Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The outrages are limitless

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    The outrages are limitless

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-military-dc-/

    House votes that people employed by the military and who live in DC are exempt from their gun laws.

    I say throw their butts in jail. They are not special. In fact, it's my opinion, and the opinion of our founding fathers, that those serving in the Imperial Forces are killing our country.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    While I appreciate that military off-duty should not have the RKBA that has been denied to everyone else, it would be counter-productive to take their Right away because others have had theirs (unconstitutionally, IMO) denied.

    The proper course of action is to go to court and point out that "equal protection" should be used to extend the non-denial of the Right to everyone.

    Let's not cut off our noses to spite our faces.

  3. #3
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-military-dc-/

    House votes that people employed by the military and who live in DC are exempt from their gun laws.

    I say throw their butts in jail. They are not special. In fact, it's my opinion, and the opinion of our founding fathers, that those serving in the Imperial Forces are killing our country.
    funny, I don't recall the founding fathers coming up on CNN, knowing the circumstances of today's world, and saying all our societal ills are by people in the military.....

    In fact, virtually all of our founding fathers with the exception of Jefferson supported the military as an institution.... and Jefferson's foreign policy left us hostage to pirates and foreign countries enslaving our citizens, so maybe not the best guy to go to for advice.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 06-18-2013 at 06:11 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    funny, I don't recall the founding fathers coming up on CNN, knowing the circumstances of today's world, and saying all our societal ills are by people in the military.....

    In fact, virtually all of our founding fathers with the exception of Jefferson supported the military as an institution.... and Jefferson's foreign policy left us hostage to pirates and foreign countries enslaving our citizens, so maybe not the best guy to go to for advice.

    As an institution? You might want to read the constitution again, and so many of the "founders" comments of not wanting a standing army.


    Jefferson's foreign policy of protective tariff's was bad if that is what you are referring to?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    As an institution? You might want to read the constitution again, and so many of the "founders" comments of not wanting a standing army.


    Jefferson's foreign policy of protective tariff's was bad if that is what you are referring to?
    Jefferson also dismantled the powerful Navy that Adams had developed, responded to british impressment by embargoing britain ( and destroying the merchant economies of New York, Boston, Baltimore, and Philadelphia) Jefferson failed to have a professional army maintained, so when we got into the War of 1812 our military suffered several humilitating defeats to the British.

    The Constitution specifically allows for a Navy to be maintained, and the only restriction on armies is that the appropriations must be renewed every other year. that's about it. the suspicion of Standing armies varies upon which founder you could've asked. George Washington despised irregular militias and wanted a strong standing army. so did Adams, who demanded funding for a permanent army of 20,000 strong. in the end the Adams side won the debate...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Jefferson also dismantled the powerful Navy that Adams had developed, responded to british impressment by embargoing britain ( and destroying the merchant economies of New York, Boston, Baltimore, and Philadelphia) Jefferson failed to have a professional army maintained, so when we got into the War of 1812 our military suffered several humilitating defeats to the British.

    The Constitution specifically allows for a Navy to be maintained, and the only restriction on armies is that the appropriations must be renewed every other year. that's about it. the suspicion of Standing armies varies upon which founder you could've asked. George Washington despised irregular militias and wanted a strong standing army. so did Adams, who demanded funding for a permanent army of 20,000 strong. in the end the Adams side won the debate...
    And Adams was such a WONDERFUL president wasn't he? Adams was the first tyrant after Washington -- Alien and Sedition Act?

    I'm sorry, but I would MUCH rather have Jefferson than Adams! Jefferson respected our rights and desperately wanted to maintain our liberties; Adams was just the opposite after he became president! Jefferson was intelligent enough to see the problems a large standing army could cause, and believed the People should protect what is theirs. And I must say Jefferson was quite right. All one needs to do is look at the last 100 years of American history to realize the large standing army has assisted the collapse of this country.

    I fully support our service men and women and I believe they are some of the bravest we have in this country, but they are helping complete the insidious goals of the rich and elite and they are blind to it all.

    Jefferson or Adams? That is easy: Jefferson!
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    And Adams was such a WONDERFUL president wasn't he? Adams was the first tyrant after Washington -- Alien and Sedition Act?

    I'm sorry, but I would MUCH rather have Jefferson than Adams! Jefferson respected our rights and desperately wanted to maintain our liberties; Adams was just the opposite after he became president! Jefferson was intelligent enough to see the problems a large standing army could cause, and believed the People should protect what is theirs. And I must say Jefferson was quite right. All one needs to do is look at the last 100 years of American history to realize the large standing army has assisted the collapse of this country.

    I fully support our service men and women and I believe they are some of the bravest we have in this country, but they are helping complete the insidious goals of the rich and elite and they are blind to it all.

    Jefferson or Adams? That is easy: Jefferson!
    You mean the alien and sedition acts that Jefferson used as well? Those acts?

    Thomas Jefferson is far from a saint of freedom that libertarians make him out to be. Actually he supported limiting the rights of businesses to interfere in elections and wanted a constitutional amendment to that effect (not nessecarily a bad idea actually) he also seemed to like black people as long as he owned them... Pretty nice man of freedom right there
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Getting back to the original post -

    If you are between the ages of 16 and 45 you are employed by the military. You are the unorganized (as opposed to disorganized) militia and are required to be prepared to be called up and pressed into service.

    That being said, I am sick and tired of special perks for special people.

    If the sense of the House of Representatives is that DC's home rule government has gone too far, let Congress take back control of the place. Frankly I do not think they could possibly do any worse than the locals have done, and more than likely will be too busy to screw it up even moreso.

    Fire everybody and rehire them as civillian employees of the Capitol Military District. Or turn the place into a federal reservation and run it under the Bureau of Indian Affairs like we do all the other reservations.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    That being said, I am sick and tired of special perks for special people.


    stay safe.
    That's just it. I read this morning that Obama's $100 million African safari is a "much needed" vacation. Will American's put up with anything as long as they are reasonably comfortable?
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  10. #10
    Regular Member ron73440's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Suffolk VA
    Posts
    477
    I'm in the military and this ticks me off.

    If the laws are onerous for one group, they are onerous for everybody.

    Laws should be as minimal as possible and there would be no reason for exceptions.
    What I told my wife when she said my steel Baby Eagle .45 was heavy, "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it doesn't work you could always hit him with it."-Boris the Blade

    MOLON LABE

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by ron73440 View Post
    I'm in the military and this ticks me off.
    If the laws are onerous for one group, they are onerous for everybody.
    Laws should be as minimal as possible and there would be no reason for exceptions.
    THIS is Truth. But I see this as a foot in the door. Yes, the law is onerous and one group was exempted. We now have our "inch". Let us press the Congress to extend this "inch" to a legal milestone and give us our Rights back.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Getting back to the original post -

    If you are between the ages of 16 and 45 you are employed by the military. You are the unorganized (as opposed to disorganized) militia and are required to be prepared to be called up and pressed into service.
    O.C.G.A. § 16-11-130 Exemptions from Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-127.2
    (a) Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-127.2 shall not apply to or affect any of the following persons if such persons are employed in the offices listed below or when authorized by federal or state law, regulations, or order:
    ...
    (3) Persons in the military service of the state or of the United States;


    Honestly, I don't think anyone between the ages of 16 and 45 in Georgia is going to get very far on an unlicensed weapons carrying charge by claiming employment by the military by virtue of being in the unorganized militia.

    Not that I disagree that they aren't in the militia (unorganized), but I don't think we can fairly categorize that as "employment" and thereby service. Perhaps it could be rephrased?


    Personally, I also agree that we shouldn't have 'special classes of privileged people', but the more classes of said people the better; we're working on getting anyone with a Georgia Weapons Carry License -130 exempted. And then we'll work on getting every free citizen the same rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •