Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:
None of the things you listed does anything to address the actual problem. Most gun crime is commited using unlawfully obtained firearms, with it occurring in greater rates in cities with A) stricter gun laws, b) high levels of gang activity, or C) both.

But....but......school shootings.......assault rifles..........gun nuts...........won't someone think of the children

Sad that some of the posters here think/feel like this satirist:

There was a shooting just a few weeks ago in the mall near my home... kind of shocking. However, it was done with a shotgun...

I am an independent voter and not aligned to either political party regarding all issues... gun control is something I'm unsure about. I want people to have the right to bear arms, as is in the Constitution. However, if I ever personally own a gun it would likely be a hand gun, locked in a safe at all times. But then hand guns are used for more murders than any other type, as far as I know, so I've come full circle!

Having a background check to buy a firearm would be another easy middle ground. I feel like if the rhetoric could go down on both sides, there could be more progress on this issue.

 RiTides wrote:


Having a background check to buy a firearm would be another easy middle ground.

Different from the background check every licensed dealer is already required to do?

 RiTides wrote:
There was a shooting just a few weeks ago in the mall near my home... kind of shocking. However, it was done with a shotgun...

I am an independent voter and not aligned to either political party regarding all issues... gun control is something I'm unsure about. I want people to have the right to bear arms, as is in the Constitution. However, if I ever personally own a gun it would likely be a hand gun, locked in a safe at all times. But then hand guns are used for more murders than any other type, as far as I know, so I've come full circle!

Having a background check to buy a firearm would be another easy middle ground. I feel like if the rhetoric could go down on both sides, there could be more progress on this issue.

You mean like we already have?

Space your constant insistence that along with the rest of the posters here that gun legislation is a slippery slope is not only on its head silly, because all slippery slope arguments are, but are also impossible to disprove because your not working in facts but in wild mass guessing at to what might happen.

The idea that someone should know how to use a firearm regardless of what that firearm is absolutely common sense, and screaming about how for some reason the expectation a person whos allowed to carry a fire arm what ever it may be also knows how to well fething use it is unconsituional.

We all are basically walking in circles at this point however, every time we get close to finding a good solution such as accountability for owned fire arms and securing them or classes to make sure said owns know how to respect the weapon they posses someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.

And if you think that we are giving our police departments to MUCH funding then I don't have anything to say because your living in fantasy land, and I said that we need better funding in combination with better regulations so Joe Schmoe can't just blow off his PT test or refuse to know how to properly conduct himself with out being punished.

Solutions are always more complicated than just MOAR just as they are more complicated than LESS.

 RiTides wrote:
There was a shooting just a few weeks ago in the mall near my home... kind of shocking. However, it was done with a shotgun...

I am an independent voter and not aligned to either political party regarding all issues... gun control is something I'm unsure about. I want people to have the right to bear arms, as is in the Constitution. However, if I ever personally own a gun it would likely be a hand gun, locked in a safe at all times. But then hand guns are used for more murders than any other type, as far as I know, so I've come full circle!

Having a background check to buy a firearm would be another easy middle ground. I feel like if the rhetoric could go down on both sides, there could be more progress on this issue.

Criminals dont go through background checks. Only 1-2 percent of the NICS checks done result in prohibited persons being denied.

That said, I wouldnt mind having your drivers license tied in to whether or not you are a prohibited person. That way, at purchase, you swipe the card, instant check is done.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.

You really may want to re-look your decision to take your contracting oath if that is truly how you feel.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

And if you think that we are giving our police departments to MUCH funding then I don't have anything to say because your living in fantasy land, and I said that we need better funding in combination with better regulations so Joe Schmoe can't just blow off his PT test or refuse to know how to properly conduct himself with out being punished.

Solutions are always more complicated than just MOAR just as they are more complicated than LESS.

Have you done the slightest bit of research into state and local LE funding over the last two decades?

Do you think IEDs are a common threat within CONUS? Do you think MRAPs, purposely built for a high IED threat area, and expensive to train on and maintain are a good expenditure of tax payer money for local police forces?

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Space your constant insistence that along with the rest of the posters here that gun legislation is a slippery slope is not only on its head silly, because all slippery slope arguments are, but are also impossible to disprove because your not working in facts but in wild mass guessing at to what might happen.

The idea that someone should know how to use a firearm regardless of what that firearm is absolutely common sense, and screaming about how for some reason the expectation a person whos allowed to carry a fire arm what ever it may be also knows how to well fething use it is unconsituional.

We all are basically walking in circles at this point however, every time we get close to finding a good solution such as accountability for owned fire arms and securing them or classes to make sure said owns know how to respect the weapon they posses someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.

And if you think that we are giving our police departments to MUCH funding then I don't have anything to say because your living in fantasy land, and I said that we need better funding in combination with better regulations so Joe Schmoe can't just blow off his PT test or refuse to know how to properly conduct himself with out being punished.

Solutions are always more complicated than just MOAR just as they are more complicated than LESS.

It's this hard to get an armored vehicle:

Here's a link to apply for armored vehicle funding. Your welcome!

http://www.policegrantshelp.com/Lenco-Armored-Vehicles


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.

You really may want to re-look your decision to take your contracting oath if that is truly how you feel.

That's what I mean by gut check. At 18, he's just starting out with ROTC. Hopefully he comes to grips with the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.

Yeah..... Perhaps you should have a long and in depth talk with your CO if it is your genuine and heart felt belief that the Constitution that you have sworn to uphold is just "fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules".

Especially as, given your family's military pedigree, you should be more than aware that you will be required to defend those vague rules, drafted by crazy people. Up to and including making the ultimate sacrifice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Sad that some of the posters here think/feel like this satirist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhsuB6xMR8

It was hilarious to watch the council member's faces. Some laughing, some just barely catching the joke, and some less than thrilled that their position was being derided in such an eloquent manner

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes you have the right to shoot down any argument becuase it could possibly be "unconstitutional" despite the fact what is fething constitutional and whats not is entirely dependent on how the cranky the supreme court is feeling that day.

Yeah..... Perhaps you should have a long and in depth talk with your CO if it is your genuine and heart felt belief that the Constitution that you have sworn to uphold is just "fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules".

Especially as, given your family's military pedigree, you should be more than aware that you will be required to defend those vague rules, drafted by crazy people. Up to and including making the ultimate sacrifice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Sad that some of the posters here think/feel like this satirist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhsuB6xMR8

It was hilarious to watch the council member's faces. Some laughing, some just barely catching the joke, and some less than thrilled that their position was being derided in such an eloquent manner

His posts exemplify the " "yes" man " attitude that would not think twice about shooting at his fellow countrymen. Dictatorships LOVE little robots.

And that the speaker was purportedly a Brit only makes the satire that much sweeter.

We all are basically walking in circles at this point however, every time we get close to finding a good solution such as accountability for owned fire arms

That’s not a good solution. That’s blackmail of legal owners for the crimes of others.

and securing them

All mine are secured. I believe its federal law to provide gun locks, or industry standard as every weapon I’ve purchased…and there’ve been er more then a few… in the last five years have had them. I have something like ten of them in a drawer and use them for locker locks, bike and bag locks.
So already done. Next summation of something already occurring?

or classes to make sure said owns know how to respect the weapon they posses

Unconstitutional. I do not need a class to utilize my First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, or Ninth Amendment rights. Sorry and as the immortal bard said: suck it.

someone just yells how for some reason the fact that a bunch of crazy people wrote down some vague rules we have abused and twisted over the past 200 years for our own legislative purposes

YOU MEAN THE BILL OF RIGHTS? WHY ARE YOU EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY? Cuba is calling your name.

And if you think that we are giving our police departments to MUCH funding then I don't have anything to say because your living in fantasy land, and I said that we need better funding in combination with better regulations so Joe Schmoe can't just blow off his PT test or refuse to know how to properly conduct himself with out being punished.

You’re making a statement without facts. Its helpful to have those when making such an argument.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
And that the speaker was purportedly a Brit only makes the satire that much sweeter.

Sounded Scottish to my ears. I know that some Scots really don't like being called Brits


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
That’s not a good solution. That’s blackmail of legal owners for the crimes of others.

But don't you see? If we can restrict the rights of law abiding owners, and do nothing to tackle the root causes of violence in our society, and do not inconvenience criminals with illegally held arms, then we'll all just feel so much better

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
And that the speaker was purportedly a Brit only makes the satire that much sweeter.

Sounded Scottish to my ears. I know that some Scots really don't like being called Brits


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
That’s not a good solution. That’s blackmail of legal owners for the crimes of others.

But don't you see? If we can restrict the rights of law abiding owners, and do nothing to tackle the root causes of violence in our society, and do not inconvenience criminals with illegally held arms, then we'll all just feel so much better

Hence the futility and stupidity of gun control.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I think it's fine and proper to own a gun for self defense, but I do also believe that suggesting gun proliferation is just as insane as banning guns.

We need better standards and funding for our police departments, once again something many states have failed spectacularly in doing.

They need better training and accountability.

Well since not one of you actually tried to refute my points that the Constitution is just as abused to bully people from having any sort of discussion on the subject of guns rights, nay you went on a proved it by suggesting because I question the literal application of a 225 year old document (The bill of rights was drafted the same year) I am a yes man for some sort of hypothetical dictatorship.

Have anyone of you stopped along the line to think that maybe the guy who questions previous notions is the guy trying to put a damper on "Yes manning" rather than the one who utterly faithfully demands subservience to a piece of paper.

The reason the bill of rights exists is no some grand stand against tyranny as you think it is, but rather a result of a conflict between Federalists and anti-constitutionalists. Oh how ironic it is you think that blind dedication to an old document is any better than blind dedication to a new document or creed. To place the word of the founding fathers above those modern men of the same rank and privilege is to destroy everything they fought for, the idea that a nation be not held in the bonds of past rules and expectations but that a nation might evolve beyond those constraints placed upon it by it's fore fathers.

And if you didn't get that it basically means the whole point of the revolution was freeing not just "people" from tyranny but a nation from being upholdent to dated ways of thinking, more specifically the ways of the thinking of the old British empire that were impoverishing the colonies. I would cite how Thomas Jefferson railed oh so hard against his brothers in arms, how he accused people we regard with respect today as naught but traitors and secret agents of the crown, but I would love to think you call can look up Tom's Wikipedia page.

If the Constitution is really so important to you (and all of it's amendments, another irony that if it were oh so perfect then why have we had to change it so much hmm? Possibly because its original words were being twisted to oppress or preventing the country from moving forward? That it maybe that we need to go back and change it in order to set ourselves free of 200 year old chains?) that you would call someone who signed that he would dedicate a minimum amount of years serving our country in return for college funds provided a oath breaker who should " go back to cuba" on a internet forum then go sue the white house because I'm not the one making the executive orders.

A lot of you should read up on early constitutional history. Politicians have been insane people who fight over the smallest things, and stay silent on the largest of things since government has existed.

And history and human nature did not stop, the human tendency towards Bia's did not disappear, humanity's desire to achieve something bigger than themselves did not wane, and our utter love of being absolute jerks to people we don't like (like how Thomas treated John Adams like crap) did not stop when the Constitution and bill of rights were written, and none of it has stopped yet today.

 Nocturn wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Thing is if you have a gun and want to kill me I am fethed.

If you have a knife I may be able to run.

If you have an heavy object I might be able disarm you.

I cant outrun bullets, I cant close the distance and redirect the line of fire before you can squeeze a trigger. Unless you stand really close and I am very very lucky.

Actually, if you are 21 feet or closer, you can close the distance between you and an attacker before they can pull their firearm from it's holster. It's known as the reactionary gap. Also, in high stress situations, studies have shown that if an individual is talking, when combined with said stress, it is very difficult to pull a trigger.

Also, generally people that use guns to commit crimes are expecting you to submit, not charge them. If you can find cover (not concealment), great. Often times, though, your best option for survival is to fight.

Not sure about other states, but in Florida we have the Marchman Act, which allows a family member to (through the court) to force another to be psychologically evaluated, and detained in a treatment facility if deemed necessary by the evaluation.

Law enforcement has the same option, it's just known as the Baker Act.

In both cases, there does not have to be a history of violence, just a well founded suspicion that the individual in question may harm themselves or another.

Edit: spelling.

I am aware of that. That is usually reference in regards to a police officer having to deal with a knife wielding suspect. Or any suspect of unknown intent. Dan insanto did some great videos on it.

If someone is trying to kill you I think we can safley assume that the gun is already out. People dont tend to attack you with a holstered gun.

If we are talking about crime in general and not someone who activley wants to kill you then often the best course of action is to give them your wallet keys whatever and let them walk away. If they try to move you to a secondary location then fighting is probably your only option.

 carlos13th wrote:

 Nocturn wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Thing is if you have a gun and want to kill me I am fethed.

If you have a knife I may be able to run.

If you have an heavy object I might be able disarm you.

I cant outrun bullets, I cant close the distance and redirect the line of fire before you can squeeze a trigger. Unless you stand really close and I am very very lucky.

Actually, if you are 21 feet or closer, you can close the distance between you and an attacker before they can pull their firearm from it's holster. It's known as the reactionary gap. Also, in high stress situations, studies have shown that if an individual is talking, when combined with said stress, it is very difficult to pull a trigger.

Also, generally people that use guns to commit crimes are expecting you to submit, not charge them. If you can find cover (not concealment), great. Often times, though, your best option for survival is to fight.

Not sure about other states, but in Florida we have the Marchman Act, which allows a family member to (through the court) to force another to be psychologically evaluated, and detained in a treatment facility if deemed necessary by the evaluation.

Law enforcement has the same option, it's just known as the Baker Act.

In both cases, there does not have to be a history of violence, just a well founded suspicion that the individual in question may harm themselves or another.

Edit: spelling.

I am aware of that. That is usually reference in regards to a police officer having to deal with a knife wielding suspect. Or any suspect of unknown intent. Dan insanto did some great videos on it.

If someone is trying to kill you I think we can safley assume that the gun is already out.

If we are talking about crime in general and not someone who activley wants to kill you then often the best course of action is to give them your wallet keys whatever and let them walk away. If they try to move you to a secondary location then fighting is probably your only option.

Studies have shown that the actor has the advantage not disadvantage. I may have the draw on you but I am reacting vs. your acting. This is amplified if you're talking at me. Studies with airguns and "BG's" with holstered firearms, and "GG" cops with guns out and pointed with the "Don't Move" by a substantial majority held that, if the guy with the holstered firearm immediately draws and shoots, he's shoot before the GG. His aim will be worse however.

Just an interesting FYI. You do whats best in the situation you hopefully will have maneuvered to be out of the situation in the first place.
I will say in a home invasion you shoot. Don't hesitate, just shoot. In recent years, at least in Texas, a home invasion means the BG is likely going to kill you and/or rape you.

We have changed the constitution.

Thirty-three times.

Twenty seven of those times the change was ratified.

People aren't responding to you anymore because it's becoming increasingly clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

I mean, for lack of better phrasing, all of your posts read with the wide eyed naivety of an 18 year old college freshman that's had his first semester of classes and thinks he's all super enlightened.

Unfortunately, you're simply wrong about a lot of stuff.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Well since not one of you actually tried to refute my points that the Constitution is just as abused to bully people from having any sort of discussion on the subject of guns rights, nay you went on a proved it by suggesting because I question the literal application of a 225 year old document (The bill of rights was drafted the same year) I am a yes man for some sort of hypothetical dictatorship.

Have anyone of you stopped along the line to think that maybe the guy who questions previous notions is the guy trying to put a damper on "Yes manning" rather than the one who utterly faithfully demands subservience to a piece of paper.

The reason the bill of rights exists is no some grand stand against tyranny as you think it is, but rather a result of a conflict between Federalists and anti-constitutionalists. Oh how ironic it is you think that blind dedication to an old document is any better than blind dedication to a new document or creed. To place the word of the founding fathers above those modern men of the same rank and privilege is to destroy everything they fought for, the idea that a nation be not held in the bonds of past rules and expectations but that a nation might evolve beyond those constraints placed upon it by it's fore fathers.

And if you didn't get that it basically means the whole point of the revolution was freeing not just "people" from tyranny but a nation from being upholdent to dated ways of thinking, more specifically the ways of the thinking of the old British empire that were impoverishing the colonies. I would cite how Thomas Jefferson railed oh so hard against his brothers in arms, how he accused people we regard with respect today as naught but traitors and secret agents of the crown, but I would love to think you call can look up Tom's Wikipedia page.

If the Constitution is really so important to you (and all of it's amendments, another irony that if it were oh so perfect then why have we had to change it so much hmm? Possibly because its original words were being twisted to oppress or preventing the country from moving forward? That it maybe that we need to go back and change it in order to set ourselves free of 200 year old chains?) that you would call someone who signed that he would dedicate a minimum amount of years serving our country in return for college funds provided a oath breaker who should " go back to cuba" on a internet forum then go sue the white house because I'm not the one making the executive orders.

A lot of you should read up on early constitutional history. Politicians have been insane people who fight over the smallest things, and stay silent on the largest of things since government has existed.

And history and human nature did not stop, the human tendency towards Bia's did not disappear, humanity's desire to achieve something bigger than themselves did not wane, and our utter love of being absolute jerks to people we don't like (like how Thomas treated John Adams like crap) did not stop when the Constitution and bill of rights were written, and none of it has stopped yet today.

You really do need to resign your commission. How can you in good conscious take your oath with that view?

Yeah I would say that home invasion is a different to someone holding you up for your wallet in the street for example.

I didn't know about those particular studies Fraz will have to check them out. Do you have links to them?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Well since not one of you actually tried to refute my points that the Constitution is just as abused to bully people from having any sort of discussion on the subject of guns rights, nay you went on a proved it by suggesting because I question the literal application of a 225 year old document (The bill of rights was drafted the same year) I am a yes man for some sort of hypothetical dictatorship.

Have anyone of you stopped along the line to think that maybe the guy who questions previous notions is the guy trying to put a damper on "Yes manning" rather than the one who utterly faithfully demands subservience to a piece of paper.

The reason the bill of rights exists is no some grand stand against tyranny as you think it is, but rather a result of a conflict between Federalists and anti-constitutionalists. Oh how ironic it is you think that blind dedication to an old document is any better than blind dedication to a new document or creed. To place the word of the founding fathers above those modern men of the same rank and privilege is to destroy everything they fought for, the idea that a nation be not held in the bonds of past rules and expectations but that a nation might evolve beyond those constraints placed upon it by it's fore fathers.

And if you didn't get that it basically means the whole point of the revolution was freeing not just "people" from tyranny but a nation from being upholdent to dated ways of thinking, more specifically the ways of the thinking of the old British empire that were impoverishing the colonies. I would cite how Thomas Jefferson railed oh so hard against his brothers in arms, how he accused people we regard with respect today as naught but traitors and secret agents of the crown, but I would love to think you call can look up Tom's Wikipedia page.

If the Constitution is really so important to you (and all of it's amendments, another irony that if it were oh so perfect then why have we had to change it so much hmm? Possibly because its original words were being twisted to oppress or preventing the country from moving forward? That it maybe that we need to go back and change it in order to set ourselves free of 200 year old chains?) that you would call someone who signed that he would dedicate a minimum amount of years serving our country in return for college funds provided a oath breaker who should " go back to cuba" on a internet forum then go sue the white house because I'm not the one making the executive orders.

A lot of you should read up on early constitutional history. Politicians have been insane people who fight over the smallest things, and stay silent on the largest of things since government has existed.

And history and human nature did not stop, the human tendency towards Bia's did not disappear, humanity's desire to achieve something bigger than themselves did not wane, and our utter love of being absolute jerks to people we don't like (like how Thomas treated John Adams like crap) did not stop when the Constitution and bill of rights were written, and none of it has stopped yet today.

You really do need to resign your commission. How can you in good conscious take your oath with that view?

At 18, he's not commissioned yet. At best his scholarship gets pulled.

 Frazzled wrote:
Studies have shown that the actor has the advantage not disadvantage. I may have the draw on you but I am reacting vs. your acting. This is amplified if you're talking at me. Studies with airguns and "BG's" with holstered firearms, and "GG" cops with guns out and pointed with the "Don't Move" by a substantial majority held that, if the guy with the holstered firearm immediately draws and shoots, he's shoot before the GG. His aim will be worse however.

Depends on how often he practices his Zubiena Miami Vice drills!

 carlos13th wrote:
Yeah I would say that home invasion is a different to someone holding you up for your wallet in the street for example.

I didn't know about those particular studies Fraz will have to check them out. Do you have links to them?

I will look. I swear it was on NPR of all places a few years ago or something. We tried it at the house and its surprising. ESPECIALLY if the person who's already drawn gets talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

At 18, he's not commissioned yet. At best his scholarship gets pulled.

Sorry I meant his ROTC commission and scholarship. You're very correct.

 carlos13th wrote:
Yeah I would say that home invasion is a different to someone holding you up for your wallet in the street for example.

I didn't know about those particular studies Fraz will have to check them out. Do you have links to them?

You can start with these.


http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-defense-findings.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/Gary-Kleck-Biography.htm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Yeah I would say that home invasion is a different to someone holding you up for your wallet in the street for example.

I didn't know about those particular studies Fraz will have to check them out. Do you have links to them?

I will look. I swear it was on NPR of all places a few years ago or something. We tried it at the house and its surprising. ESPECIALLY if the person who's already drawn gets talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

At 18, he's not commissioned yet. At best his scholarship gets pulled.

Sorry I meant his ROTC commission and scholarship. You're very correct.

No worries!!

Back to defensive gun use, Id read that about 1/4 of the time, the firearm is used outside the home in self defense. One of the reasons I carry in the house.

 cincydooley wrote:
We have changed the constitution.

Thirty-three times.

Twenty seven of those times the change was ratified.

People aren't responding to you anymore because it's becoming increasingly clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

I mean, for lack of better phrasing, all of your posts read with the wide eyed naivety of an 18 year old college freshman that's had his first semester of classes and thinks he's all super enlightened.

Unfortunately, you're simply wrong about a lot of stuff.

You have no argument though. Calling me an 18 year old that is "wide eyed and naive" just reasserts the fact rather than put time or effort into trying to refute my points or engage in debate and discussion over an interesting topic you would just throw insults around.

"You're simply wrong about a lot of stuff" is not an argument. With out being able to say what that is, or articulate how anything I said was wrong you just give the impression you in fact don't have a challenge to what I said and that your attitude just serves as more proof for my thesis that people are putting far to much faith in a document who's author called a "Imperfect solution".


The concern that I'm still breaking an oath is cute honestly. Tell me: Is it not the right of the soldier to call into question the validity of the supposed document he is fighting to protect, because he may be expected to die to protect it? If this country was one founded on the freedoms you claim to cling to so hard in the bill of rights then wouldn't it be the last country to question those who question old dogma?

Truly the dreams of our founders are dead if the idea of a soldier being able to question what hes fighting for is met with scorn and hatred.

Just motivates me more to get involved in the military, in politics, and to hopefully steer this country in a direction away from the spiral of gridlock and clinging to antiquated ways. What ever future you want were this country is condemned to be naught but a dusty backwater nation clinging to out of date ways is a future I will do what I can to avoid.

"Better the uncertainty of a future we go into having shed the irons of old law and expectations than an assured future were we wither and die in the comfort of what was deemed "Acceptable""

Thats a quote by the way, from that insane anarchist hippy, otherwise known as Thomas Jefferson.

Oh and before I forget I assure you all I will keep the scholarship, because what kind of monster would I be to deny the one who didn't get it a chance to pull themselves up by their bootstraps rather than live on the federal dime like me.

Can we add bootstrapping (in action or as called out) to the Dakka bingo cards?

If you didn't believe in the document, the entire document, maybe you shouldn't have signed up to protect it and its people in the first place.

 daedalus wrote:
Can we add bootstrapping (in action or as called out) to the Dakka bingo cards?

BINGO!!! I HAVE BINGO!!!!

Sorry, as a 43yo, calling out Bingo first is a big thing

Tell me: Is it not the right of the soldier to call into question the validity of the supposed document he is fighting to protect, because he may be expected to die to protect it? If this country was one founded on the freedoms you claim to cling to so hard in the bill of rights then wouldn't it be the last country to question those who question old dogma?

No, it isn't the right. Let me explain: You of your own free will, swear an oath to support and defend that 'supposed document'.

I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

You are admitting to mental reservations. If you had them and still swore the oath, you are wrong. There is no wiggle room in that oath. No one puts a gun to your head and forces those words from your mouth. If you really don't get that, again, you really need to rethink your choice to accept being contracted.

I say this as a guy who has been an ROTC instructor, is married to an active duty officer who is about to take a BDE command, has been a combat arms officer, and has a son in ROTC who this spring will graduate, and get commissioned as an infantry officer. I know a bit about the oath. I've taught it, to include significance/meaning, and I've administered it many times when commissioning cadets into 2LTs and when promoting some of my LTs when I was still on active duty.

You have the right and responsibility to refuse to cary out illegal or unconstitutional orders. If you deny or question the validity of the document you have sworn to support and defend, you have sworn a false oath, and as such, should not be a commissioned officer. It isn't hard to get.

EDIT: Here is the oath of enlistment you allegedly took to become a contracted cadet:


Oath
of
Enlistment
(Contracting
Oath)

“I,
_____,
do
 solemnly 
swear
 (or 
affirm) 
that 
I 
wil l
support 
and 
defend 
the
 Constitution
 of 
the
 United 
States 
against 
all 
enemies, 
foreign
 and
 domestic; 
that 
 I
 will 
bear 
true 
faith 
and
 allegiance 
to 
the 
same; 
and
 that
 I
 will 
obey
 the 
orders
 of 
the 
President 
of 
the 
United
 States
 and 
the
 orders 
of
 the
 officer s
appointed
 over
 me, 
according 
to 
regulations 
and
 the
 Uniform
 Code
 of
 Military
 Justice. 
 So 
help
 me
 God.”