U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-18-2009, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,238 posts, read 26,388,531 times
Reputation: 10565
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
individual soldiers decide that,the UCMJ gives them that authority to do so as well.
And when they exercise that "right" they are punished by that same UCMJ. I've already seen it.

 
Old 01-18-2009, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,238 posts, read 26,388,531 times
Reputation: 10565
Noahma, war was never declared. The only way for our military to constitutionally be called to combat is a declaration of war. I wouldn't have a problem with the military being used solely on our shores to defend our nation, but some have an issue with posse comitatus.

And the reason this IS on topic is that someone said that our military would not do something unconstitutional. Well, they would, and have.

Last edited by TKramar; 01-18-2009 at 11:01 AM..
 
Old 01-18-2009, 01:10 PM
 
113 posts, read 107,182 times
Reputation: 64
TKramar, if I read your posts correctly, you seem to say that the Constitution should have been followed regarding the war in Iraq, but that it wasn't. Right?

If that's so, then by the same dedication and adherence to the laws and Constitution of this land, why shouldn't we legal law-abiding citizens also be allowed our rights as guaranteed under that very same Constitution?

Are you being selective based on your personal feelings and biases?

It's been proved time and time again that additional laws regulating guns has had zero effect on reduction in crime, in fact, quite the opposite. Concealed Weapons Permits, for example, have had a dramatic effect in reducing crime in the many states that have allowed such carry. The Assault WEapons Ban sunsetted because the FBI and the Justice Deprtment could show no related reduction in crimes using that type of weapon, that it was a sort of silly law based only on cosmetic appearances.

You can argue with yuorself about the validity of these statistics, but regardless, it would be your incorrect opinion only, not fact. Why then do you want to restrict law-abiding citizens' rights to guns even more? For what purpose?

Or are you being confrontational and off-topic just for the sake of irritating others?
 
Old 01-18-2009, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,718,766 times
Reputation: 3625
Default It's obvious!

Ahhh, I see TK's back at it, from the post by thotful1. Pretty good guess at his probable personal psychology of confrontation, I'd say, thotful1!

At any rate, it's highly unlikely that our Constitution will be revised any time soon, and the Heller decision in WA DC pretty much upheld our Constitutional right to be armed. I'm pretty sure those judges won't go for another useless test of the same thing any time soon. Too bad for the anti-gunners, eh?

Since the sunsetting of the AWB also removes them as a class of weapons from further suspicion except in the eyes of those who also think they are fully-automatic and scary, the re-introduction of a previously failed or discredited piece of legislation will likely kill it immediately on its appearance.

Just what is the most probable and true agenda of anti-gunners if not to reduce crime? Likely it's to support the outright removal of all forms of resistance to governmental tyranny. As in Russia, Mexico, Cuba, China and a hundred other despotic or Monarchial states. Or socialist countries on their way to despotism: Kanada, Britain and Australia, where legislated gun control has, observably and documentably, led to big-time increases in gun and other violent crimes against now-unarmed defenseless citizens.

How about that case in Britain a couple of years ago when the homeowner, having been violently assaulted and broken in to several times previously, finally got fed up and shot the criminal that was in his kitchen, again, with the homeowner's legally owned shotgun. Didn't even kill this outrageous multiple offender. The police state arrested the homeowner and he's now in the slammer. After all, they have a point to make, and logic and justice be damned. And they certainly DON'T care about the rights of the homeowner within his own "castle" so to speak. The message here was clearly "Don't own or use any firearm even if in the defence of yourself, your family or your property!"

That seem fair and appropriate to you, TK? Not that I can see your answers, but I'm sure others would also like to know.

Last edited by rifleman; 01-18-2009 at 01:28 PM.. Reason: typos
 
Old 01-18-2009, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 6,769,471 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Noahma, war was never declared. The only way for our military to constitutionally be called to combat is a declaration of war. I wouldn't have a problem with the military being used solely on our shores to defend our nation, but some have an issue with posse comitatus.

And the reason this IS on topic is that someone said that our military would not do something unconstitutional. Well, they would, and have.
can you please cite where in our constitution this is? Looking through my pocket constitution I fail to find a clause that says this. I did find in Article 1 section 8.11-8.16 that declares that the legislative branch is the one to declare such, but in the past (since WWII) the legislative branch has left this to the executive branch to declare war, that is unconstitutional, but it does not make the whole war unconstitutional.
 
Old 01-18-2009, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,238 posts, read 26,388,531 times
Reputation: 10565
If the executive branch usurps the power that the legislative branch is supposed to have, that is, in itself, unconstitutional. A declaration of war WAS made in World War II, but that was the last time our military has fought in an approved war.
 
Old 01-18-2009, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,238 posts, read 26,388,531 times
Reputation: 10565
Quote:
Originally Posted by thotful1 View Post
TKramar, if I read your posts correctly, you seem to say that the Constitution should have been followed regarding the war in Iraq, but that it wasn't. Right?

If that's so, then by the same dedication and adherence to the laws and Constitution of this land, why shouldn't we legal law-abiding citizens also be allowed our rights as guaranteed under that very same Constitution?

Are you being selective based on your personal feelings and biases?

It's been proved time and time again that additional laws regulating guns has had zero effect on reduction in crime, in fact, quite the opposite. Concealed Weapons Permits, for example, have had a dramatic effect in reducing crime in the many states that have allowed such carry. The Assault WEapons Ban sunsetted because the FBI and the Justice Deprtment could show no related reduction in crimes using that type of weapon, that it was a sort of silly law based only on cosmetic appearances.

You can argue with yuorself about the validity of these statistics, but regardless, it would be your incorrect opinion only, not fact. Why then do you want to restrict law-abiding citizens' rights to guns even more? For what purpose?

Or are you being confrontational and off-topic just for the sake of irritating others?

If the Constitution isn't being followed in one instance, why not just scrap it entirely? And scrap the government, while we're at it?
 
Old 01-18-2009, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 6,769,471 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
If the Constitution isn't being followed in one instance, why not just scrap it entirely? And scrap the government, while we're at it?
throw the baby out with the bath water?
 
Old 01-18-2009, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 6,769,471 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
If the executive branch usurps the power that the legislative branch is supposed to have, that is, in itself, unconstitutional. A declaration of war WAS made in World War II, but that was the last time our military has fought in an approved war.
Congress did give the executive branch the authority to conduct a military action in Iraq.
 
Old 01-18-2009, 03:11 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,227 posts, read 4,900,449 times
Reputation: 2475
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Your desire to own a gun indicates a willingness to use it, or it's worthless. But you should get yourself up with the times--Subway doesn't have an "overnight" shift. And I work overnights.
True. But theres alot of uses for a gun. I'v been useing them for 30 years & never shot anyone. You are paranoid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top