1,100 Green Berets Sign Letter Condemning Gun Control

reply to post by Bedlam


Everyone star this gentleman for bringing actual intelligence to the thread, as well as the major above.

Please folks, just accept defeat and realize these guys are pros. Not everyone receives the rank of Major, I would imagine he is really smart and knows all of this stuff by heart.

Originally posted by T4NG0
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Everyone star this gentleman for bringing actual intelligence to the thread, as well as the major above.

Please folks, just accept defeat and realize these guys are pros. Not everyone receives the rank of Major, I would imagine he is really smart and knows all of this stuff by heart.

Bedlam and I have eaten the same sand... As for me being really smart - well, I doubt all that.

Being a Major isn’t all that special either to be honest it's a mid-level career Officer. I just happened to enter the Officer Corps at 10 years of service after being a SFC so I call my mid-career level retirement a success some would be mortified to retire at O4.

I am certainly not high command material, nor would I want to be, frankly I never could be...I piss too many people off. Call it a character flaw, I don't take orders very well.

However, I am certain my facts regarding SOCOM are sound. One can't help but absorb the basic structure of the Special Operations community after 24 years of service, hell given 24 years I bet my dog could do a basic org chart for SOCOM.

Bedlam is correct also about the DA missions, some teams like them some don’t; there is a certain freedom to lobby for missions in the community and people develop niches and tend to gravitate to one another and teams are formed that specialize in certain types of missions. Dudes who like DA make a name for themselves and are sought for that type thing. Some are really good trainers, some door kickers, some are good at long range shooting, some at intelligence work, hell now we even have a niche for PSD work as well. Then add in insertion methods and special mission units, skill identifiers, etc., and you got a whole lot of specialists and too few generalists if you ask me. A well rounded operator is more of an asset IMO than a definitive specialist.

Usually training and intelligence collection go hand in hand – to be a good trainer one has to be able to assimilate and relate to the people being trained it is a very diplomatic thing. The one (training) is usually a good cover activity for the other (intelligence gathering). Nation building and assistance missions are dicey, a pretty junior Captain is training Colonels or even Generals of a foreign nation it’s easy to offend especially considering all the cultural differences. Our SF Team Leaders know more about strategic and tactical forces and doctrine than the highest level commanders in most armies.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Good thing Green Berets don't make or interpret the laws.

If they fail to enforce the law, they are susceptible to dishonorable discharge.

Before you take an Oath, know what it says.

Before you tell others to know what the oath is before taking it, KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL OATH IS.

Military doesn't enforce the law, thus not enforcing the law doesn't make them eligible for dishonorable discharge.

The ignorance of Obama supporters is BEYOND scary.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
The sacred Constitution and the Military Oath is VERY CLEAR, with nothing to argue about.

When an elected representative gets into office, he makes an OATH to defend the Constitution. So too the military officials.

Right now, the issue is the 2nd Amendment - A very CLEAR law with no ambiguites.

Those who are calling for the DELETION, or even INFRINGING upon the 2nd Amendment, HAD BROKEN THEIR OATH AND LAW, AND THEY ARE CRIMINALS!

Absolute ruubish.

The constitution allows for amending itself - the 2nd amendment is itself evidence that such can happen. All the amendments are evidence of that.

What's more there's the 21st amendment that REPEALED the 18th amendment (prohibition) - so amendment can be repealed legally in accordance with the constitution too!

What had SCOTUS done, that they had allowed criminals to rule the states?

nothing.

It is only in the neads of fantatics like you that this happens.

edit on 31-1-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

The bill of rights are unalienable, please stop with your peddling of lies.

reply to post by JBA2848

train gorillas

bwahahaha It's guerillas, not gorillas. Sorry, I just had to. Also it's not sneek, it's sneak.

2nd oh yes, and who's talking about overthrowing the govt? We are talking about defending our Constitution.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

The constitution allows for amending itself - the 2nd amendment is itself evidence that such can happen. All the amendments are evidence of that.

The bill of rights are unalienable, please stop with your peddling of lies.

Perhaps you would like to back that up with some evidence?

for my part, the evidence that the constitution can be amended is all the amendments that have happened to it.

the "Bill of Rights" is, or course, teh first 10 amendments to teh constitution, ratified by the states in 1791.

It orignally contained 12 amendments - 10 were passed in 1791, 1 in 1992 - yes, 203 years alter - as the 27th amendment, and one, Apportionment, is technically still before the states and could be adopted should they chose to do so.

The processes by which the constitution can be changed
aer fairly well known - although obviously not by you - and are set out in the constitution itself - in Article 5:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

this is the process that was used to repeal prohibition - which was a constitutional amendment - by a later constitutional amendment.

So which part of that is lies please??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


1. The Constitution would not have stand if not for the Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd amendment was included, as not all states were in accord with the orignal constitution itself. It was only after the Bill of Rights was legislated that the Constitution stood as it is and served the nation well for 200+ years.


2, Any further amendments, by right of logic and the voice of the majority, can be submitted for legislation approval, BUT if only ABSOLUTELY necessary and do save the nation.

Had this call for the 2nd amendment change, or infringement, or even its repeal necessary?

Had what the loud vocal minority who called for this change been sound in their proposal - to strip law abidding citizens and their future generations of their weapons or the RIGHT to own such weapons for self protection, their loved ones and the nation, WITHOUT stopping or resolving the root problem of mental health and other social issues that are causing violence, not only in USA, but worldwide as well?


3. USA is NOT a banana state whereby amendments and even the entire constitutions are replaced with great regularity, often done thoughtlessly for either political gain, allowing the LOUD but minority to rule, or just out of plain stupidities.

May americans not be foolish to let the LOUD vocal minority disneyland inhabitants whom love to use the pity and victim cards to sway emotional minds, and potential tyrants and criminals who can't wait for a disarmed people so that they can rule with impunity.

Let not the founding fathers' blood and sacrifices be in vain, for they understood human nature well, and thus the creation of the sacred Constitution that had stood the test of time for 200+ years and more to come, and had served and protected the People well with a just rule of law, a document that will NEVER allow tyrants to ever rule again.