Posted: 4/20/2013 10:09:49 AM EDT
| Saw on Facebook ehere a military officer indicated that the constitution referencing the 2 nd amendents should be changed to reflect common sense gun laws. I said I thought you took an oath to obey the constitution as it is, and not as he would like it to be. That as a civilian he is free to express his opinion, but that as an officer it is unbecoming. Was I totally off base, or does the first amendment give them total freedom of speech. He has since pulled all Facebook on this stuff, and is pissed. |
|
He is free to have his opinion and you are free to tell him he is a fucktard.
Common sense is laughable How many common sense laws Stop dealers and users How many common sense laws stop pedos and rapists How many common sense laws are their to stop a god damn terrorist from setting off a bomb in a crowded area. |
|
Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There is something to what you are saying, but it isn't as clear cut as you make it. If you don't believe in something, you shouldn't be entrusted to defend it. |
|
So swearing to an oath is just an act of good faith. I swear to uphold the constitution......But........ I now understand why it means more to some than to others. I am up in age and and guess I look at things differently.
Appreciate the insight. I am not progressive. |
|
There exists within the Constitution the means to change it. As long as he's advocating change within the legal framework for amending it, how is he breaking an oath?
If Prohibition was still on the books, would you say an officer advocating its repeal was acting in a manner contrary to his or her oath? |
|
Quoted:
Saw on Facebook ehere a military officer indicated that the constitution referencing the 2 nd amendents should be changed to reflect common sense gun laws. I said I thought you took an oath to obey the constitution as it is, and not as he would like it to be. That as a civilian he is free to express his opinion, but that as an officer it is unbecoming. Was I totally off base, or does the first amendment give them total freedom of speech. He has since pulled all Facebook on this stuff, and is pissed. Way nicer than I would have been. |
|
Quoted:
There exists within the Constitution the means to change it. As long as he's advocating change within the legal framework for amending it, how is he breaking an oath? If Prohibition was still on the books, would you say an officer advocating its repeal was acting in a manner contrary to his or her oath? I agree, but that is not what he was talking about, not ratification, but new weapons bans and such. Appreciate the feedback. |
|
The constitution is there to limit the government, not the other way around.
The people should not be prohibited from having bb guns all the way to having Nuclear bombs if one has the money and "personal expertise." I think you should have intimate knowledge of the tools of the trade. Now, it does not absolve you of the consequences of owning such objects, you just have the right to own it. |
|
Quoted:
Dickslapping a military officer over his sworn duty in an online discussion post is puerile. Cheap shot is cheap. An apology on OP's part is in order. Total B.S. (you obviously haven't served or you would know) In the military you give up a lot of your rights that a civilian maintains. If he was representing himself as a military officer, he is way off-base. In the military, what you think, and what you say are two different things. Knee-capping would be the least he deserves. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dickslapping a military officer over his sworn duty in an online discussion post is puerile. Cheap shot is cheap. An apology on OP's part is in order. Total B.S. (you obviously haven't served or you would know) In the military you give up a lot of your rights that a civilian maintains. If he was representing himself as a military officer, he is way off-base. In the military, what you think, and what you say are two different things. Knee-capping would be the least he deserves. Bingo. To bad he did not capture they page and send it to his commanding officer or splash it over the web. If you don't support what is in the Constitution don't swear an oath to protect something that you don't agree with. Allowing enemies within is bad practice. |
|
Quoted:
He appears to be advocating amending the Constitution. Not ignoring or failing to uphold it in the meantime. I don't agree with him, but I'm not going to get my dander up over that. Quoted:
Quoted:
There exists within the Constitution the means to change it. As long as he's advocating change within the legal framework for amending it, how is he breaking an oath? If Prohibition was still on the books, would you say an officer advocating its repeal was acting in a manner contrary to his or her oath? I agree, but that is not what he was talking about, not ratification, but new weapons bans and such. Appreciate the feedback. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There is something to what you are saying, but it isn't as clear cut as you make it. If you don't believe in something, you shouldn't be entrusted to defend it. Yes, because expressing an opinion that the Constitution should be amended is soooo unconstitutional. The Amendment Process is part of the Constitution, you know. It would be perfectly Constitutional for 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Stupid, unjust, and short-sighted, but perfectly legal according to the document. As long as he didn't 1) advocate unconstitutional means to amend it, and 2) didn't represent his opinion as the official Army opinion I don't see the real problem. |
|
Quoted:
There exists within the Constitution the means to change it. As long as he's advocating change within the legal framework for amending it, how is he breaking an oath? If Prohibition was still on the books, would you say an officer advocating its repeal was acting in a manner contrary to his or her oath? If he were advocating amending it (apparently not the case) I wouldn't see that as a violation of his oath. However, I would take it as a sign that he is not worthy of being entrusted to defend it in its current state. The particulars in this case, with it being the second and his potential to do damage by leading others in the military in opposition to it in an extreme case like disarmament significantly increase the weight of that distrust. Prohibition - I think I'd take that as he was upholding his duty to the constitution. Also (surprisingly given "beer is good") I don't think the right to drink is quite as specifically covered as is the right to bear arms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There is something to what you are saying, but it isn't as clear cut as you make it. If you don't believe in something, you shouldn't be entrusted to defend it. Yes, because expressing an opinion that the Constitution should be amended is soooo unconstitutional. The Amendment Process is part of the Constitution, you know. It would be perfectly Constitutional for 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Stupid, unjust, and short-sighted, but perfectly legal according to the document. As long as he didn't 1) advocate unconstitutional means to amend it, and 2) didn't represent his opinion as the official Army opinion I don't see the real problem. Will not comply even if they did that. My rights don't come from man no matter what a document says but ymmv. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There is something to what you are saying, but it isn't as clear cut as you make it. If you don't believe in something, you shouldn't be entrusted to defend it. Yes, because expressing an opinion that the Constitution should be amended is soooo unconstitutional. The Amendment Process is part of the Constitution, you know. It would be perfectly Constitutional for 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Stupid, unjust, and short-sighted, but perfectly legal according to the document. As long as he didn't 1) advocate unconstitutional means to amend it, and 2) didn't represent his opinion as the official Army opinion I don't see the real problem. Will not comply even if they did that. My rights don't come from man no matter what a document says but ymmv. ^^ this right here. No more, no less. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There is something to what you are saying, but it isn't as clear cut as you make it. If you don't believe in something, you shouldn't be entrusted to defend it. Yes, because expressing an opinion that the Constitution should be amended is soooo unconstitutional. The Amendment Process is part of the Constitution, you know. It would be perfectly Constitutional for 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Stupid, unjust, and short-sighted, but perfectly legal according to the document. As long as he didn't 1) advocate unconstitutional means to amend it, and 2) didn't represent his opinion as the official Army opinion I don't see the real problem. We were typing at the same time or something - see my reply to the poster above. |
|
Quoted:
Saw on Facebook ehere a military officer indicated that the constitution referencing the 2 nd amendents should be changed to reflect common sense gun laws. I said I thought you took an oath to obey the constitution as it is, and not as he would like it to be. That as a civilian he is free to express his opinion, but that as an officer it is unbecoming. Was I totally off base, or does the first amendment give them total freedom of speech. He has since pulled all Facebook on this stuff, and is pissed. he is way too stupid to lead men into combat. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There is something to what you are saying, but it isn't as clear cut as you make it. If you don't believe in something, you shouldn't be entrusted to defend it. Yes, because expressing an opinion that the Constitution should be amended is soooo unconstitutional. The Amendment Process is part of the Constitution, you know. It would be perfectly Constitutional for 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Stupid, unjust, and short-sighted, but perfectly legal according to the document. As long as he didn't 1) advocate unconstitutional means to amend it, and 2) didn't represent his opinion as the official Army opinion I don't see the real problem. We were typing at the same time or something - see my reply to the poster above. Got it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There is something to what you are saying, but it isn't as clear cut as you make it. If you don't believe in something, you shouldn't be entrusted to defend it. I disagree. You don't have to believe in it to defend it. |
|
My original post I see is misleading. He did not refer to amending the constitution, he indicated more gun laws, even if it infringes on our rights, through whatever legal means on the public. I apologize.
I guess I was too harsh. Should not have posted on his site, even though it came up on mine. I am over twice his age, he is a good commander,I am very set in my ways, and see I was out of line. Thank you all for your input. |
|
Quoted:
..., he indicated more gun laws, even if it infringes on our rights, through whatever legal means on the public. I apologize. I guess I was too harsh. Should not have posted on his site, even though it came up on mine. I am over twice his age, he is a good commander,I am very set in my ways, and see I was out of line. Thank you all for your input. He really is a moron and he needs to be called out on his shenanigans see below Quoted:
what part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand using common sense? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Swearing an oath to uphold a set of rules does not preclude you from operating inside the confines of those rules to amend them. To argue that he should shut the fuck up because he is a military officer is to try to deprive him of his right to an opinion and his right to express himself. What's the old saying? Something about disagreeing with your opinion but fighting to the death to defend your right to have it. Choosing to serve is not choosing to divest one's self of the benefits of the thing one serves. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There is something to what you are saying, but it isn't as clear cut as you make it. If you don't believe in something, you shouldn't be entrusted to defend it. I disagree. You don't have to believe in it to defend it. The fact that some may defend it without believing in it under some circumstance does not mean that we should be entrusting them with that honor. Under what circumstances would their belief get the better of their (basically blind) adherence to an oath? Would you not trust someone who believes in the second more than someone who does not if their CO gives them an order to disarm citizens? Is that not the level of trust we are investing in them? |