Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: What are we fighting for??

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1

    Angry What are we fighting for??

    Currently I am in the Army. I joined for protection of rights and college. In our enlistment it says:

    Excerpt taken directly from contract:
    "I, [your name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of [WI for me] 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 Governor of [WI for me] and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the law and regulations. So help me God."

    I don't know, maybe my idea of an enemy is different than the rest. To me anyone who opposes the constitution is an enemy. Then again that is my opinion. Either way I see it, I have served to uphold both everyone's rights to openly carry a form of protection, and for those who oppose to speak against it. The fact that people are so against it just shows that we as Americans have been lax on our rights. I know as soon as I get back from Fort Campbell I am going to be more into exercising my rights. After carrying one for so long and then not, it will feel good to have another by my side again.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    For a long time people, mostly from urban areas, have chosen to give their responsibility to the govt in return for greater security. Also, social conservatives have worked to put in laws, which criminalize many behaviors that do not harm anyone, but thus being illegalized created a way for criminals to make money at being a criminal. In short society has given up liberty and the responsibility of self reliance for security and now we have neither security nor liberty.

  3. #3
    Regular Member xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by armyof1 View Post
    Currently I am in the Army. I joined for protection of rights and college. In our enlistment it says:

    Excerpt taken directly from contract:
    "I, [your name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of [WI for me] 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 Governor of [WI for me] and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the law and regulations. So help me God."

    I don't know, maybe my idea of an enemy is different than the rest. To me anyone who opposes the constitution is an enemy. Then again that is my opinion. Either way I see it, I have served to uphold both everyone's rights to openly carry a form of protection, and for those who oppose to speak against it. The fact that people are so against it just shows that we as Americans have been lax on our rights. I know as soon as I get back from Fort Campbell I am going to be more into exercising my rights. After carrying one for so long and then not, it will feel good to have another by my side again.
    Good first post, and welcome. Glad to see you are from WI, as I am. We are a hot state for open carry. Partly because CC is illegal, and open carry just started heating up in the past few years due to it being the ONLY legal manner to carry. And partly because of the RESISTANCE of many state officials over something that is completely legal.

    Thanks for your service, and for upholding the Constitution.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Your belief that anyone who opposes the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is your enemy is a correct stance to take. And to take this a step further, any orders issued which countermand these two documents are, by definition, illegal and not subject to being obeyed. That and the fact that anyone who issues such orders is not only breaking the law, but is also guilty of a treasonous action.

    Thank you for your service to our nation.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    For a long time people, mostly from urban areas, have chosen to give their responsibility to the govt in return for greater security. Also, social conservatives have worked to put in laws, which criminalize many behaviors that do not harm anyone, but thus being illegalized created a way for criminals to make money at being a criminal. In short society has given up liberty and the responsibility of self reliance for security and now we have neither security nor liberty.
    Methinks you have the responsible parties WRONG sir. It's the LIBERALS that have criminalized many and made it a criminal offense to violate the "rights" of the criminals" Every CONSERVATIVE I know wants LESS government interference and more freedom IE GUN rights. Less restrictions on every aspect of self determination and responsibility/reliability
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Every CONSERVATIVE I know wants LESS government interference and more freedom IE GUN rights.
    I agree that every REAL CONSERVATIVE wants less government and more freedom. On the other hand, we have MANY RINOS pretending to be conservatives. For example, here in Ohio we have John Kasich running for Governor as a Republican. He voted FOR the assault weapons ban and FOR the Washington D.C. gun ban, in addition to his MANY other anti-2nd Amendment votes. As a former veteran myself, I consider him a TRAITOR to his oath of office, "to protect and defend the constituion of the United States"!!!

  7. #7
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885
    Why does it seem good to anyone that ANY of our human rights and responsibilities are EVER subject to any "vote?" I own my life and body. That is not up to anyone else to decide.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  8. #8
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen
    For a long time people, mostly from urban areas, have chosen to give their responsibility to the govt in return for greater security. Also, social conservatives have worked to put in laws, which criminalize many behaviors that do not harm anyone, but thus being illegalized created a way for criminals to make money at being a criminal. In short society has given up liberty and the responsibility of self reliance for security and now we have neither security nor liberty.
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Methinks you have the responsible parties WRONG sir. It's the LIBERALS that have criminalized many and made it a criminal offense to violate the "rights" of the criminals" Every CONSERVATIVE I know wants LESS government interference and more freedom IE GUN rights. Less restrictions on every aspect of self determination and responsibility/reliability
    It sounds to me as if he was talking about drug laws. There is no provision in the Constitution for the feds to ban drugs or it's use. This should be left to the states.
    Last edited by rodbender; 09-25-2010 at 10:47 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    It sounds to me as if he was talking about drug laws. There is no provision in the Constitution for the feds to ban drugs or it's use. This should be left to the states.
    Where do "states" get the authority to micromanage your life any more than the feds?

    Again: who owns your life and body? The "state" certainly doesn't own mine, whatever they pretend.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender
    It sounds to me as if he was talking about drug laws. There is no provision in the Constitution for the feds to ban drugs or it's use. This should be left to the states.
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    Where do "states" get the authority to micromanage your life any more than the feds?

    Again: who owns your life and body? The "state" certainly doesn't own mine, whatever they pretend.
    I was actually referring to the powers granted the feds by the Constitution. There is a list of things (see Art. I, Sec. 10) in the Constitution that prohibits what states can do. Other than that, the states can do whatever they please, according to the Constitution.

    The states actually get their authority to do anything they do from the people of that particular state. If the people don't stand up against it, the state can and will do it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    The states actually get their authority to do anything they do from the people of that particular state. If the people don't stand up against it, the state can and will do it.
    I don't consent - and never did. I didn't sign or consent to either the fed or state "constitution."
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    I don't consent - and never did. I didn't sign or consent to either the fed or state "constitution."
    I'm much like ML here. The concept of trading my liberty over to a form of government in exchange for their "protection" and other services I've never asked for nor wanted seems highly ironic to me, and rather insulting. I don't much like the idea of being forced to pay for things I have a moral objection to at gunpoint with the threat of jail hanging over my head, either.

    However armyof1, you have given your word in the form of an oath to the Federal Government, and to some extent your state of residence (yes, the National Guard is under Federal jurisdiction and control- has been since the Wilson administration), so do the best job you can while in. All I'm saying is keep your eyes open while you do it. Do your best to match up what you are told with what really is and see what you come up with, that's all.

    Good luck to you.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty
    I don't consent - and never did. I didn't sign or consent to either the fed or state "constitution."
    Somebody before you obviously didn't mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    I'm much like ML here. The concept of trading my liberty over to a form of government in exchange for their "protection" and other services I've never asked for nor wanted seems highly ironic to me, and rather insulting. I don't much like the idea of being forced to pay for things I have a moral objection to at gunpoint with the threat of jail hanging over my head, either.
    I agree with both of you.

    You two need to get to work fixing it, within your state and the feds, if it's that big an issue for you.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Somebody before you obviously didn't mind.
    I agree with both of you.

    You two need to get to work fixing it, within your state and the feds, if it's that big an issue for you.
    You just don't get the point. I didn't break it and I have no obligation to "fix" it.

    If your neighbor signs a contract that says YOU are obligated to pay for HIS child's college degree, do you just meekly pay? I think not.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    You just don't get the point. I didn't break it and I have no obligation to "fix" it.

    If your neighbor signs a contract that says YOU are obligated to pay for HIS child's college degree, do you just meekly pay? I think not.
    Like I said before, "I agree with both of you". But then, I'm not the one bitchin' about it. Don't just bitch about it, do something about it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Somebody before you obviously didn't mind.



    I agree with both of you.

    You two need to get to work fixing it, within your state and the feds, if it's that big an issue for you.
    I do what I can, however I do understand the concept of legal restrictions

    I used to be a dyed in the wool follower of the American form of government, in fact I did 20 years in the army and retired. It wasn't until all that was over did I sit back and actually think of some of this stuff.
    Really, it's not something I'm going around stressing over and making it the forefront of my existence, but more something worth talking over when I see a chance to.

    Cheers.

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    @ Armyof1.... Have you also joined the OATHKEEPERS (google it if you haven't heard of them). Remember, in a situation like the Katrina fiasco, orders to disarm the law abiding populace violate the Constitution and are therefore unlawful.

    @ Rotorhead.... what airframe? I did a tour on RH-53's configured as cargo ships. My late wifes brother did AIMD rotor work for Marine choppers in El Toro. My step son is currently crew chief on BlackHawks in Germany.

    Personally, after working on the CH-53's and seeing how many little parts could fail and put you down, I want the spinny thing in the front. So I fly 172's these days.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    @ Armyof1.... Have you also joined the OATHKEEPERS (google it if you haven't heard of them). Remember, in a situation like the Katrina fiasco, orders to disarm the law abiding populace violate the Constitution and are therefore unlawful.

    @ Rotorhead.... what airframe? I did a tour on RH-53's configured as cargo ships. My late wifes brother did AIMD rotor work for Marine choppers in El Toro. My step son is currently crew chief on BlackHawks in Germany.

    Personally, after working on the CH-53's and seeing how many little parts could fail and put you down, I want the spinny thing in the front. So I fly 172's these days.
    Nice.

    I've worked on many but my main was the AH-64.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, United States
    Posts
    145
    Welcome to the forums Rotorhead and i agree with what you said 100 percent. On a side note....does BdG mean anything to you? If not..it's no big deal, i just knew a Rotorhead from that group.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Devilinbp View Post
    Welcome to the forums Rotorhead and i agree with what you said 100 percent. On a side note....does BdG mean anything to you? If not..it's no big deal, i just knew a Rotorhead from that group.
    Thanks!

    And no, doesn't ring a bell with me. I have no doubts that my use of this name is most likely not unique though. Knowing this, we should all do our best to stamp out all impostors leaving me with exclusive rights to the name! :P

  21. #21
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Ya know....."rotorhead" in some peoples minds implies one of those silly little caps with a propellor on the top...... not usually portrayed in a good light.

    And then all of us fixed wing pilots, well we pretty much think rotorheads are not playing with a full deck. The spinny thing belongs on the front as Orville and Wilbur designed it!

    Sure you want exclusive rights? LOL

    EDIT ADD: The AH-64 is a bad assed platform. I could, even as a fixed wing guy, see myself flying one of those in a combat zone.
    Last edited by We-the-People; 09-27-2010 at 04:03 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Ya know....."rotorhead" in some peoples minds implies one of those silly little caps with a propellor on the top...... not usually portrayed in a good light.

    And then all of us fixed wing pilots, well we pretty much think rotorheads are not playing with a full deck. The spinny thing belongs on the front as Orville and Wilbur designed it!

    Sure you want exclusive rights? LOL

    EDIT ADD: The AH-64 is a bad assed platform. I could, even as a fixed wing guy, see myself flying one of those in a combat zone.
    lol I'm sure I deserve the image in some people's minds.

    The AH-64A was a good thing, albeit with it's own set of quirks and issues, and just when we thought we had it down, along came the "D" model to stir up the pot. The newer Longbow version of the Apache is a nightmare of electronic headaches imo. But, with progress comes a whole new set of rules I guess. Still, when all of the stars align and the D model actually takes off with all systems running, there's hell to pay for some poor sucker out there in terrorist land.

    And you keep what Orville and Wilbur set out for, I'll stick with what Leonardo da Vinci's mind came up with
    Last edited by rotorhead; 09-27-2010 at 06:10 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    ...My step son is currently crew chief on BlackHawks in Germany.
    Katterbach or Landstuhl?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  24. #24
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    Katterbach or Landstuhl?

    Manheim is where he lives and his base of ops is either there or another nearby base, can't remember. I know he or his wife has to go to another base to work. He's in a unit that flys VIPS around.....if the President is over there, or some other big shot, he's probably on site flying around the Generals and/or other VIPS.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    I was referring to SOCIAL conservatives, otherwise known as the right wing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics; those who want to use the government to conserve the social order. Yes they are part of the problem.

    a few things social conservatives want that keeps the govt larger:
    drug laws,
    marriage laws,
    tax incentives for having children, marrying etc.
    taxes!
    police, (note not sheriffs or constables)
    FBI,
    Education dept (federal)
    social security Insurance,
    medicare,
    bases on foreign soil
    a standing federal army,

    ... to name a few things. All of those things I see supported by social conservatives and every one of those makes the federal govt larger and most of it ends up infringing upon individual freedom either directly or indirectly.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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