| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
Hmmmmm. Treason: the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. I'd say that this definition applies quite aptly to two of the three branches of government currently. | ||
| Old_man |
Which of the three gets left out of your indictment? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'm giving the Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt right now. I'll reserve judgment pending the next round of appointments. I wonder how many judges we'll have to go through until Big O can find one without a tax dodge or other snafu. | ||
| Aesquire |
Hey, Old_man, I'll help. Give me the target coordinates, & We'll see if this Iranian surplus Scud can reach from here.  | ||
| Old_man |
No way enough range. | ||
| Thumper74 |
Swordsman, Wow! It's not in my actual dictionary (which is a few years old). I found it on Dictionary.com, but I also found 'aint'... | ||
| Aesquire |
Darn, the salesman, a Mr. Khan told me it would reach the Ikea store from here.  | ||
| Xl1200r |
This isn't at all meant to be a barb at FB in the way that BG meant it, but it has always amazed me that for all people's talk, less than one in ten ever feel patriotic enough to serve in uniform. Patriotic enough??? I have all the respect in the world for the members of our armed forces, but that statement is hogwash. Not everyone has that in them. Not everyone wants to be a soilder. While noble and needed, being a soilder is nearly the same as any other occupation, especially among those that serve your country, state or community. There is a LOT to be said for willingly putting your life on the line, but I don't think that it's required for anyone to be required patriotic. As someone who hasn't served and likely never will, I take a little offense to that statement. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I actually DID look into military service after high school. At the time, the military was making significant cuts in positions where I wanted to serve. Honestly, though, there isn't enough room for the vast majority of citizens to serve. The military doesn't have positions for everyone. We aren't Israel. Not serving in the military doesn't mean lack of service to country. That is a hollow argument. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Honestly, though, there isn't enough room for the vast majority of citizens to serve" True. In fact, during the Clinton "Rightsizing" in the early 90's, you had to have permission from God just to reenlist. BuPers had to approve each and every one of them. Commanding Officers could no longer decide whether you could stay. I know SEVERAL highly competent individuals that were either forced to retire or were not allowed to reenlist. It was a dark time. | ||
| Xl1200r |
This just in from the 9th Circuit Court (probably the most LIBERAL Federal court too, I might add) Argued and Submitted January 15, 2009 San Francisco, California Filed April 20, 2009 Before: Arthur L. Alarcón, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain; Concurrence by Judge Gould -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ quote: Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived. Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence. Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ This JUST was ruled the day-before-yesterday. This is GROUNDBREAKING stuff for all people interested in their SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!! Full document available at the 9th Circuit Court's own website: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage. php?pk_id=0000009500 READ IT PEOPLE - we are talking a FEDERAL ruling ON AN APPEAL - and READ how the FEDERAL COURT defined your/my/our 2nd Amendment rights AS INDIVIDUALS. I actually took the time to read this entire document, and while some of the opinions are promising, the ruling of the actual case was not. I find it was just another example of an elected official with an agenda creating and passing legislation that is too wide-sweeping and makes little sense. In addition, the quote you posted is that of a non-ruling justice, whose opinion doesn't matter (although his views are expressed by the ruling judge on some level elsewhere in the document). Our rights were not defended, only acknowledged. BTW - through reading that whole document and the reason for the Ordinance, I couldn't keep but thinking that law-obiding people don't walk in a crowded area and start blowing people away. Putting even deeper regulations on those who already follow the law does NOTHING to deter criminals from criminal activity. People are so friggin' stupid. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
>>>>This isn't at all meant to be a barb at FB in the way that BG meant it, but it has always amazed me that for all people's talk, less than one in ten ever feel patriotic enough to serve in uniform. There are many people that believe that "service to your country" is the obligation of a patriot, well I did serve, 8 years, US Army, and I don't think that in itself makes me more or less a patriot, it just means I may have a different perspective. I believe Bill made that statement, and he was a Cop I think I read in one of his posts, so that may be the way he feels. I don't. It is interesting to me that while I was a Bush basher, and still don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about that regime, I like this one even less...I would take 12 years of Bush over 4 years of Obama. Any day. Doesn't mean I liked Bush, I didn't, in fact I really couldn't stomach too much of him or Cheney, but at least I KNEW where they were coming from, this guy is a deceitful (even more than most politicians) and vile person bent on tearing down that last shred of Americana....I feel we have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. I am also at a loss to say what would be better, maybe McCain, I voted for him, at least I KNEW where he was coming from and the agenda he was on, it seems Obama's agenda reveals itself day by day and it is so secretive and in many ways sinister in nature. I don't apologize for my mistrust of our government, in fact I revel in it, those that don't question NOW will be left to wonder "what was I thinking" later....so while I don't always agree with the FT_B, I think that statement was out of line, slanted to be provocative and illicit a response or confession so the person making the statement can say "see you are so patriotic but you couldn't serve" there are many ways to serve your country...questioning the direction of the country, dissent and debate to find the truth out and then spreading that truth or opening the debate to find the truth is also patriotic. The true test is not to fight a foreign foe in defense of border or convictions, the true test is to identify and spot light those that would erode from within what the country is built on, stands for and what we pass on to our posterity...my two pennies. (Message edited by liquorwhere on April 23, 2009) | ||
| Bill0351 |
"I have all the respect in the world for the members of our armed forces, but that statement is hogwash." I don't see it as "hogwash" at all. In fact, one of the biggest problems in our country is that many people have taken that famous "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" quote and turned it completely around. Of course you don't have to enlist in the infantry to be a patriot, but if you asked the average person what they did over the last 12 months to benefit anyone but their immediate circle of friends and family, they would come up blank. They only worry about the Constitution as it relates to them, and when they see another group who is being unfairly treated, they have no interest. That attitude comes from both the right and the left. Neither is immune. Besides grudgingly paying taxes and bitching the entire time, huge numbers of people do exactly NOTHING to back up their armchair patriotism. They do nothing voluntarily to make our collective nation a better and stronger place. They don't even vote. As for there not being enough space in the military for everyone? That is totally true, but I have never known anyone physically, legally, and mentally qualified who was turned away at the gate. | ||
| Spatten1 |
We have a post-Vietnam generation, myself included, where very few people even considered joining up. Most people I know that did were getting tuition, getting out of a felony, getting out of a small town, or just had nowhere else to go. I can tell you that none, zero, of the Vietnam vets I worked with as a teenager even considered encouraging me to join up. Things are much different now, since the first Gulf War. Military service has rightly regained the respect it deserves. I think that if you paint all ages and demographics with one brush, saying they are not patriotic because they did not serve, you do not understand the state of the country and the military in the 1970's and 1980's. It was a very bad time for US military recruitment. | ||
| Rfischer |
Howz about 5 years spent as a USCG AUX., qualifying and certifying as a regular member Boat Engineer and serving as the duty-section engineer with a regular member duty-section boat crew, full time. At age 55. Patriotic enuff for you..?? Howz about helping to fund a new gym for a small local Catholic parochial school; and donating a new entrance sign for an old Russian Orthodox Church in our neighborhood. I'm Jewish. How do you define patriotism? Lots-0-ways to give back to the community and support the country. | ||
| Greenlantern |
I have always found the word "Patriot" a distasteful one if only for the wide latitude of its application(s). In my mind anyway, a patriot is someone who works and lives within the laws of their land. Everybody plays their part and there are few if any who could argue factually as to why "joe fry cook" is any less important than "stan stockbroker" or "sarah housewife" in the great tapestry of our nation. There are those who elect to go beyond that calling and enlist in services that directly protect and/or defend the lives and liberties of their fellow citizens. Does that make them special? Yes. Does that make them anymore "patriots" than any other law abiding working member of this nation? No. Does service to ones country make them more valuable? No, but it does make them invaluable, there is a difference. While it is admittedly annoying, even so called bitching about government serves a noble purpose, it keeps vigilance alive. It is the day that no one is complaining is the one we should all fear. As a plumber in NYC, I have worked in locales ranging from rat infested slums to the penthouses and homes of the worlds most powerful and elite. As a manager for that plumbing firm I have rubbed elbows with movers and shakers from grass roots charity operations to the power brokers that live at the top of the food chain. Same people, different circumstances of life, all "Patriots". | ||
| Rfischer |
Well said. Thank you. | ||
| Jlnance |
but if you asked the average person what they did over the last 12 months to benefit anyone but their immediate circle of friends and family, they would come up blank. Do the taxes I pay count? | ||
| Gregtonn |
The 9th circuit is in direct conflict with the second amendment. This: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Does not allow for this interpretation: Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment. G | ||
| Gregtonn |
Q: Do you know what makes this so stupid? "...why don't you run down to your local armed forces recruiting station and sign up right now!" A: In this case... The minute you sign up the jack ass who is trying to dismantle the Constitution becomes your Commander in Chief! I know because I took the oath and served my country. G | ||
| Eaton_corners |
Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... John Adams | ||
| Oldog |
I also red the opinion, the city counciler (Ms King) was out of line, typical of some that we label as "liberals" to her mind excluding guns from the fair grounds eliminated the issue surrounding the murder, and in her opinion all gun owners, and "afficinados" were mentaly ill Sadly in her Niave and narrow view no consideration is given to the simple fact that CHRIMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAW ANY WAY so the ordinance will not prevent a premeditated murder or a crime of passion for law breakers, What was annoying to me was the seemingly endless "BLATHER" that the judge put in his opinion. Ultimately some official will eventualy find some way to disarm us. they are trying as FT has stated they are moving slowly and incrementaly ( as disease would kill a great big oak tree ) When you disarm the populace and wreck the currency you can easily subdue the people. Barak is a lying hypocrit, and any one that does not see that is bloody well blind. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
A: In this case... The minute you sign up the jack ass who is trying to dismantle the Constitution becomes your Commander in Chief! Zactly! Hence my comment about the nature of the enemy. | ||
| Rfischer |
Before we get our panties too bunched up, as someone noted above, the quoted opinion of Justice Scannlain is obiter dicta and therefore neither binding nor legal precedent. It will take a skilled constitutional lawyer to pick out the actual law established in the case, if any. Appellate courts can, and often do, decide a case without necessarily deciding a point of law or establishing binding precedent. I know this is not very satisfying for the purposes of an internet forum shout-fest, but keep it in mind and don't put too much stock in what the words may suggest, or not suggest as the case may be. Rest assured, good lawyers can take the words found in the quoted reasons of the Court as strong authority for either side of the issue. | ||
| Xl1200r |
The 9th circuit is in direct conflict with the second amendment. This: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Does not allow for this interpretation: Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment. Not neccesarily. According to all of the mumbo jumbo in the document, not all laws which regulate a right infringe that right. They gave some examples. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
"I 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" Its going to be a long year and a half. | ||
| Xl1200r |
What's with the "year and a half" stuff? | ||
| Buellgrrrl |
Given the electoral trend to the left and the republicans lame response to same, it'll be at least a decade and a half before the republicans are even competitive again. | ||
| Gregtonn |
"It will take a skilled constitutional lawyer to pick out the actual law established in the case, if any." "According to all of the mumbo jumbo in the document..." These sorts of phrases and statements are precisely why the framers of the Constitution made the amendment short and to the point. It does not require a "constitutional lawyer" to understand the intent. Lawyers and "law makers" now write laws and opinions in "legalese" so they can claim the average citizen is too ignorant to interpret the law. Because we, and many before us, have allowed this to go on for far too long, our legal system more closely resembles to the county dump than the courthouse. Along with this come the rats, maggots, cockroaches and the rest of the vermin. Sorry to be so long winded G | ||
| Oldog |
some real good thinking here, reforms we would like to see: laws written in english term limits, 2 terms any elected federal office, thats it. business-es allowed to set money back in "the good times" to cover the "bad ones" simple rules of conduct for our officials and an understanding that IF you are in office and you violate the rules you are out. requirement that cabinet level appointees have some knowledge of the department that they are going to oversee, HLS is a mess cause of whats her name. perhaps a requirement that to run for POTUS you must serve in the military / civil service [ police - fire - nat guard - coast guard ] } be of american birth and citizen ship and be 35 years old |
