warpedskydiver 0 #126 November 12, 2009 Again with the derogatory remarks, would you like it if we referred to you with a name which reflects the manner in which you conduct yourself? I could think of quite a few. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #127 November 12, 2009 Quote Again with the derogatory remarks, would you like it if we referred to you with a name which reflects the manner in which you conduct yourself? I could think of quite a few. How about you think of a few answers to the actual question? On this thread and the other one. I could care less what you call me. Whatever it is, I have been called worse by better Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #128 November 12, 2009 QuoteSo your argument is that in high stress situations, people should not have guns, or they might be tempted to use them? Nope, not even close. I think that in a situation that is *designed* to stress a person out with no escape AND when that situation is one that that person is not allowed a single stick of gum by design to facilitate that process, AND is a situation that is proven to not be a risk, AND a person volunteers to accept those conditions that they can overlook a person's 2nd amendment rights. Now, care to list the number of attacks on BASIC training units by an armed attacker?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #129 November 12, 2009 QuoteNow, care to list the number of attacks on BASIC training units by an armed attacker? Ron, what does that have to do with anything? Please point out in the 2nd Amendmend where it states that guns should be allowed for home defence. pretty sure the wording is about protecting against the government, not the local crack dealer. QuoteI think that in a situation that is *designed* to stress a person out with no escape AND when that situation is one that that person is not allowed a single stick of gum by design to facilitate that process, AND is a situation that is proven to not be a risk, AND a person volunteers to accept those conditions that they can overlook a person's 2nd amendment rights. So, now that you have agreed that the 2nd amendmend has limits, outside of the limits on the mentally ill and convicted criminals, all you end up bickering about is what those limits are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #130 November 12, 2009 QuoteRon, what does that have to do with anything? Please point out in the 2nd Amendmend [SIC] where it states that guns should be allowed for home defence. pretty sure the wording is about protecting against the government, not the local crack dealer. You have not read the FF's positions on guns then. May I suggest the Federalist Papers and offer these quotes found through a quick Google? Quote "The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence. are auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property" --Samuel Adams 1769 "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788). "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari) And as for interpretations..... Quote"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samual Adams (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87) "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson) They considered self-defense a given right... They were writing a document about *governance*. To even attempt to claim that the Founding Fathers did not intend the right to self-defense is not a position that can be defended. If so, please find a quote from them saying citizens DON'T have the right to self-defense. QuoteSo, now that you have agreed that the 2nd amendmend has limits, outside of the limits on the mentally ill and convicted criminals, all you end up bickering about is what those limits are. I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #131 November 12, 2009 QuoteIf so, please find a quote from them saying citizens DON'T have the right to self-defense. please find a quote of the 2nd amendmend which includes the words self-defence. QuoteTo even attempt to claim that the Founding Fathers did not intend the right to self-defense is not a position that can be defended. If they specifically intended that, why would they not have mentioned that specifically. They do mention protection against the government specifically. Quote"The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence. are auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property" --Samuel Adams 1769 prove that he specifically meant against self-preservation and protection of those three rights from another individual and not the government. QuoteI have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. Exactly, the individual has a choice. Like you have a choice not to work for your employer, cause he does not allowe guns. Are you have the choice not to go to a mall that does not allow guns. You also have the choice not to send your kids to a school which doesn't allow guns. What is wrong with those choices? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #132 November 12, 2009 Quote I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #133 November 12, 2009 QuoteQuote I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply? the draft ended with Vietnam. While we can have an historical debate on their involuntary loss of rights, it has no bearing on now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #134 November 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply? the draft ended with Vietnam. While we can have an historical debate on their involuntary loss of rights, it has no bearing on now. The US Constitution had bearing then and now. Ron's point is bogus.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #135 November 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply? the draft ended with Vietnam. While we can have an historical debate on their involuntary loss of rights, it has no bearing on now. The US Constitution had bearing then and now. Ron's point is bogus. And slavery ended 150 years ago - are you going to bring that up next, since we're talking about bogus points?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #136 November 12, 2009 He is still pissed that document was passed, he was in the opposition to it at the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #137 November 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply? the draft ended with Vietnam. While we can have an historical debate on their involuntary loss of rights, it has no bearing on now. The US Constitution had bearing then and now. Ron's point is bogus. And slavery ended 150 years ago - are you going to bring that up next, since we're talking about bogus points? IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, I'm sure you can manage a better rebuttal than that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #138 November 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply? the draft ended with Vietnam. While we can have an historical debate on their involuntary loss of rights, it has no bearing on now. The US Constitution had bearing then and now. Ron's point is bogus. And slavery ended 150 years ago - are you going to bring that up next, since we're talking about bogus points? IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, I'm sure you can manage a better rebuttal than that. I'm sure I could, too - if your drivel in response to Ron warranted it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #139 November 12, 2009 Still have no intelligent response, I see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #140 November 12, 2009 Quote Still have no intelligent response, I see. Neither did you, to Ron or myself.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #141 November 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply? the draft ended with Vietnam. While we can have an historical debate on their involuntary loss of rights, it has no bearing on now. The US Constitution had bearing then and now. Ron's point is bogus. Soldiers do not enjoy all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Free speech, free access to weapons, due process - none of these are the same. Today's soldier accepts that as part of their service to our country. You're correct to identify that the draftees of all our wars from Vietnam back did not get to make that choice, but it's not germane to a Texas base in 2009. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #142 November 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I have said that the individual is ALLOWED to give up those rights.... Soldiers do exactly that. So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply? the draft ended with Vietnam. While we can have an historical debate on their involuntary loss of rights, it has no bearing on now. The US Constitution had bearing then and now. Ron's point is bogus. Soldiers do not enjoy all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Free speech, free access to weapons, due process - none of these are the same. Today's soldier accepts that as part of their service to our country. You're correct to identify that the draftees of all our wars from Vietnam back did not get to make that choice, but it's not germane to a Texas base in 2009. Last time I checked we still required young men to register with the selective service system, which implies that the draft is not dead, just dormant. If Constitutional rights could be overridden at government will in 1969, what makes you think we are now immune?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #143 November 13, 2009 Quote Last time I checked we still required young men to register with the selective service system, which implies that the draft is not dead, just dormant. If Constitutional rights could be overridden at government will in 1969, what makes you think we are now immune? well yes, but we're not talking about people who have been in the military for 40 years after they were drafted. Nor are we talking about a possible future where the draft was reinstated. (I give it 8 posts and someone blames that on Bush) We are discussing volunteers in 2009 where there is no draft, and all the military on the base are volunteers.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #144 November 13, 2009 Quote Last time I checked we still required young men to register with the selective service system, which implies that the draft is not dead, just dormant. You and I both know that the draft is dead. The only way it would come back would be to protect us for local threats, and there are none. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ridestrong 1 #145 November 13, 2009 The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing at all. -Sir Edmund Burke Special thanks to our troops who are serving to protect us, and defending those who are unable to defend themselves.*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.* ----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #146 November 14, 2009 Quote So your argument is that in high stress situations, people should not have guns, or they might be tempted to use them? I would say that anyone who is knowingly going into such a high stress situation shouldn't carry a firearm unless they've gone through special training to be able to handle the high stress situation and not let the adrenaline take over.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #147 November 14, 2009 Hi SC folks Draft: 1) Anyone know the rational of the Gov't for not requireing women to register for the draft just like the men. 2) Due to "don't ask don't tell" and self admitted subtance abuse probleems verified by UA tests. Someone who doesn't want to be draft will be given a free pass. AFAIK its not against the law to be gay or fail a UA. Ft hood shooting galleryGI's usually learn to adapt in spite of senior NCO's officers and Orders. How is the army going to prevent G.I.s from carrying their own concealed weapons while on post? It's against the reg's?Require everyone entering the post pass thru metal detectors like at the airport? Or gov't bldg Random spot checks? One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #148 November 15, 2009 Quote 1) Anyone know the rational of the Gov't for not requireing women to register for the draft just like the men. It’s partially historical. The original selective service Acts go back to WWI and WWII. President Carter tried to have the Act amended to require women to register. A lot of folks didn’t/don’t like the idea of women potentially being required to go into combat. It ended up in a Supreme Court Case, Rostker v. Goldberg. Former Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. Personally, I would either like to see the Act ended or required for all. Might be an interesting poll. I also think there's a potentially, im-ever-ho, intersection with another recent thread: "75% of Young Americans Unfit for Military Duty" /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #149 November 15, 2009 QuotePersonally, I would either like to see the Act ended or required for all. Besides, anyone who's ever watched Battlestar Galactica knows that chicks can kick ass in combat. End of discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #150 November 16, 2009 Obama is telling congress to hold off investigations on the Fort Hood until local law enforcement do their probes. This is insane!!! Congress is in charge of the military, not the military or local law enforcement. This isn't a political theater, it's a terrorist attack. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/14/obama-urges-congress-delay-fort-hood-investigation/ In addition, now there is ommission from radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki that he was Major Hasan's confidant. I know, I know.... he claims he didn't tell Hasan to do anything "bad to the American's" (Yeah right!) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575242,00.html Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
