What are we fighting for??

[We-the-People]

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.

 

[rotorhead]

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

 

[slowfiveoh]

...My step son is currently crew chief on BlackHawks in Germany.

Katterbach or Landstuhl?

 

[We-the-People]

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.

 

[Daylen]

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.

 

[rotorhead]

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.

I don't see a whole lot of those things that Liberals are against, honestly. In fact, other than a few minor differences, I don't see a whole lot of space between conservatives and liberals, despite what they may say in election years.

In the almost 5 years it's been since democrats took over congress, and especially in the past almost two years since they took the presidency, how has the government shrank exactly under democratic rule?

It's not the politicians, it's the system. Or to borrow a more popular phrase, don't hate the playah, hate the game.

 

[rodbender]

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.

All federal police forces (FBI, BATFE, DEA, IRS, U.S. Marshalls, and now Dept. of Education has police) are the standing army that the founding fathers and the framers were concerned with. The military was normally the national police force for countries in the time of the founding. The real military I don't worry too much about. I think the vast majority will be on the side of the people. That's why Big Sis has determined that returning vets may become terrorists.

As I've said many times:

The democrats want the power to control the people, damn the cost.

The Republicans want the same power, they just don't want to pay as much for it.

 

[Daylen]

I don't see a whole lot of space between conservatives and liberals, despite what they may say in election years.

yes, perhaps I should have just said progressives or social tyrants (to include left wing and right wing), but I wanted to get my point across that what most people think of as "conservatives" are part of the problem.

Personally, I don't want a govt to have wings, I want a govt that will keep other govts that do have wings from bothering me.

 

[ooghost1oo]

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.

It's a pity you had to swear obedience to your president and governor. I sure as hell wouldn't.

The Constitution is all.

 

[We-the-People]

Those of us who have sworn to such oaths are not swearing obedience to any and all orders issued by the officers (including President and governors) but ONLY the lawful ones. The oath used to saw "lawful orders of......" but it's been shortened in most instances. Doesn't mean that they don't have to be lawful orders, they do.

That's a large part of what the "Oath Keepers" organization is all about. That Unlawful orders will not be followed such as the post Katrina firearms confiscations.

 

[VAopencarry]

If you are in the Army why do you swear to the State of WI and your Gov. if you are a Federal troop?

 

[rotorhead]

If you are in the Army why do you swear to the State of WI and your Gov. if you are a Federal troop?

Judging by his original post, it would seem he has enlisted in the WI National Guard, hence the additional wordage contained that refer to his state's governor and constitution. Almost all oaths of enlistment for national guard enlistees are similar in nature and reference both federal and state entities.

Although each state maintains their own versions of the national guard, all of them are subject to federal control and call up at anytime determined necessary by the federal government, which is one reason why it's called the National Guard in the first place. Although individual states maintain operational control over their NG components when they are not ordered into service, there is little difference between the NG and the Reserves, which are maintained by the Feds.

The NG has been under federal jurisdiction since before WWII. What we now refer to as the NG used to be called State Militias. Many states have since created newer versions of their own militias after the NG was federalized roughly a century ago. These militias are completely under state control and more closely resemble the original militias created during and after the Revolutionary War.

During the build up to and after the commencement of OEF and OIF, there was debate headed by Sec of Def Donald Rumsfeld to completely erase the state's ownership of the NG and to finally move them under permanent federal control, which would eliminate any resistance posed by individual state's governors during times of federal call-ups. He lost the debate basically and the individual state's retained control over their NG components. However, NG components still also remain subject to federal service when the federal government determines they are needed and governors have little say in the matter as they receive federal funds to maintain them- something which they do not receive to maintain state militias to the best of my knowledge.

 

[rodbender]

Texas has a national guard that is subject to federal control. It also has a state guard that is not.

 

[Misplaced Texan]

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.

My wife and I agree completely

 

[Trophimus]

We Fight for our Freedoms

It is the duty of structures such as government to serve the common good of its people. That is accomplished through greater freedom, prosperity, and safety--i.e. the pursuit of happiness. For example, gun laws do not make us any more free, but less so, and they do not stop evil, but rather promote it when we are disarmed. The anti-gun lobbies feel that to disarm normal citizens is to make society 'safer', when in fact, it makes us less safe. The Brady campaign grew out of the Reagan shooting, but does it make sense to disarm the public because one nut job tried to shoot the President? It makes no more sense than to take cars off the street because there has been a traffic accident in which someone was killed.

We must return to the founding principles which resulted in the Bill of Rights, and that cannot be accomplished without personal responsibility for ourselves. The government cannot individually protect us, and we must resist through all legal means their intent to prevent us from protecting ourselves. Through the ballot box, and through the state and federal legislative bodies we must stop this mindless stampede toward public disarmament, and we must establish laws that protect us from the courts for liability when we do engage evil doers to protect ourselves and loved ones.

Look to the authors of liberty to remind us of their opinions:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

 

[SouthernBoy]

It is the duty of structures such as government to serve the common good of its people. That is accomplished through greater freedom, prosperity, and safety--i.e. the pursuit of happiness. For example, gun laws do not make us any more free, but less so, and they do not stop evil, but rather promote it when we are disarmed. The anti-gun lobbies feel that to disarm normal citizens is to make society 'safer', when in fact, it makes us less safe. The Brady campaign grew out of the Reagan shooting, but does it make sense to disarm the public because one nut job tried to shoot the President? It makes no more sense than to take cars off the street because there has been a traffic accident in which someone was killed.

We must return to the founding principles which resulted in the Bill of Rights, and that cannot be accomplished without personal responsibility for ourselves. The government cannot individually protect us, and we must resist through all legal means their intent to prevent us from protecting ourselves. Through the ballot box, and through the state and federal legislative bodies we must stop this mindless stampede toward public disarmament, and we must establish laws that protect us from the courts for liability when we do engage evil doers to protect ourselves and loved ones.

Look to the authors of liberty to remind us of their opinions:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

Very nicely written. Well done.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

As long as they don't violate our inalienable rights as recognized by the bill of rights.

 

[rodbender]

As long as they don't violate our inalienable rights as recognized by the bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights do not apply to the states. Contrary to what SCOTUS says, the 14th was never intended to incorporate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to the states. It was merely meant to keep states from having one set of laws for one group and another set for everyone else. Never was it mentioned in the debates in congress or the ratification debates that it would incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states. And, no, SCOTUS does have interpretive power of the Constitution. Article III is the only place it mentions the judiciary and nowhere else. It does not give SCOTUS the power to interpret the Constitution.

 

[CenTex]

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.

Actually, Leonardo da Vinci is known for drawing a flying machine. It was in the design of a helicopter, not fixed wings with the prop out front.

http://www.aviastar.org/foto/vinci.jpg

Leonardo: b. 1452, d. 1519

Wright Brothers:
Wilbur: b. April 16, 1867, d. May 30, 1912)
Orville: b. August 19, 1871, d. January 30, 1948

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The Bill of Rights do not apply to the states. Contrary to what SCOTUS says, the 14th was never intended to incorporate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to the states. It was merely meant to keep states from having one set of laws for one group and another set for everyone else. Never was it mentioned in the debates in congress or the ratification debates that it would incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states. And, no, SCOTUS does have interpretive power of the Constitution. Article III is the only place it mentions the judiciary and nowhere else. It does not give SCOTUS the power to interpret the Constitution.

Holding a law up to the Constitution and determining its Constitutionality involves interpreting the intent of the Constitution. The examiner of the law determines the Constitutionality of the law based on the intent of the Constitution.

I am not sure if you meant to type it, or if that is actually what you think, but: "And, no, SCOTUS does have interpretive power of the Constitution." Did you mean SCOTUS "does have?"

If you did mean what you said than how could SCOTUS have the interpretive power of (or "by?"....sorry, I realize that you are saying that they aren't given the power to interpret) the Constitution, but not have the power to interpret the Constitution? They interpret the intent of the Constitution, not the validity of the aspect of the Constitution the law is being held against.