75% of Americans support gays right to serve

Tell us again how well you know the regs ROTC boy.

He's right bitch, try reading sometime.

from his link (same one I provided in another thread)

(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
 
There is no right to serve in the military. There is a privilege.

Hey, Quad Si Modo, the Foursquare Stupid Slut......what exactly are you referring to? That you're a coward, which is why you choose to NOT join?

What about the people that had to go to 'Nam? Was it their "right" to get killed? No, it was their RESPONSIBILITY to this nation.

And yes, everyone DOES have a "right" to join. It's whether or not you pass the tests and physical that determines if you make it to boot camp.
I suppose you have yet to learn that there are tenses to verbs. I use present tense and you talk of something 40 years ago. Idiot. No surprise. I think you've reached your educational ceiling.

Regardless or your educational retardation, my comment stands.
 
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.....
 
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.....
Your point is what, exactly?

He's just being his normal self, But i just realized the heading of this post is that 75% of Americans support gays right to serve. And I thought about that. Actually no one has a right to serve at all, but if we did, then I would support them too; under the confines of DADT.
 
Hey, Olliver Pissed, the second rate delivery boy, ever heard of the Second Ammendment?

From wiki:

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[122] On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29:

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[45]

Some scholars, such as Saul Cornell, have contended that modern militia movements are not what could be considered "well regulated", since they often lack fixed leadership and may have unstructured training regimes.[123]

According to some interpretations, it covers military service Constitutionally.

Try again ya fucking 'tard.
 
Hey, Olliver Pissed, the second rate delivery boy, ever heard of the Second Ammendment?

From wiki:

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[122] On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29:

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[45]

Some scholars, such as Saul Cornell, have contended that modern militia movements are not what could be considered "well regulated", since they often lack fixed leadership and may have unstructured training regimes.[123]

According to some interpretations, it covers military service Constitutionally.

Try again ya fucking 'tard.

None of this proves that military service is a right Gay Bikerboy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top