Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[RetiredGySgt]

You claimed objectors were just trying to get out of going to war you dishonest fuckwad. I proved that wrong by showing watada was willing to go fight in afghanistan so he wasn't trying to get out of the military. Tillman objected so strongly they sent him back to afghanistan so they granted him what they denied watada. What else ya got you dumb bitch?

Awww CircleJerk can't read. Or he's just dishonest. I claimed MOST ,not ALL , and I stand by that claim. It's pretty well accepted that many people join the military for the benefits and then are suddenly conscientious objectors when called to war, and that's being a chicken shit. Which by the way is something you should relate nicely to.

And with that I'm tired of this thread because all you do is post dishonest crap after dishonest crap interspersed with calling other people stupid when you yourself are so ignorant you can't even see when you've been thoroughly whooped.

This is just another claim you won't even bother trying to prove. You never explained how the Eagle Scout shot at Kent was a terrorist......along with several other claims. But let's give you the chance to prove me correct. Support your claim that most are just pussies who don't want to fight. Even though it's a red herring it's funny to see you continue to make an ass of yourself.

Other then a single Officer that challenged the system please name all the soldiers that have LEGALLY and PROPERLY challenged the wars as illegal.

Anyone that BELIEVES the war is illegal and opposes it from that stand point that is a military member is required to bring that charge forward through the military chain of command. To refuse to obey said orders and to face a court if needed to prove their point.

Be so kind as to name ALL the military members that have done so.

Anyone that goes UA ( unauthorized Absence) and becomes a deserter rather then be deployed or properly oppose the deployment can be classified as a coward. They obviously do not believe the war is illegal and properly understand that a refusal to deploy will land them in jail.

Afraid to fight and unwilling to face the legal consequences of that choice they run away. THAT is a Coward.

Let me remind you of something, it is 2010. NOT a single military member is currently serving that did NOT volunteer KNOWING both wars were on, KNOWING they would probably be deployed to one or the other. No one forced them to freely join. No one hid from them the fact we were fighting 2 wars, no one hid from them the fact they would most likely be deployed to one or the other.

 

[CurveLight]

Anyone claiming the wars are illegal fails on the grounds that, in fct, each of the individual wars was legally approved as required by Congress. Further they fail because each of the individual wars is re approved by Congress every time a supplemental budget is approved granting money to the war effort.

The Officer mentioned is the ONLY military member that attempted to properly address his complaints via the system. he refused deployment and made an official claim that the war was illegal.

The Judge in his trial screwed the process up and saved his ass from a LONG prison term. Citing that case does not validate that the wars are illegal. That issue was never addressed.

As for Tillman he was killed by friendly fire in a fire fight. It was an accident that occurs in every war. And will continue to occur in every war after.

You lose on both counts. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment grants an Individual right to own firearms. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are legal.

Lt Watada is not the only military member to challenge the iraq war via the proper channels. The earliest case I'm aware of was back in 2004 with Pablo Paredes. Watada's case was derailed specifically to avoid putting the war on trial because it was clear he had made a solid case.

Congress authorizing an action doesn't mean it is automatically legal. The Constitution is the supreme law and do you know what it says about the US abiding by Treaties? Even when a President gives orders that are Congressionally authorized it still doesn't mean it is legal. Lincoln issued orders under Congressionally authorized martial law and the supreme court later ruled some of what he did was unConstitutional. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance.

It could even be argued the wars are illegal because the Constitution states a Declaration of War is required by Congress and they've not issued that for iraq or afghanistan. For the dumbasses who will try to reference Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, etc: pointing to past violations doesn't mean current violations are void. The "authorizing use of military force" is a clear end run around the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But, Curved, this is merely your opinion. You are not the authority. Your evidence is not conclusive. So I suggest we wait to see what SCOTUS does, which will be nothing. End of discussion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anyone claiming the wars are illegal fails on the grounds that, in fct, each of the individual wars was legally approved as required by Congress. Further they fail because each of the individual wars is re approved by Congress every time a supplemental budget is approved granting money to the war effort.

The Officer mentioned is the ONLY military member that attempted to properly address his complaints via the system. he refused deployment and made an official claim that the war was illegal.

The Judge in his trial screwed the process up and saved his ass from a LONG prison term. Citing that case does not validate that the wars are illegal. That issue was never addressed.

As for Tillman he was killed by friendly fire in a fire fight. It was an accident that occurs in every war. And will continue to occur in every war after.

You lose on both counts. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment grants an Individual right to own firearms. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are legal.

Lt Watada is not the only military member to challenge the iraq war via the proper channels. The earliest case I'm aware of was back in 2004 with Pablo Paredes. Watada's case was derailed specifically to avoid putting the war on trial because it was clear he had made a solid case.

Congress authorizing an action doesn't mean it is automatically legal. The Constitution is the supreme law and do you know what it says about the US abiding by Treaties? Even when a President gives orders that are Congressionally authorized it still doesn't mean it is legal. Lincoln issued orders under Congressionally authorized martial law and the supreme court later ruled some of what he did was unConstitutional. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance.

It could even be argued the wars are illegal because the Constitution states a Declaration of War is required by Congress and they've not issued that for iraq or afghanistan. For the dumbasses who will try to reference Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, etc: pointing to past violations doesn't mean current violations are void. The "authorizing use of military force" is a clear end run around the Constitution.

Your poster boy Paredes went UA and only after being brought back under Military control did he attempt to claim religious objections.

Again lets give you this second person. You now have exactly 2 people. In 9 years you have 2 people. The rest of the opposers all deserted and ran away like little cowards.

Go ahead make a case that the wars are Unconstitutional. It has been 9 years and not a single person has successfully made that claim in a court of law. Considering the number of people opposed to the war and their financial backing I wonder why that is?

You see retard it does not just take active duty military to challenge the Constitutional nature of the wars. Yet no one has.

You have made a claim. Back it up. You have claimed many things in the past and not once have you supported your claims with facts and figures.

You have no evidence to back your claim that a majority of the active duty deserters oppose the war on legal grounds. In fact the evidence is against you as only one person has ever made that claim, and others have made the claim of religious restrictions. Most have just deserted and run away.

You have claimed the wars are Unconstitutional yet have failed to provide any evidence that this is true. Instead just saying somethings CAN be Unconstitutional.

It is all smoke and mirrors with you. You attempt to mislead and deceive. You fail to back your claims up and when forced to you change the subject. This thread is about the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment is an Individual right. You have failed to prove otherwise. SO you changed the subject to Iraq and Afghanistan. What, pray tell will you change the subject to next?

 

[ConHog]

Anyone claiming the wars are illegal fails on the grounds that, in fct, each of the individual wars was legally approved as required by Congress. Further they fail because each of the individual wars is re approved by Congress every time a supplemental budget is approved granting money to the war effort.

The Officer mentioned is the ONLY military member that attempted to properly address his complaints via the system. he refused deployment and made an official claim that the war was illegal.

The Judge in his trial screwed the process up and saved his ass from a LONG prison term. Citing that case does not validate that the wars are illegal. That issue was never addressed.

As for Tillman he was killed by friendly fire in a fire fight. It was an accident that occurs in every war. And will continue to occur in every war after.

You lose on both counts. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment grants an Individual right to own firearms. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are legal.

Lt Watada is not the only military member to challenge the iraq war via the proper channels. The earliest case I'm aware of was back in 2004 with Pablo Paredes. Watada's case was derailed specifically to avoid putting the war on trial because it was clear he had made a solid case.

Congress authorizing an action doesn't mean it is automatically legal. The Constitution is the supreme law and do you know what it says about the US abiding by Treaties? Even when a President gives orders that are Congressionally authorized it still doesn't mean it is legal. Lincoln issued orders under Congressionally authorized martial law and the supreme court later ruled some of what he did was unConstitutional. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance.

It could even be argued the wars are illegal because the Constitution states a Declaration of War is required by Congress and they've not issued that for iraq or afghanistan. For the dumbasses who will try to reference Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, etc: pointing to past violations doesn't mean current violations are void. The "authorizing use of military force" is a clear end run around the Constitution.

Your poster boy Paredes went UA and only after being brought back under Military control did he attempt to claim religious objections.

Again lets give you this second person. You now have exactly 2 people. In 9 years you have 2 people. The rest of the opposers all deserted and ran away like little cowards.

Go ahead make a case that the wars are Unconstitutional. It has been 9 years and not a single person has successfully made that claim in a court of law. Considering the number of people opposed to the war and their financial backing I wonder why that is?

You see retard it does not just take active duty military to challenge the Constitutional nature of the wars. Yet no one has.

You have made a claim. Back it up. You have claimed many things in the past and not once have you supported your claims with facts and figures.

You have no evidence to back your claim that a majority of the active duty deserters oppose the war on legal grounds. In fact the evidence is against you as only one person has ever made that claim, and others have made the claim of religious restrictions. Most have just deserted and run away.

You have claimed the wars are Unconstitutional yet have failed to provide any evidence that this is true. Instead just saying somethings CAN be Unconstitutional.

It is all smoke and mirrors with you. You attempt to mislead and deceive. You fail to back your claims up and when forced to you change the subject. This thread is about the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment is an Individual right. You have failed to prove otherwise. SO you changed the subject to Iraq and Afghanistan. What, pray tell will you change the subject to next?

That's gonna leave a mark.


Let's be clear on something else to. ANYONE who joins the military and then refuses to fight in a war for whatever reason is a fucking pussy because all of us that have fought know one truth, we fought for our brothers, and sisters, not for the President. By not fighting when ordered you left your brothers a man short, you're a pussy and a coward.

 

[CurveLight]

Your poster boy Paredes went UA and only after being brought back under Military control did he attempt to claim religious objections.

Again lets give you this second person. You now have exactly 2 people. In 9 years you have 2 people. The rest of the opposers all deserted and ran away like little cowards.

Go ahead make a case that the wars are Unconstitutional. It has been 9 years and not a single person has successfully made that claim in a court of law. Considering the number of people opposed to the war and their financial backing I wonder why that is?

You see retard it does not just take active duty military to challenge the Constitutional nature of the wars. Yet no one has.

You have made a claim. Back it up. You have claimed many things in the past and not once have you supported your claims with facts and figures.

You have no evidence to back your claim that a majority of the active duty deserters oppose the war on legal grounds. In fact the evidence is against you as only one person has ever made that claim, and others have made the claim of religious restrictions. Most have just deserted and run away.

You have claimed the wars are Unconstitutional yet have failed to provide any evidence that this is true. Instead just saying somethings CAN be Unconstitutional.

It is all smoke and mirrors with you. You attempt to mislead and deceive. You fail to back your claims up and when forced to you change the subject. This thread is about the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment is an Individual right. You have failed to prove otherwise. SO you changed the subject to Iraq and Afghanistan. What, pray tell will you change the subject to next?

You're such a dishonest fuck. I never claimed the majority of objectors base their reasons on the claim the war is illegal.

As for Paredes, your affinity for dishonesty is proven again. He showed up to the pier and refused to board the ship. He left for a few days then turned himself in.

I've presented my argument regarding the OP and you dont have the first fucking clue how to respond to it so you just keep whining.............as you will do in response to this post. Obey like the bitch you live to be.

 

[CurveLight]

Let's be clear on something else to. ANYONE who joins the military and then refuses to fight in a war for whatever reason is a fucking pussy because all of us that have fought know one truth, we fought for our brothers, and sisters, not for the President. By not fighting when ordered you left your brothers a man short, you're a pussy and a coward.

This just shows how much of a whiny pussy you are. It takes real courage to take a stand and since you cannot even begin to fathom Courage you automatically condemn those who have it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is CurvedLight the moron that argued the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender? If so, then we have a troll here.

 

[ConHog]

Let's be clear on something else to. ANYONE who joins the military and then refuses to fight in a war for whatever reason is a fucking pussy because all of us that have fought know one truth, we fought for our brothers, and sisters, not for the President. By not fighting when ordered you left your brothers a man short, you're a pussy and a coward.

This just shows how much of a whiny pussy you are. It takes real courage to take a stand and since you cannot even begin to fathom Courage you automatically condemn those who have it.

So now you're claiming that it takes real courage NOT to fight? BAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Do you heave any dignity at all?

By the way your boy Parades was charges with being UA, and with missing a movement. He was definitely awol.

 

[CurveLight]

Is CurvedLight the moron that argued the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender? If so, then we have a troll here.

Why was Japan's Emperor never charged with war crimes?

 

[ConHog]

Is CurvedLight the moron that argued the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender? If so, then we have a troll here.

Why was Japan's Emperor never charged with war crimes?

Truman wanted to see him charged, but MacArthur felt that not doing so would allow the Japanese people to save some face and accept the surrender, ultimately Truman accepted his General's counsel.

 

[CurveLight]

Is CurvedLight the moron that argued the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender? If so, then we have a troll here.

Is CurvedLight the moron that argued the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender? If so, then we have a troll here.

Why was Japan's Emperor never charged with war crimes?

Truman wanted to see him charged, but MacArthur felt that not doing so would allow the Japanese people to save some face and accept the surrender, ultimately Truman accepted his General's counsel.

That means it was not an Unconditional Surrender.

 

[CurveLight]

Let's be clear on something else to. ANYONE who joins the military and then refuses to fight in a war for whatever reason is a fucking pussy because all of us that have fought know one truth, we fought for our brothers, and sisters, not for the President. By not fighting when ordered you left your brothers a man short, you're a pussy and a coward.

This just shows how much of a whiny pussy you are. It takes real courage to take a stand and since you cannot even begin to fathom Courage you automatically condemn those who have it.

So now you're claiming that it takes real courage NOT to fight? BAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Do you heave any dignity at all?

By the way your boy Parades was charges with being UA, and with missing a movement. He was definitely awol.

Holy fuck you are an eeediot! I didn't say it takes courage to not fight but keep going with your dishonesty.

Since it's obvious you will never show how the Eagle Scout shot at Kent was a terroist (among many other claims you refuse to support) you've proven to be a whiny ****.

 

[ConHog]

Is CurvedLight the moron that argued the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender? If so, then we have a troll here.

Why was Japan's Emperor never charged with war crimes?

Truman wanted to see him charged, but MacArthur felt that not doing so would allow the Japanese people to save some face and accept the surrender, ultimately Truman accepted his General's counsel.

That means it was not an Unconditional Surrender.

What? Japan surrendered unconditionally. Hirohito was forced to announce to the Japanese that he was not a god, nor a descendant of one; as well as everything else we demanded of them.

You don't know much of anything do you. In 1865 Grant accepted Lee's UNCONDITIONAL surrender. You know what happened to Lee after that surrender? He went on to become the President of Washington University.

If i beat the shit out of you and you're begging for mercy, and I CAN break your arm, but choose not to, that isn't a win for you. You still unconditionally surrendered.

 

[ConHog]

This just shows how much of a whiny pussy you are. It takes real courage to take a stand and since you cannot even begin to fathom Courage you automatically condemn those who have it.

So now you're claiming that it takes real courage NOT to fight? BAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Do you heave any dignity at all?

By the way your boy Parades was charges with being UA, and with missing a movement. He was definitely awol.

Holy fuck you are an eeediot! I didn't say it takes courage to not fight but keep going with your dishonesty.

Since it's obvious you will never show how the Eagle Scout shot at Kent was a terroist (among many other claims you refuse to support) you've proven to be a whiny ****.

Uh yes CircleJerk, that's exactly what you said. You said it takes courage to stand up and run away if you're in the military and don't believe in the war.


Who the fuck said the Eagle Scout was a terrorist you moron? He was what is termed collateral damage. The idiots at Kent State who WERE terrorists are just as much to blame for his death as the NG.

What is obvious is that you are pathetic, how many ways are you going to attempt to twist this thread? We've went all through history in some bizarre attempt by you to prove that the Second Amendment does not give individual rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is CurvedLight the moron that argued the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender? If so, then we have a troll here.

Why was Japan's Emperor never charged with war crimes?

Truman wanted to see him charged, but MacArthur felt that not doing so would allow the Japanese people to save some face and accept the surrender, ultimately Truman accepted his General's counsel.

That means it was not an Unconditional Surrender.

WE decided whether or not to charge the Emperor you fucking dumb ass. God can you get any stupider?

 

[CurveLight]

What? Japan surrendered unconditionally. Hirohito was forced to announce to the Japanese that he was not a god, nor a descendant of one; as well as everything else we demanded of them.

You don't know much of anything do you. In 1865 Grant accepted Lee's UNCONDITIONAL surrender. You know what happened to Lee after that surrender? He went on to become the President of Washington University.

If i beat the shit out of you and you're begging for mercy, and I CAN break your arm, but choose not to, that isn't a win for you. You still unconditionally surrendered.

If leaving the Emperor in office (even though he had no real power) was a condition of Japan's surrender then it was an Unconditional Surrender.

Lee going on to be president of a university had nothing to do with the surrender you dumbfucking ****.

 

[CurveLight]

WE decided whether or not to charge the Emperor you fucking dumb ass. God can you get any stupider?

It was agreed upon with Japan before the surrender was official you dumbfuck.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

WE decided whether or not to charge the Emperor you fucking dumb ass. God can you get any stupider?

It was agreed upon with Japan before the surrender was official you dumbfuck.

No it was not. You are BEYOND fucking stupid.

 

[ConHog]

What? Japan surrendered unconditionally. Hirohito was forced to announce to the Japanese that he was not a god, nor a descendant of one; as well as everything else we demanded of them.

You don't know much of anything do you. In 1865 Grant accepted Lee's UNCONDITIONAL surrender. You know what happened to Lee after that surrender? He went on to become the President of Washington University.

If i beat the shit out of you and you're begging for mercy, and I CAN break your arm, but choose not to, that isn't a win for you. You still unconditionally surrendered.

If leaving the Emperor in office (even though he had no real power) was a condition of Japan's surrender then it was an Unconditional Surrender.

Lee going on to be president of a university had nothing to do with the surrender you dumbfucking ****.

Curved, for real. Are you capable of making a single post without calling someone names?


Leaving the Emperor in place was not a condition of surrender.

This is straight out of the Instrument of Surrender signed by representative of Hirohito

"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated. and Truman.

Featured Document: Japanese Surrender Document

I've told you before Curved, you do NOT want to argue history with me.