Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[ConHog]

Ummm that's taught If I remember correctly, in week 4 of basic, you have the absolute right and responsibility to interpret your orders and determine are they legal. That is why " I was following orders " is not a defense for committing a violation of the UCMJ.

Seriously Curved, I have you completely outgunned stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to argue with me. You haven't scored a single point against me EVER

In the Air Force, we get recurring Law of Armed Conflict annually. The obligation to report illegal orders, and the consequences for failure to do so, is stressed.

This is just more of your intellectual dishonesty. In general, our Troops are trained to obey orders. Period. This is why when the illegal orders were issued to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were given most went along with it even though some actually followed the UCMJ and challenged the legality. In two cases I know of regarding Iraq, the soldiers who challenged the orders were victorious by virtue of not being sent to prison for disobeying those orders. One soldier I know of, Tillman, was shipped out of Iraq for his protesting of the illegal invasion and shortly after returning to Afghanistan he was killed by our own troops.

Who in the fuck do you punks think you are fooling?

Are you serious?

A) a soldier, even a four star General can't argue the legality of "going to war" There is no issue, the CON is clear, the President has the power to send troops anywhere , for any reason, including no reason at all. Now when that war is against a non traditional force like these are , it gets a little trickier, can the the President order you to kill non military members.........However no military court anywhere is going to rule that as an illegal order.

Post links to your two soldiers who protested that the war in Iraq was illegal and they refused to go and were sent home.

As for Tillman, that belongs int he Conspiracy forum.

 

[ConHog]

Damn, I guess Curved's shit at Taco Bell started.............

 

[CurveLight]

In the Air Force, we get recurring Law of Armed Conflict annually. The obligation to report illegal orders, and the consequences for failure to do so, is stressed.

This is just more of your intellectual dishonesty. In general, our Troops are trained to obey orders. Period. This is why when the illegal orders were issued to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were given most went along with it even though some actually followed the UCMJ and challenged the legality. In two cases I know of regarding Iraq, the soldiers who challenged the orders were victorious by virtue of not being sent to prison for disobeying those orders. One soldier I know of, Tillman, was shipped out of Iraq for his protesting of the illegal invasion and shortly after returning to Afghanistan he was killed by our own troops.

Who in the fuck do you punks think you are fooling?

Are you serious?

A) a soldier, even a four star General can't argue the legality of "going to war" There is no issue, the CON is clear, the President has the power to send troops anywhere , for any reason, including no reason at all. Now when that war is against a non traditional force like these are , it gets a little trickier, can the the President order you to kill non military members.........However no military court anywhere is going to rule that as an illegal order.

Post links to your two soldiers who protested that the war in Iraq was illegal and they refused to go and were sent home.

As for Tillman, that belongs int he Conspiracy forum.

You take Stoopid Vitamins? Or is it Koooool-aid? The Prez has the authority to send troops to war for 90 days without Congressional approval. That does not mean the military has to follow that order to deploy if it is an illegal order you dumb fucking unbelievably retawwrded stoopid fuck.

I didn't say anything about Tillman that isn't pure fact so why say it belongs in the Conspiracy forum? Because you don't have the first clue how to address facts you do not like.

You demand I provide links for the two soliders I referenced but you have yet to show:

Where anyone in this thread has said we don't have the right to own guns.

Where I said the guns must be kept locked up in a Militia locker.

Where I said we don't have the right to own guns.

Where I said the Militia is strictly State run.

Where I said the Militia does not constitute the people.

Where the definition of "Militia" in the 2nd meant "all able bodied people regardless of age, race or gender."

So no I will not provide a single fucking link for you until you learn to support your own claims.

Want bitch slapped some more you fat ass pasty punk?

 

[ConHog]

This is just more of your intellectual dishonesty. In general, our Troops are trained to obey orders. Period. This is why when the illegal orders were issued to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were given most went along with it even though some actually followed the UCMJ and challenged the legality. In two cases I know of regarding Iraq, the soldiers who challenged the orders were victorious by virtue of not being sent to prison for disobeying those orders. One soldier I know of, Tillman, was shipped out of Iraq for his protesting of the illegal invasion and shortly after returning to Afghanistan he was killed by our own troops.

Who in the fuck do you punks think you are fooling?

Are you serious?

A) a soldier, even a four star General can't argue the legality of "going to war" There is no issue, the CON is clear, the President has the power to send troops anywhere , for any reason, including no reason at all. Now when that war is against a non traditional force like these are , it gets a little trickier, can the the President order you to kill non military members.........However no military court anywhere is going to rule that as an illegal order.

Post links to your two soldiers who protested that the war in Iraq was illegal and they refused to go and were sent home.

As for Tillman, that belongs int he Conspiracy forum.

You take Stoopid Vitamins? Or is it Koooool-aid? The Prez has the authority to send troops to war for 90 days without Congressional approval. That does not mean the military has to follow that order to deploy if it is an illegal order you dumb fucking unbelievably retawwrded stoopid fuck.

I didn't say anything about Tillman that isn't pure fact so why say it belongs in the Conspiracy forum? Because you don't have the first clue how to address facts you do not like.

You demand I provide links for the two soliders I referenced but you have yet to show:

Where anyone in this thread has said we don't have the right to own guns.

Who said anything about people in this thread? Obviosuly SOME feel that no such right exists, else we wouldn't be having this debate

Where I said the guns must be kept locked up in a Militia locker.

This is what I'm talking about. All of that dancing and it does nothing to address the fact there is no individual guarantee in the 2nd.

Where I said we don't have the right to own guns.

This is what I'm talking about. All of that dancing and it does nothing to address the fact there is no individual guarantee in the 2nd.

The Prince song is "1999" you fucking whiner. It is all dancing because all you're doing is cherry picking with each response instead of looking at:

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

There is no separation between the regulated militia and the people. You're trying to make it say two things when it is only saying one thing. If the right of the people to keep arms is under condition of the militia then there is no guarantee for individuals separate from militias.

I know it must be really strange to read the whole sentence in one shot but if you want to call shotgun on the ride to Cherry Picking Palace then don't get upset for being called out for your sniping attempts.

Where I said the Militia is strictly State run.

You didn't , you did however say it had to be an organized militia, that is not how the founding fathers seen it.

Where I said the Militia does not constitute the people.

Again, you didn't, instead you said it only included people who met certain requirements. Not true.

Where the definition of "Militia" in the 2nd meant "all able bodied people regardless of age, race or gender."

I provided you quotes from the fathers saying that exact thing. Not my problem if you didn't read them, I won't copy and paste them again for you to ignore.

So no I will not provide a single fucking link for you until you learn to support your own claims.

I know you won't because it is totally your style to tell complete lies and make shit up and then run when confronted. You are a fucking joke. I just went through and reread this entire thread and not once did you provide a single fucking piece of evidence to backup a view of yours. Not once. You just throw bullshit out there and hope no one calls you on it, but even if they do that's ok you just deflect and call names.

Want bitch slapped some more you fat ass pasty punk?

I can guarantee you that you are the ONLY person here who believes you bitch slapped me in this thread. Hell, I even doubt you believe it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow! Thank you QW. So my question is what do you disagree with and why?

I believe that COTUS makes an exception to the general rule about not mentioning ownership of items with the second amendment for a couple of reasons.

You have to remember, the Founders were familiar with societies that took away the right to bear arms from its citizens. Noblemen routinely denied peasants the right to own swords, even though they needed these same peasants to fight the battles they were constantly getting into with their neighbors. I believe they deliberately phrased the second amendment as the right to keep and bear arms for that reason.

If they wanted this to simply be about the rights of citizens to form a militia it would have simply said the right to bear arms shall not be restricted, and we could have had centralized armories in communities to arm people as it was needed, and they could check them in every night.

Even if you are 100% correct about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the Constitution still protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. After the civil war laws were written that denied former slaves the right to own guns. It is quite clear from the debate surrounding the 14th amendment when it was written that it was intended to counter this erosion of rights, and give the individual freemen the right to protect themselves from state militias. The 14th amendment modified the rest of the constitution to protect the civil rights of every individual in America from encroachment from the states.

Slaughterhouse needs to be overturned ASAP.

But I don't need to remember what I've already pointed out. I'm well aware of their intentions for the militia and even used the Revolutionary War as an example. If they had intended simply for individuals to have weapons they would not have said it is a well regulated militia that provides State security. Since they were fearful of the State taking away weapons the Militia was not intended to be under control of the State. It was intended to be under control of the people who were not in the military.

The biggest problem is bipolar viewing of the 2nd. It's a false dilemma to say the 2nd means either it is a State run military or it is about individuals. There is a third option which is my position. The Militia was run by the people in the local communities. This makes the most sense of the 2nd because it explains why they said a well regulated militia is the tool for State security. You cannot have State security if the government alone was allowed to have weapons. You cannot have State security just because a bunch of bozos went out and bought guns.

I was just explaining how I see it. One of the interesting things about trying to get yourself into the mindset of other people, especially to those from another culture, is that we can never get it right. Even when two people who essentially agree on the result of the interpretation, like we do, they can disagree about the little details.

I think you are correct that the Founders believed that militias were something that were going to survive into the future without end, and that militias had to be separate from the states to truly be guardians of liberty. The fact that they turned out to be wrong about that does not change the fundamental understanding that the 2nd guarded the rights of the people to form militias and be armed.

Some people, and I know you are not one of them, argue that because we no longer have militias the 2nd amendment no longer applies to anyone. You argue that the 2nd did not protect the right for an individual to be able to own a weapon. I explained why I think you are wrong about that interpretation. I could have phrased it better, but I stand behind my belief that they wanted individuals to own weapons and they wanted that to be a right, because they were educated men, and most of them had been borne in a country that did deny most people the right to keep arms, even though they were expected to bear them in defense of people who did have that right.

I think I proved to you that I can not only read, but that I am actually willing to admit people have points, even if they disagree with my reasoning. I understand that it is difficult to always keep track of the reasonable people among all the unreasonable ones who refuse even to understand your position, even if they actually agree with it. I have done it myself, and will most likely do it again. That said, I am trying to explain my position, not convince you that you are wrong. If I occasionally phrase my words in a way that seems to indicate that you personally are not considering everything, remember that I tend to think like a teacher, and I am writing not only to you, but to everyone who might one day read what I say.

In other words, try not to take everything I say personally. In return I will not only not take what you say personally, I will remember that you are probably better at analyzing cultures and history than I am. I started it late in life, and have to deal with the fact that for more than half of my life this type of thing meant less than nothing to me. Despite the fact that I can now accept that I don't know everything, I am extremely confident about myself and the things I do know. My confidence borders on arrogance, and often crosses the line. I make mistakes, and admit them. I am far from perfect, and do not expect it of others. In other words, I am human, and I am also annoying.

I think we could get along if we tried, so let us try not to blow it by arguing about my bad manners over something that we essentially agree about.

 

[CurveLight]

Damn, I guess Curved's shit at Taco Bell started.............

Rotfl! You're so fucking obsessed with me you start freaking out because 40 minutes went by? Lol!

 

[ConHog]

Damn, I guess Curved's shit at Taco Bell started.............

Rotfl! You're so fucking obsessed with me you start freaking out because 40 minutes went by? Lol!

And you're so scared of me that when I ask you questions you respond with questions of your own and run.

You pussy.

 

[CurveLight]

Who said anything about people in this thread? Obviosuly SOME feel that no such right exists, else we wouldn't be having this debate
.

Your dishonesty is so sickening and a glaring embarrassment that I deleted the rest of your post to highlight, once again, you are just a dishonest fat ass punk.

Who said anything about the people in this thread? You did you fuckwad ****:

Posted by Conhog (#387)

"do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?"

You were addressing only the people in this thread. Are you really going to embarrass yourself some more and deny it again you fucking bitch? I've pwned you so many times in this thread you're going to have nightmares.

 

[CurveLight]

Damn, I guess Curved's shit at Taco Bell started.............

Rotfl! You're so fucking obsessed with me you start freaking out because 40 minutes went by? Lol!

And you're so scared of me that when I ask you questions you respond with questions of your own and run.

You pussy.

Keep on being dishonest. You aren't hurting me at all but showing everyone else how sad you are. When you've proven to be so dishonest and such a hypocrite I don't see the point in wasting time to post links to facts you simply ignore along with making claims you refuse to support or retract.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you, Conhog, for giving up the discussion with me. That is wise.

I was trying to let your off the hook Jake.

I don't even know what to tell you if you think the military would fire on US citizens. I mean under certain circumstances yes, but just as a general rule? Noway. I bet you could interview 10000 soldiers and 10000 soldiers would tell you noway.

They have in the past though.

 

[ConHog]

Who said anything about people in this thread? Obviosuly SOME feel that no such right exists, else we wouldn't be having this debate
.

Your dishonesty is so sickening and a glaring embarrassment that I deleted the rest of your post to highlight, once again, you are just a dishonest fat ass punk.

Who said anything about the people in this thread? You did you fuckwad ****:

Posted by Conhog (#387)

"do some of you goofs who think we don't have the right to bear arms need more quotes and facts?"

You were addressing only the people in this thread. Are you really going to embarrass yourself some more and deny it again you fucking bitch? I've pwned you so many times in this thread you're going to have nightmares.

LOL @ MORE deflection. I am going to go for now. BUT I suspect you arent going to answer my questions ever anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about what might be call domestic terrorist groups. I agree, the military would fight someone like that.

I was speaking more in terms of like you said. If Obama were to issue an executive outlawing guns and sent the Army to collect them. They would refuse that order, to a man. As you suggested there would probably be in effect a coup as the President was removed from power for issuing such an order.

Yes, I am in full agreement. This is what I meant by 'civic virtue'. I guess I wasn't clear enough, so my bad. Americans who are civically virtuous understand that the military is subordinate to civilian control, and that only in the most extreme of situations would the military refuse to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief and possibly strike back with a coup d'etat.

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

I was told that I had to obey lawful orders, and given a couple of examples of unlawful orders, one day in boot camp. I hardly think that amounts to training, as even military lawyers wonder about what, exactly, amounts to an illegal order. Unless the Army does a lot better job of training and educating soldiers in military law than the Navy did I doubt that today's soldiers are actually trained to know if an order is legal, especially if they are in the middle of a heated situation and have to make a snap judgement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

Yes, they are. And they are obligated to report what they consider illegal orders. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action. And if the illegal order involves war crimes, they will be punished for not reporting the illegal orders.

Which is why nothing happened at Abu Ghraib. Being told about something in a rather vague way as a small part of one class does not equal training.

 

[CurveLight]

I was just explaining how I see it. One of the interesting things about trying to get yourself into the mindset of other people, especially to those from another culture, is that we can never get it right. Even when two people who essentially agree on the result of the interpretation, like we do, they can disagree about the little details.

I think you are correct that the Founders believed that militias were something that were going to survive into the future without end, and that militias had to be separate from the states to truly be guardians of liberty. The fact that they turned out to be wrong about that does not change the fundamental understanding that the 2nd guarded the rights of the people to form militias and be armed.

Some people, and I know you are not one of them, argue that because we no longer have militias the 2nd amendment no longer applies to anyone. You argue that the 2nd did not protect the right for an individual to be able to own a weapon. I explained why I think you are wrong about that interpretation. I could have phrased it better, but I stand behind my belief that they wanted individuals to own weapons and they wanted that to be a right, because they were educated men, and most of them had been borne in a country that did deny most people the right to keep arms, even though they were expected to bear them in defense of people who did have that right.

I think I proved to you that I can not only read, but that I am actually willing to admit people have points, even if they disagree with my reasoning. I understand that it is difficult to always keep track of the reasonable people among all the unreasonable ones who refuse even to understand your position, even if they actually agree with it. I have done it myself, and will most likely do it again. That said, I am trying to explain my position, not convince you that you are wrong. If I occasionally phrase my words in a way that seems to indicate that you personally are not considering everything, remember that I tend to think like a teacher, and I am writing not only to you, but to everyone who might one day read what I say.

In other words, try not to take everything I say personally. In return I will not only not take what you say personally, I will remember that you are probably better at analyzing cultures and history than I am. I started it late in life, and have to deal with the fact that for more than half of my life this type of thing meant less than nothing to me. Despite the fact that I can now accept that I don't know everything, I am extremely confident about myself and the things I do know. My confidence borders on arrogance, and often crosses the line. I make mistakes, and admit them. I am far from perfect, and do not expect it of others. In other words, I am human, and I am also annoying.

I think we could get along if we tried, so let us try not to blow it by arguing about my bad manners over something that we essentially agree about.

One point of my interpretation I've failed to mention is the checks and balances created in the 2nd. I won't repeat what I've already said but will simply add one reason they did not intend for it to be simply individuals is fear of "turning Redcoats." Keeping in mind these are people who were still suspicious of others for quiet loyalty to the Old World, they would not want to allow room for people to have guns and quietly plan a siege. So how do you help police that without having a strict State run Militia? You have Militias in the local communities who would communicate with each other.

I appreciate your comments and candor and frankly, I like....love...heated debates. The name calling is just part of who I am but I think we both know those of us who are sincere in debating don't let that get in the way of totally derailing. I should make more of an effort to not do it so much but....guess that will come with time.

As for starting late in life, I was 33 my freshmen year in college so I understand. In the Study of Religion major my concentration was on early Christianity and some comparative studies accompanied that but it was mainly on the Roman Empire in the first century. It has been an amazing process to study the bible from a social-historical perspective and what I've found is how easy it is to misinterpret phrases and events by focusing too much on narrow definitions of words and the way to balance that out is to use an oral performance model derived from the culture. A great example is Sodom and Gomorrah. That narrative had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality but due to overlapping agendas many people falsely believe it had something to do with homosexuality when really it didn't even have anything to do with sex in any way shape or form. I digress.....

I look forward to seeing what you think about the claim the Militias were used as a check against possible traitors.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no end to your dishonesty. Our Soldiers are not trained to think for themselves if an order is legal you dumbfucking ****.

Ummm that's taught If I remember correctly, in week 4 of basic, you have the absolute right and responsibility to interpret your orders and determine are they legal. That is why " I was following orders " is not a defense for committing a violation of the UCMJ.

Seriously Curved, I have you completely outgunned stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to argue with me. You haven't scored a single point against me EVER

In the Air Force, we get recurring Law of Armed Conflict annually. The obligation to report illegal orders, and the consequences for failure to do so, is stressed.

Is being ordered to wash the base commanders POV legal? If not, are their circumstances where it is? Can you describe a circumstance where it would not be a legal order, but you can still be legally punished for not following the order?

You cannot train the average person in the complexities of what constitutes legal and illegal orders in a few hours, you can only tell people that if they actually follow an order that turns out to be illegal they are probably going to get in trouble for it anyway. They thus learn the single most important lesson in the military early, and have it reinforced often.

Shit rolls downhill.

 

[CurveLight]

Yes, I am in full agreement. This is what I meant by 'civic virtue'. I guess I wasn't clear enough, so my bad. Americans who are civically virtuous understand that the military is subordinate to civilian control, and that only in the most extreme of situations would the military refuse to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief and possibly strike back with a coup d'etat.

well, that I will agree with, I mean the oath I took does say "foreign or domestic" However as you well know a military member is trained to think and decide for themselves is this order legal. If it isn't then the burden to obey no longer exists.

I was told that I had to obey lawful orders, and given a couple of examples of unlawful orders, one day in boot camp. I hardly think that amounts to training, as even military lawyers wonder about what, exactly, amounts to an illegal order. Unless the Army does a lot better job of training and educating soldiers in military law than the Navy did I doubt that today's soldiers are actually trained to know if a lawyer is legal, especially if they are in the middle of a heated situation and have to make a snap judgement.

I was in the army and did my Basic at Ft. Dix. There wasn't much in the way of training on what orders were legal or not. But the UCMJ does state all soldiers regardless of rank have a duty to not follow illegal orders. The earliest case I am aware of regarding iraq was back in 04 when a Navy guy refused deployment and the judge found him guilty of missing deployment but also said to the prosecution that US soldiers have reason to believe our actions in iraq were illegal. He got a slap on the wrist and was sent home.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was just explaining how I see it. One of the interesting things about trying to get yourself into the mindset of other people, especially to those from another culture, is that we can never get it right. Even when two people who essentially agree on the result of the interpretation, like we do, they can disagree about the little details.

I think you are correct that the Founders believed that militias were something that were going to survive into the future without end, and that militias had to be separate from the states to truly be guardians of liberty. The fact that they turned out to be wrong about that does not change the fundamental understanding that the 2nd guarded the rights of the people to form militias and be armed.

Some people, and I know you are not one of them, argue that because we no longer have militias the 2nd amendment no longer applies to anyone. You argue that the 2nd did not protect the right for an individual to be able to own a weapon. I explained why I think you are wrong about that interpretation. I could have phrased it better, but I stand behind my belief that they wanted individuals to own weapons and they wanted that to be a right, because they were educated men, and most of them had been borne in a country that did deny most people the right to keep arms, even though they were expected to bear them in defense of people who did have that right.

I think I proved to you that I can not only read, but that I am actually willing to admit people have points, even if they disagree with my reasoning. I understand that it is difficult to always keep track of the reasonable people among all the unreasonable ones who refuse even to understand your position, even if they actually agree with it. I have done it myself, and will most likely do it again. That said, I am trying to explain my position, not convince you that you are wrong. If I occasionally phrase my words in a way that seems to indicate that you personally are not considering everything, remember that I tend to think like a teacher, and I am writing not only to you, but to everyone who might one day read what I say.

In other words, try not to take everything I say personally. In return I will not only not take what you say personally, I will remember that you are probably better at analyzing cultures and history than I am. I started it late in life, and have to deal with the fact that for more than half of my life this type of thing meant less than nothing to me. Despite the fact that I can now accept that I don't know everything, I am extremely confident about myself and the things I do know. My confidence borders on arrogance, and often crosses the line. I make mistakes, and admit them. I am far from perfect, and do not expect it of others. In other words, I am human, and I am also annoying.

I think we could get along if we tried, so let us try not to blow it by arguing about my bad manners over something that we essentially agree about.

One point of my interpretation I've failed to mention is the checks and balances created in the 2nd. I won't repeat what I've already said but will simply add one reason they did not intend for it to be simply individuals is fear of "turning Redcoats." Keeping in mind these are people who were still suspicious of others for quiet loyalty to the Old World, they would not want to allow room for people to have guns and quietly plan a siege. So how do you help police that without having a strict State run Militia? You have Militias in the local communities who would communicate with each other.

I appreciate your comments and candor and frankly, I like....love...heated debates. The name calling is just part of who I am but I think we both know those of us who are sincere in debating don't let that get in the way of totally derailing. I should make more of an effort to not do it so much but....guess that will come with time.

As for starting late in life, I was 33 my freshmen year in college so I understand. In the Study of Religion major my concentration was on early Christianity and some comparative studies accompanied that but it was mainly on the Roman Empire in the first century. It has been an amazing process to study the bible from a social-historical perspective and what I've found is how easy it is to misinterpret phrases and events by focusing too much on narrow definitions of words and the way to balance that out is to use an oral performance model derived from the culture. A great example is Sodom and Gomorrah. That narrative had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality but due to overlapping agendas many people falsely believe it had something to do with homosexuality when really it didn't even have anything to do with sex in any way shape or form. I digress.....

I look forward to seeing what you think about the claim the Militias were used as a check against possible traitors.

I think we still see the same thing today. There are militia groups who openly talk about plotting against the legal government, like the Hutaree. One of the things that the media glossed over in that case was how other militias actually assisted the government case by reporting to the police when they were contacted by the Hutaree. I see no problem with law enforcement reaching out to, and working with, militia. I think most militia would welcome it, despite the less than glowing recommendations they get from the media.

 

[daveman]

Oh man. You accused me of not explaining my position even after I've already done so. Keep being this dishonest and Cochog will feel jealous.

You misunderstand. I'm saying you back up your claims with nothing more than "because I said so". For that to carry any weight, we'll need to see your qualifications.

Got any besides the Religion classes? And you do realize, don't you, that they don't really go into the Constitution that much?

I've stumbled into Stoopidville and you're the Deputy Mayor sucking Conhog's dick for the the Chief position. I don't go into the Constitution? What the fuck did you think I did when I posted the 2nd and used the entire sentence to explain my position?

When someone explains their position they are not simply pulling the "because I said so" bullshit you keep trying to claim. The only reason I mentioned one of my majors was to point out the familiarity with examining outdated texts by their contemporary meanings. That was it. Nothing more. You keep on pretending an explanation of a position is "because I said so."

You sure as hell can't debate a fucking lick. I've seen squirrels have better debating skills against an on coming cement truck at 50 mph you dumbass ****.

It's funny when people use obscenities instead of rational thought.

 

[daveman]

Ummm that's taught If I remember correctly, in week 4 of basic, you have the absolute right and responsibility to interpret your orders and determine are they legal. That is why " I was following orders " is not a defense for committing a violation of the UCMJ.

Seriously Curved, I have you completely outgunned stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to argue with me. You haven't scored a single point against me EVER

In the Air Force, we get recurring Law of Armed Conflict annually. The obligation to report illegal orders, and the consequences for failure to do so, is stressed.

This is just more of your intellectual dishonesty. In general, our Troops are trained to obey orders. Period. This is why when the illegal orders were issued to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were given most went along with it even though some actually followed the UCMJ and challenged the legality. In two cases I know of regarding Iraq, the soldiers who challenged the orders were victorious by virtue of not being sent to prison for disobeying those orders. One soldier I know of, Tillman, was shipped out of Iraq for his protesting of the illegal invasion and shortly after returning to Afghanistan he was killed by our own troops.

Who in the fuck do you punks think you are fooling?

I did my annual LOAC training just last week. Your skewed version of reality wasn't mentioned.

As much as you like to pretend otherwise, our troops aren't stupid.

 

[daveman]

Is being ordered to wash the base commanders POV legal? If not, are their circumstances where it is? Can you describe a circumstance where it would not be a legal order, but you can still be legally punished for not following the order?

That would not be a legal order in any circumstance. It's abuse of government resources...the troop. It's fraud because the commander benefits personally from a government resource. And if it's during duty time, it's waste of government time.

You cannot train the average person in the complexities of what constitutes legal and illegal orders in a few hours, you can only tell people that if they actually follow an order that turns out to be illegal they are probably going to get in trouble for it anyway. They thus learn the single most important lesson in the military early, and have it reinforced often.

Shit rolls downhill.

USAF training states that members have a legal obligation to report orders they may feel are illegal.