To all cops, military and politians

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
You took an oath to uphold and protect the 2nd amendment. There is no gun control. There is no common sense approach. Shall not be infringed means what it means. To any and all that took that oath understand exactly what that means. Vets you took an oath FOR LIFE it does not end when your service ends.

I'm looking for cops, military and politicians or anyone that has taken the oath to uphold and protect the constitution to post here and tell me that you uphold the 2nd amendment. I want to know that the police are on our side. That the military is on our side. And that politicians understand that there is such a thing as treason and that legacy means standing by the people and not stuffing your pockets.




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I'd like to expand on that legacy comment. I want you to look at Steve Jobs. Billions of dollars with all these innovations. And what did he do? Sat there on his death bed acting like he was going to take all that money with him. He earned it, it's his right isn't it? Sure, but what did he do in life? There are suicide nets in China... Apple factories. The man was a modern day slave owner that never, not even on his death bed, gave to charity. Yes, he "earned" that money, it's his right... but what will he be remembered as?

Stand with the people FOR the people and immortality is assured. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Gandhi, even Lincoln to a certain extent proved this. Life is not measured by wealth but by what you leave behind. Taking it all with you does nothing.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
It is confusing for many in uniform....even at relatively high levels (ie, NOPD Chief post Katrina). They are taught to follow orders (rules) but dont know what to do when those orders break other rules (ie US Constitution) which most rationalize that challenging same is above their pay grade and thus leave it to others rather than rock the boat. But given that they are influenced by peer pressure when a statistically significant portion of those in uniform step out of formation and declare that they wont enforce illegal and unconstitutional orders - then others will join them. Getting to that precipitation point leading to critical mass is the problem.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Bacardi
 



Originally posted by Bacardi
Shall not be infringed means what it means.


"Keep and bear arms" means what it means, too. It doesn't necessarily mean "own any style and capacity of firearm available". Even if all these crazy gun control laws were passed (which they won't be) our right to keep and bear arms could still 'not be infringed'.


Originally posted by Bacardi
To any and all that took that oath understand exactly what that means.


That military oath also says, " 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. "

I'm none of the people you're looking for. And I support the second amendment. I think people CAN and DO have different interpretations of that, however. I'm just saying that it's not as clear cut as you present it here.


. I want to know that the police are on our side. That the military is on our side. And that politicians understand that there is such a thing as treason and that legacy means standing by the people and not stuffing your pockets.


Good luck with that. I don't know where you've been but NONE of the above reflects the current state of those organizations in the US.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   


"Keep and bear arms" means what it means, too. It doesn't necessarily mean "own any style and capacity of firearm available".


It doesn't set a qualification. Sounds quite wide and I believe it was meant to be.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


As I said, people are going to interpret that individually. How wide is "quite wide"? Tanks? Nukes? Automatics? Where's YOUR line? (that's rhetorical.) Each individual has their own thoughts, interpretation and beliefs about the phrase.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. "

-
Just a question. Does this include the constitution? It seems pretty vague to me.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Yesw. The time has come for the public to remind these people just who the SERVENTS are. Thing is, they maintain power through trickery, slight of hand and legaleese. Time for people to start educating themselves. Ignorance isn't an excuse.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
They may have taken an oath but they are not on your side. They never will be. soldiers are produced exactly as purposed. If they were to ever stand on the side of freedom they would have done so by now. You are asking a soldier to distinguish between your right and wrong and most cant see the difference between basic right and wrong anymore.

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” – Henry Kissinger

he meant what he said and he said what he meant.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I think it was phrased to mean the people should be armed in a similar manner to the government. And time has changed but the principle hasn't. (at least for some).

I suspect had detachable magazine for long guns and pistols existed in those days, a 10 versus 30 capacity wouldn't represent a dividing line. People keep wanting to place false hope in the count of bullets.

What ever happened to the 'bad' hang gun stuff that entered gun control due to robberies because of easily hidden guns? Given up because it didn't really work.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Bacardi
 


Look, even your most conservative voice on the Supreme Court, Anthony Scalia, has clearly stated that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."

The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."


www.washingtontimes.com...


On gun control, which has been in the spotlight since the July 20 mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, Justice Scalia hinted that something could be done to control semi-automatic weapons.
“Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” he said. “Obviously, the [Second Amendment] does not apply to arms that cannot be carried. It does not apply to cannons.”


For instance, I personally don't think that private citizens should be able to possess hand grenades and I would imagine that the Supreme Court would overwhelmingly agree. With that said, I doubt seriously that you'll ever amass a majority of Americans who support your super strict interpretation of the Second Amendment, much less a group large enough and/or powerful enough to take back what you perceive to be your government, by force.

I remember hearing the comedian Lewis Black state that when confronted with people who refuse to accept evolution as fact, one word would always pop into his head and that word was "Fossil." Well, I have only one word for you and your like minded extremist who are predisposed with the idea of a second revolution or Civil War and that word is "Drones."



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by XLR8R
 


The oaths include a "support and defend the Constitution" clause:



"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."


Military Oaths

But if the Constitution can be (and is) interpreted differently by different people, that is going to be tough for anyone to decide.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Looks like I got another group to educate...again.
We are NOT stupid brutes I have a 115 IQ,and by the way Kissinger thinks less of "useless eaters" like American civilians,as do the globalist cabal.Do you take HIS definition of the men and women as your own?
We do support the Constitution,the MAJORITY of Vets ,military and police over a DOMESTIC ENEMY, the definition is a bit sketchy but things would clarify DAMN quick if a sudden martial law is imposed without an emergency requiring it or DHS starts picking people up ,we are trying with all methods of brain to brain combat to warn everyone we will act if that happens.I don't know how stupid they are so we'll see.Custer didn't face the numbers I am talking about and yes,I was in the 7th Cav.
The weapons for self defense hither to and hence forth for the purpose of undeniable clarity are semi auto rifle with large capacity magazines.
This type IS REQUIRED to defend against such an unfortunate event.We can aim quite well we don't need rock and roll and we have the numbers should it happen.
The control measures they are attempting to perform are important as they cannot do a thing in this country until we are unarmed.
Progs want to play politics with shooting victims of crazies and we want to be left alone.Who is right?
That's why we talk.Just please shut the F##k up with the ignorant "KILLBOT" discussions,we ARE the best authorities on the web for war and law enforcement(not me but my brother is a detective)because we did it,ANY internet info or book cannot teach you what it is like to kill and We as professionals don't recommend you try to find out.It causes issues.
Sure you can argue with these facts but I'll just wear you down too as we never quit defending our country against ANY enemies or ingnorance.
Me I love beating progs down with little things like facts until all they can do is insult me.
I say to the citizens of America we stand with you,that is how we "interpret" the oath and even now we will fight as long as we can and sacrifice all to save us.
Vets are valuable like our own family, the flag is our symbol.
edit on 1-3-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: missplled
edit on 1-3-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: missplled



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Thanks for the response.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 

Perfect, I would like to add, that I have coverted people from ignorance to educated about these issues, right here on this board, I can link it if any of the progs want, it took about 45 posts before I finally got through to him, but in the end it was worth it, even if it woukd have taken my entire life.

I think they dont understand this aspect of soldiers, we are persistant, determined and highly motivated to see the peaceful continuity of this great nation, we are not the ones trying to start a fight, we are , just stating the fact that if they really want one........well a lot of us have no problem going toe to toe. We are no afraid of them or any of their percieved power, we know where the power stems from, it doesnt come from a magic wall socket it comes from a power generation plant, politcal power does not come the politicians either, it comes from the people.

To those that think us vets should have already thrown down and caused the attrocities of war on the home land unless we are kindless automotons, well.....I think is an exremely naive view, as we know what happens to the lands wars are fought in, and have no interest in seeing it in our backyards, not to mention, that the people are the ones that are supposed to decide when enough is enough, not the soldiers, we served and serve at your pleasure. We do not decide foreign policy, we do not make laws, we do not tell the people when enough is enough.

What some of you have claimed "we" should have done already is nothing short of tyrany, the military doesnt police peaceful streets, they do not make law, they do not make or decide foreign policy, they fight, simple as that.

Who advocates soldiers deciding whats what? That is just silly, I know how about we let the pok ice just make policy and law on the spot also without the consent of the people or the electorate?

The point is, none of this is the soldiers place to decide, it is the peoples place to decide, should they choose to ride it out a while longer and see if things dont improve, ok with me, if they decide tomorrow enmass that enough is enough, well I am cool with that also, as I have been tired of it for some time now, but vigilante justice does not serve the peoples ends usually, it serves a selfish sort who enjoys what he is doing.

Just know op, my battle buddies and every American, I for one await your call, if doesnt come, I continue to educate and live, if it does come, well I am ready to move ahead in that direction also, as are a great many of my battle buddies, both former and. Current sercice members.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


There are no limits to what or who in the 2nd amendment. If no limits are placed, it should be read as is. And that means, any and all gun control is unconstitutional. Also, swearing an oath to the President was not in the original enlistment oath if I remember correctly.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I invented a new use for PROG other than Tomita,cool.
edit on 2-3-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: missplled





top topics
 
6

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum