happen.

I didn't say it would NEVER happen, I said it would take VERY extreme circumstances, and they wouldn't simply on the orders of the President.

Kent State was more complex than many want to imagine.

You accused the unarmed murder victims of being "terrorists" but that's just another item in your long list of unsupported claims.

 

[ConHog]

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.

I was told that I had to obey lawful orders, and given a couple of examples of unlawful orders, one day in boot camp. I hardly think that amounts to training, as even military lawyers wonder about what, exactly, amounts to an illegal order. Unless the Army does a lot better job of training and educating soldiers in military law than the Navy did I doubt that today's soldiers are actually trained to know if a lawyer is legal, especially if they are in the middle of a heated situation and have to make a snap judgement.

With people like you saying it would never happen.

I didn't say it would NEVER happen, I said it would take VERY extreme circumstances, and they wouldn't simply on the orders of the President.

Kent State was more complex than many want to imagine.

You accused the unarmed murder victims of being "terrorists" but that's just another item in your long list of unsupported claims.

Unarmed? They were catching cars and building on fire and throwing rocks at the Guard for FOUR ******* days before they were fired upon. There is at minimum a suspicion that someone fired shots out of the crowd .

Unarmed my ass you liar.

 

[CurveLight]

Who said anything about people in this thread? Obviosuly SOME feel that no such right exists, else we wouldn't be having this debate
.

Your dishonesty is so sickening and a glaring embarrassment that I deleted the rest of your post to highlight, once again, you are just a dishonest fat ass punk.

Who said anything about the people in this thread? You did you fuckwad ****:

Posted by Conhog (#387)

"do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?"

You were addressing only the people in this thread. Are you really going to embarrass yourself some more and deny it again you ******* *****? I've pwned you so many times in this thread you're going to have nightmares.

LOL @ MORE deflection. I am going to go for now. BUT I suspect you arent going to answer my questions ever anyway.

Of course you call it "deflection" when it's proven you made a false claim. You're so pathetic and predictable I know it has to be repeated in this post.

Posted by Conhog (#387)

"do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?"

When it was shown nobody in the thread said we don't have the right to bear arms you tried to ignore your **** up by being dishonest and saying:



Posted by Conhog
"Who said anything about people in this thread?"

When someone is too arrogant and proud to refuse to admit to such an obvious **** up, that is also petty, there is no chance in hell it is worth expecting honesty on anything else.

 

[CurveLight]

Unarmed? They were catching cars and building on fire and throwing rocks at the Guard for FOUR ******* days before they were fired upon. There is at minimum a suspicion that someone fired shots out of the crowd .

Unarmed my ass you liar.

Yes. Unarmed. You're so damn lost you desperately grope in the darkness of your hubris looking for any string to pull so you toss out laughable shit like trying to equate rocks with guns and then claim at a minimum there was "suspicion" shots were fired from the crowd.

Keep dancing on the graves of 4 murdered unarmed Americans you sick ****.

 

[ConHog]

Your dishonesty is so sickening and a glaring embarrassment that I deleted the rest of your post to highlight, once again, you are just a dishonest fat ass punk.

Who said anything about the people in this thread? You did you fuckwad ****:

Posted by Conhog (#387)

"do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?"

You were addressing only the people in this thread. Are you really going to embarrass yourself some more and deny it again you ******* *****? I've pwned you so many times in this thread you're going to have nightmares.

LOL @ MORE deflection. I am going to go for now. BUT I suspect you arent going to answer my questions ever anyway.

Of course you call it "deflection" when it's proven you made a false claim. You're so pathetic and predictable I know it has to be repeated in this post.

Posted by Conhog (#387)

"do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?"

When it was shown nobody in the thread said we don't have the right to bear arms you tried to ignore your **** up by being dishonest and saying:



Posted by Conhog
"Who said anything about people in this thread?"

When someone is too arrogant and proud to refuse to admit to such an obvious **** up, that is also petty, there is no chance in hell it is worth expecting honesty on anything else.

Warning: CurvedVagina has his deflection shields on.

 

[CurveLight]

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 ****.

It's funny when people use obscenities instead of rational thought.

Lol! Holy shit you are too ******* dumb. Didn't use rational thought? I've clearly explained my position but you refuse to even fake being honest long enough to address it and try to hide in the corner like a scared wet shivering dog while weakly whelping about obscenities. Why do ***** like you even bother? You're nothing but a parasite.

 

[ConHog]

CurvedVagina, the consensus is that you have brain damage. Sorry for picking on you.

 

[CurveLight]

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?

I did my annual LOAC training just last week. Your skewed version of reality wasn't mentioned.

As much as you like to pretend otherwise, our troops aren't stupid.

I never said nor implied our troops are stoopid so this is nothing but more dishonesty coming from you because you're so pathetic. You should get out of the military because you're a ******* embarrassment to the uniform. It's nauseating knowing weak dishonest coward-to-the-core punks like you are in the military. This is probably fallout from recruiting standards getting drastically reduced from the bush admin's **** up of nation building.