• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The outrages are limitless

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/14/miller-house-passes-resolution-exempt-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:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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?
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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...
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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!
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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?
 

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
474
Location
Suffolk VA
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.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 
Top