At Least 7 Dead, 20 Wounded in Shootings at Ft. Hood in Texas

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by helomech

I have no problem with going to war and being in harms way. My problem arises when I am not allowed to defend my self, which is my right to do.

I would do what I am told, right up until it violates my rights, which is illegal.

Free will allows me to do what I want if I am willing to pay the consequences, and I am ready to pay the consequences.

And I am still growing my hair, and still employed. If that changes than we will see what a court says. If I am being fired for being a male that is illegal, women in my job can have long hair. The only difference is I am a male.

How did we get to this hair thing anyways? Are you trying to change the subject?

Wow, I can't imagine hair having anything to do with an unconstitutional military order and yes, even Elvis had to cut his hair when he went into the service and I don't remember seeing a "right to hair" listed in the Constitution, lol.

Anyway, I find it bizarre that some folks believe that military service or oath somehow requires military personnel to surrender their Constitutional rights, or that the oath somehow removes them of the responsibility to follow Constitutional law.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by Papa_D

Wow, I can't imagine hair having anything to do with an unconstitutional military order and yes, even Elvis had to cut his hair when he went into the service and I don't remember seeing a "right to hair" listed in the Constitution, lol.

Anyway, I find it bizarre that some folks believe that military service or oath somehow requires military personnel to surrender their Constitutional rights, or that the oath somehow removes them of the responsibility to follow Constitutional law.

He was referring to my hair because I am growing it for kids with cancer and my work told me to cut it. I told them no, if they have to fire me fine, I will file a suit, and get another job. Native Americans don't have to cut their hair when in the military, and women don't either. I think that is unfair, and violating someones rights. I also don't see a power given to the federal government that allows them to make you cut your hair.

Yeah, people like kronons must believe that the people in the military loose their rights while defending everyone's rights.

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by Pops

If a CO orders a soldier to illegally kill a hostage and the soldier follows that order, then who gets in trouble when the SR Officers find out that an illegal action was taken??? It all depends on the results of the internal investigation so each situation is unique. So should the soldier follow the CO's order w/o question or bring it up with another CO first??

The moment that man becomes an automaton and fails to be able to distinguish what is clearly right and wrong and figures they will leave it up to a court of law or a superior officer to decide is the day we and our Constitution are lost.

Yes, soldiers have an oath to uphold with regard to following orders but if we preclude the use of our own good sense and our Constitutional rights as well as those of others when doing so, we may as well just ditch the Constitution all together and let someone make up the rules or laws as we go.

There are always difficult calls to make in life, especially when you have sworn to obey some "higher authority" but in the end, we are all responsible to Constitutional law and individual rights first and foremost and although that may get us in trouble with someone of a higher rank or station, should we give up on the Constitution in favor of some man made law that would seek to deprive us or others of their creator granted rights, especially for a motive other than defensive?

I say no and that's why war should only be waged for defensive purposes and in the end, individuals upholding individual rights are the last line of defense between liberty and tyranny and although we as individuals may pay the ultimate price for doing what's right, that's the price we all must be prepared to pay to preserve our freedom and Constitutional rights, otherwise, what's the point of it all?

[daptech]

Originally Posted by Papa_D

That's ****ing hilarious because I actually paused the TV, rewound and called my wife into the room to watch him make an azz of himself but I had kind of forgotten it since.

I just chalked it up as another man-child move from an adolescent idiot who would be king.

Looks like Obama had another "George Bush moment" during his comments.
-
Obama Gives Shout Out to 'Congressional Medal of Honor Winner' Who Isn't | NewsBusters.org

[daptech]

Saw a report on CNN that the shooter used a
"cop killer" gun......FN Five-seven

[helomech]

Originally Posted by daptech

"cop killer" gun......FN Five-seven

I really really hate that name. With over the counter ammo, it is no more lethal than a .22 mag. And a AR-15 pistol is way more deadly than the Five seven.

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by daptech

Looks like Obama had another "George Bush moment" during his comments.
-
Obama Gives Shout Out to 'Congressional Medal of Honor Winner' Who Isn't | NewsBusters.org

"Don't expect his blunder to receive wide coverage. It's not something he can blame George Bush for."

Yeah, you don't see nearly as much lame stream news coverage about the azzholes on the Hill when they can't blame someone else for it, lol.

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by helomech

I really really hate that name. With over the counter ammo, it is no more lethal than a .22 mag. And a AR-15 pistol is way more deadly than the Five seven.

No doubt and if they want to continue with the Progressive, anti-gun rhetoric, they should start calling all guns "child killers" or "infanticide enablers", what a bunch of crap.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

(responds after noting the sarcasm...)

The bottom line is that you end up taking the good with the bad. You can't punish the bad without punishing the good.

To deny people who follow Islam the rights and privileges you would extend to other US citizens is antithetical to what I thought we hold true in the Constitution.

Keeping tabs on people doesn't reduce violence nor does disarming them. Those willing to do harm are always going to find a way to do so. A higher fence simply forestalls an attack by requiring the attacker to now dig under as opposed to going over to attack.

The media plays a part in skewing a picture of the reality in order to incite people to act by tuning in...and unfortunately in angering them up. This has been happening long before TV/radio, and the Internet. The attacker in Florida isn't being labeled by his religion is he?

The problem is that any population/individual who feels threatened and does not have an ability to redress their problems will turn to violence. I'm in no way excusing personal responsibility for one's actions or in anyway condoning violence. I'm stating that it's not hard to stir someone to violence and the Muslim population like any other is not invulnerable.

Want to raise the standards for getting into the military or school, to have employment in the United States in order to start weeding out some population deemed as dangerous or undesirable? Fine. We'll also be weeding into that population those that aren't going to do harm and who can contribute positively.

And we have a double standard.
A Muslim kills someone in the United States-we label a terrorist.
A guy kills his coworkers because he was let go-we say he's having a bad day and its understandable...

How about applying the same type of conclusions to your vision on gun control laws, for starters.

Just sayin'.

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by helomech

He was referring to my hair because I am growing it for kids with cancer and my work told me to cut it. I told them no, if they have to fire me fine, I will file a suit, and get another job. Native Americans don't have to cut their hair when in the military, and women don't either. I think that is unfair, and violating someones rights. I also don't see a power given to the federal government that allows them to make you cut your hair.

Yeah, people like kronons must believe that the people in the military loose their rights while defending everyone's rights.

If a black and white answer is what you seem to want then yes, that's what I believe.

You have free will to do whatever you choose.
However your employer can decide how they want to you act, dress, and respond to given situations and if you choose not to do so, then there's consequences.

And I've said it a thousand times but you refuse to acknowledge it.
Bring a gun to an airport or onto an airplane and see what happens to you. The Right to Bear Arms is a right but exercising it wherever you choose is not.

Attend public rally in which the President speaks and state that you're going to kill him and see what happens. Right to Free Speech.

Your ability to exercise your Rights is not absolute. Your free will to do so is. There's a difference

[37L1]

Originally Posted by helomech

I really really hate that name. With over the counter ammo, it is no more lethal than a .22 mag. And a AR-15 pistol is way more deadly than the Five seven.

The name, I'm sure you already know, was given for its ability to penetrate body armor.

[albonismo]

Glad to hear our stationed member SFCIngrum is alive and well over there. My prayers go out to the families of those wounded and killed.

Can you guys please take it easy on the Muslim bashing? Don't act like you don't think you're doing it...

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by 37L1

How about applying the same type of conclusions to your vision on gun control laws, for starters.

Just sayin'.

The right to own a gun is something I'm fine with and always have been.

If you arm John Q public with no thought on providing training or checking to see that the guns are sold appropriately, there will be consequences that aren't desired.

Expect that those guns will be used in times of stress and perhaps in certain situations will stop further violence but also expect John Q to decide to pull a gun when he gets cut off on the street, when he's upset, and when he's stupid enough to leave his gun where kids can get at it. There would be an increase in gun related incidents if more people carry.

Accidental Discharge of Guns | Utah Hunting Accidents, Gun Accident Attorney :: Utah Personal Injury Law Firm Blog

Gun Accidents Kill 500 Kids a Year | momlogic.com

Sure after the incident, there may be consequences and wouldn't it be nifty if enforcement was there but it's not.

Beyond all this, if a state, business, property decides that they don't want guns within their confines, then I'm all for them to make that decision. It's their decision to make.

Just sayin'

[37L1]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

The right to own a gun is something I'm fine with and always have been.

If you arm John Q public with no thought on providing training or checking to see that the guns are sold appropriately, there will be consequences that aren't desired.

Expect that those guns will be used in times of stress and perhaps in certain situations will stop further violence but also expect John Q to decide to pull a gun when he gets cut off on the street, when he's upset, and when he's stupid enough to leave his gun where kids can get at it. There would be an increase in gun related incidents if more people carry.

Accidental Discharge of Guns | Utah Hunting Accidents, Gun Accident Attorney :: Utah Personal Injury Law Firm Blog

Gun Accidents Kill 500 Kids a Year | momlogic.com

Sure after the incident, there may be consequences and wouldn't it be nifty if enforcement was there but it's not.

Beyond all this, if a state, business, property decides that they don't want guns within their confines, then I'm all for them to make that decision. It's their decision to make.

Just sayin'

Let's just make a few changes, only for the sake of argument and not for anyone to take offense.

What if you replaced "guns" with "Koran" and/or "radical Islam"? Why one, following the logic above, might write something looking like this:

The right to own a Koran is something I'm fine with and always have been.

If you teach John Q public with no thought on providing guidance or checking to see that the Koran is not taught appropriately, there will be consequences that aren't desired.

Expect that those Korans will be used in times of stress and perhaps in certain situations will stop further violence but also expect John Q to decide to pull a radically taught reaction when he gets cut off on the street, when he's upset, and when he's stupid enough to leave his radical teachings where kids can get at it. There would be an increase in radical Islam related incidents if more people are exposed.

Islam Watch - "The Genesis and Working of Radical Islam"

frontline: target america: the evolution of islamic terrorism - an overview

Sure after the incident, there may be consequences and wouldn't it be nifty if enforcement was there but it's not.

Beyond all this, if a state, business, property decides that they don't want Islamists within their confines, then I'm all for them to make that decision. It's their decision to make.

Just sayin'

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

My belief is that this act is one of a crazy, not much different than the white right wing radical that went into a Knoxville church and started shooting, just different circumstances, but nutz just the same.

[Kronos1965]

While I enjoyed the analogy, I'm lost as to what point you're attempting to make with my post.

I'm not the one on the forum wanting to ban all guns because of a set of circumstances, or all Muslims from any rights as a citizen of the US, or in general attempting to move to either extreme of the continuum between individual rights and those that a society says they want some form of regulation of or management of in their turf.

Countries choose to let a single belief system run them and that includes religion or be a confederation of fiefdoms and no central government.

I believe that there's a balance between individual right and the rights of a collective. Politics determines how far along that line the country as a whole moves.