It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AR-15's are NOT designed to kill

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Mirthful Me


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


So, as a Senior NCO in the USAF should I sell my soul to the government, or should I fight, tooth and nail, for our freedoms? You tell me

What did the oath you took say?


Phage my friend...

I swore my oath to my Constitution.




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: 00018GE
I get tired of hearing the news media talking heads saying that AR-15's are designed to kill. AR-15's and the like AND military rounds in general are designed to wound NOT kill. Wounding an enemy soldier takes more soldiers off the battlefield than killing enemy soldiers. These kinds of weapons are designed to wound. I don't understand why no one calls them on this more often.


No military officer in the history of war on this planet ever approached his troops before a battle, and raised a battlecry of "Aim to wound!" What you think they were designed for and what they are used for are two very different things.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150
Just the Constitution?
Just your interpretation of it?
I understand it was a while back.

edit on 6/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You must have a different U.S. Constitution than I have... Maybe try this one?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Is this the Mudpit?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150

Swing and a miss...



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me



You must have a different U.S. Constitution than I have... Maybe try this one?

Ok. Article 1, section 8.


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

www.law.cornell.edu...
Seems to be the same one.

edit on 6/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: madmac5150
Just the Constitution?
I understand it was a while back.




I swore to uphold the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Is it my fault that our demise has come from within?

I loaded F-16s with bombs and missiles, because I was paid to do that. YOU voted for the policies that I upheld.
Know what?

At the end of the day, it is all about killing, and I am done with that. I am done with governments. Let me have my little slice of Idaho, and leave me alone.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150



I swore to uphold the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

And you swore to follow the orders of certain people too. Right?


Let me have my little slice of Idaho, and leave me alone.
Ok. Can I visit my friends there? I won't move, I promise. Snow is fun to play in but living in it? No thanks.





edit on 6/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

www.army.mil...

If I'm not mistaken the bold text outweighs the ladder in terms of priority.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI
I don't know if you're mistaken. But does it grant a soldier the power to interpret the Constitution as they see fit?

The document itself seems to give that authority to one body.


edit on 6/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: madmac5150



I swore to uphold the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

And you swore to follow the orders of certain people too. Right?


Let me have my little slice of Idaho, and leave me alone.
Ok. Can I visit my friends there? I won't move, I promise. Snow is fun to play in but living in it? No thanks.




And I will follow orders of officers appointed above me... ask any officer I ever worked for, I was a total pain in the ass... they hated having the Constitution thrown back at them.... probably why I never made E-8. Screw em



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150

President. The President is in there too, right?
According to JinMi, the President takes precedent over your officers.

edit on 6/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Loaded question sir, we both know the answer.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI
Actually, it was more of a leading question.
Leading you to the answer we both know.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

No, it didn't. It relied very heavily on damn good shooters thar watched over them, sometimes with .308's sometimes cobra gunships, sometimes artillery. However the base infantry weapon adopted at that time fired a .223 caliber 50-70 grain bullet. High velocity, with a lot of high speed shrapnel. The idea was cost savings. Less actual material, same amount of damage. One wounded soldier ties up or distracts many.... don't t talk war or weapons if your haven't been familiar with either.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

www.army.mil...

If I'm not mistaken the bold text outweighs the ladder in terms of priority.



That's an enlisted oath, officers are not bound to obey the president or officers appointed over them...



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." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)


Oath of Commissioned Officers

That's no accident.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Ah, I did not know such a thing existed.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me




That's no accident.

Apparently MadMac was not an officer.

But can I refer my leading question to you? Do military officers have the authority to interpret the Constitution or are they required to follow the interpretation of the Court?

edit on 6/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Mine shoots clean and true at 430 feet per second. Many deer met a peaceful end with my arrows. Quickly and without having to run 2 miles while being shot at by drunks.




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join