Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[CurveLight]

The wars were NOT illegal in the sense that the troops were concerned. You may argue on the international stage or any other way you like but an order to go to war issued by congress or presidential security actions. What IS a concern for the troops is what is written in the UCMJ and that covers legal and illegal orders. Outside that, there is no other authority that a soldier goes by to judge the orders given him or her.

Oh look.....the Dumbass Invitations were sent after all.

Do you have any clue how fucking ridiculous that claim is? It almost looks like a rejected Oreilly monologue. I could ask you to cite the UCMJ to support your claim but I don't need to. Know why?

In 2004 Pablo Paredes, a Petty Officer refused deployment to Iraq on the grounds it was illegal. Where do you come up with the bullshit of "not as far as the troops were concerned?" Are you really so naïve as to believe an order issued by the CINC cannot be illegal if he used the correct paperwork and rubber stamps? He refused deployment by citing the UCMJ, along with supporting authoritative documents.

So, are you purposefully lying or just am idiot?
First, he was pronounced GUILTY, busted to the lowest rank possible and sentenced to 3 months HARD LABOR and then DENIED discharge as a conscientious objector. On top of that, so far attempts to appeal have been rejected. Do you even know how often these cases are pursued? From a times article reposted on the net:
Army Is Cracking Down On Deserters

From 2002 through 2006, the average annual rate of Army prosecutions of desertion tripled compared with the five-year period from 1997 to 2001, to roughly 6 percent of deserters, from 2 percent, Army data shows.

WOW, a whole 6 percent are even prosecuted, and you think THIS guy got off easy? He was give the worst of it. These cases are rarely pursued because there is no net gain for the military if they peruse it, it just wastes resources. The only reason they do pursue 6% is to discourage others. There are rare 'make an example' cases but the vast majority are never even charged. Do not speak of military things that you nether know anything about or understand.

Holy shit you're a dumbass. I was proving that troops can challenge the legality of a war even though the Prez and Congress authorized it. If you knew anything about the military you would know even though he was found guilty he was given a slap on the wrist. You also don't know the judge said the Prosecution had given all Soldiers probable cause to believe our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia were illegal.

Basically, your dumbass claim that the wars were not illegal "as far as the troops are concerned" is utterly ignorant stoopid bullshit. The UCMJ does not give a free pass to follow illegal orders based on Rank yiu dumbfuck.

 

[FA_Q2]

And yet you have not shown where they are to draw that information. You are oblivious and therefore impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with.

 

[Jack Fate]

Of course the 2nd amendment applies to states. It applies to every citizen so that is obvious. Self defense is a basic human right. Government cannot and should not be allowed to give to us or take from us what is already ours.

 

[Jeremy]

Self defence? Damn, when I saw the part about the right to bear arms I thought it meant I could finally buy that sweet tank top I saw at the mall. I think I took in too many sulfer fumes this weekend.

 

[ConHog]

Oh look.....the Dumbass Invitations were sent after all.

Do you have any clue how fucking ridiculous that claim is? It almost looks like a rejected Oreilly monologue. I could ask you to cite the UCMJ to support your claim but I don't need to. Know why?

In 2004 Pablo Paredes, a Petty Officer refused deployment to Iraq on the grounds it was illegal. Where do you come up with the bullshit of "not as far as the troops were concerned?" Are you really so naïve as to believe an order issued by the CINC cannot be illegal if he used the correct paperwork and rubber stamps? He refused deployment by citing the UCMJ, along with supporting authoritative documents.

So, are you purposefully lying or just am idiot?
First, he was pronounced GUILTY, busted to the lowest rank possible and sentenced to 3 months HARD LABOR and then DENIED discharge as a conscientious objector. On top of that, so far attempts to appeal have been rejected. Do you even know how often these cases are pursued? From a times article reposted on the net:
Army Is Cracking Down On Deserters

From 2002 through 2006, the average annual rate of Army prosecutions of desertion tripled compared with the five-year period from 1997 to 2001, to roughly 6 percent of deserters, from 2 percent, Army data shows.

WOW, a whole 6 percent are even prosecuted, and you think THIS guy got off easy? He was give the worst of it. These cases are rarely pursued because there is no net gain for the military if they peruse it, it just wastes resources. The only reason they do pursue 6% is to discourage others. There are rare 'make an example' cases but the vast majority are never even charged. Do not speak of military things that you nether know anything about or understand.

Holy shit you're a dumbass. I was proving that troops can challenge the legality of a war even though the Prez and Congress authorized it. If you knew anything about the military you would know even though he was found guilty he was given a slap on the wrist. You also don't know the judge said the Prosecution had given all Soldiers probable cause to believe our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia were illegal.

Basically, your dumbass claim that the wars were not illegal "as far as the troops are concerned" is utterly ignorant stoopid bullshit. The UCMJ does not give a free pass to follow illegal orders based on Rank yiu dumbfuck.

Man, you're still arguing this CircileJerk? What do you mean troops can challenge the legality of the war? The can challenge whatever they like, doesn't mean they will win, nor does it mean they are on solid legal ground. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that most of your conscientious objectors were simply chicken shits who would have tried to get out of ANY war after getting their military freebies.

 

[The T]

Of course the 2nd amendment applies to states. It applies to every citizen so that is obvious. Self defense is a basic human right. Government cannot and should not be allowed to give to us or take from us what is already ours.

Nor embellish it with what they think the Founders meant. The Founders were quite clear in the Federalist Papers.

 

[CurveLight]

So, are you purposefully lying or just am idiot?
First, he was pronounced GUILTY, busted to the lowest rank possible and sentenced to 3 months HARD LABOR and then DENIED discharge as a conscientious objector. On top of that, so far attempts to appeal have been rejected. Do you even know how often these cases are pursued? From a times article reposted on the net:
Army Is Cracking Down On Deserters

WOW, a whole 6 percent are even prosecuted, and you think THIS guy got off easy? He was give the worst of it. These cases are rarely pursued because there is no net gain for the military if they peruse it, it just wastes resources. The only reason they do pursue 6% is to discourage others. There are rare 'make an example' cases but the vast majority are never even charged. Do not speak of military things that you nether know anything about or understand.

Holy shit you're a dumbass. I was proving that troops can challenge the legality of a war even though the Prez and Congress authorized it. If you knew anything about the military you would know even though he was found guilty he was given a slap on the wrist. You also don't know the judge said the Prosecution had given all Soldiers probable cause to believe our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia were illegal.

Basically, your dumbass claim that the wars were not illegal "as far as the troops are concerned" is utterly ignorant stoopid bullshit. The UCMJ does not give a free pass to follow illegal orders based on Rank yiu dumbfuck.

Man, you're still arguing this CircileJerk? What do you mean troops can challenge the legality of the war? The can challenge whatever they like, doesn't mean they will win, nor does it mean they are on solid legal ground. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that most of your conscientious objectors were simply chicken shits who would have tried to get out of ANY war after getting their military freebies.

Pat Tillman objected to the Iraq War you dumbfuck.

Lt Watada objected to the Iraq war but stated he would gladly deploy to afghanistan.

Once again you show you're ignorant of basic facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most COs in my opinion, having dealt with a number of them during my military service, just want out of the service. A few are scared, but most simply want to go home. Maybe three, in my opinion, were truly motivated.

As an aside: whoever, above, suggested SCOTUS is making a "Somalia" of the United States is stupid. No excuse exists for such a statment, none. Colossal ignorance.

 

[ConHog]

Holy shit you're a dumbass. I was proving that troops can challenge the legality of a war even though the Prez and Congress authorized it. If you knew anything about the military you would know even though he was found guilty he was given a slap on the wrist. You also don't know the judge said the Prosecution had given all Soldiers probable cause to believe our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia were illegal.

Basically, your dumbass claim that the wars were not illegal "as far as the troops are concerned" is utterly ignorant stoopid bullshit. The UCMJ does not give a free pass to follow illegal orders based on Rank yiu dumbfuck.

Man, you're still arguing this CircileJerk? What do you mean troops can challenge the legality of the war? The can challenge whatever they like, doesn't mean they will win, nor does it mean they are on solid legal ground. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that most of your conscientious objectors were simply chicken shits who would have tried to get out of ANY war after getting their military freebies.

Pat Tillman objected to the Iraq War you dumbfuck.

Lt Watada objected to the Iraq war but stated he would gladly deploy to afghanistan.

Once again you show you're ignorant of basic facts.

you need to work on your dancing skills CircleJerk. There is a HUGE difference between verbalizing that you don't agree with the war, and refusing to deploy, and you know it.

BTW - In your opinion was Tillman as disrespectful towards Bush as McCrystal was to Obama?

 

[CurveLight]

And yet you have not shown where they are to draw that information. You are oblivious and therefore impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with.

Lol.....I cited an actual case where a soldier challenged the legality of the war.....and you follow up with saying I've not shown where they draw that info. Let's be clear in that your claim was the average soldier could not be "concerned" with the legal status of a war. I've proven you wrong with the Parades case but let's pretend I didn't.

 

[CurveLight]

Man, you're still arguing this CircileJerk? What do you mean troops can challenge the legality of the war? The can challenge whatever they like, doesn't mean they will win, nor does it mean they are on solid legal ground. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that most of your conscientious objectors were simply chicken shits who would have tried to get out of ANY war after getting their military freebies.

Pat Tillman objected to the Iraq War you dumbfuck.

Lt Watada objected to the Iraq war but stated he would gladly deploy to afghanistan.

Once again you show you're ignorant of basic facts.

you need to work on your dancing skills CircleJerk. There is a HUGE difference between verbalizing that you don't agree with the war, and refusing to deploy, and you know it.

BTW - In your opinion was Tillman as disrespectful towards Bush as McCrystal was to Obama?

You claimed objectors were just trying to get out of going to war you dishonest fuckwad. I proved that wrong by showing watada was willing to go fight in afghanistan so he wasn't trying to get out of the military. Tillman objected so strongly they sent him back to afghanistan so they granted him what they denied watada. What else ya got you dumb bitch?

 

[FA_Q2]

And yet you have not shown where they are to draw that information. You are oblivious and therefore impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with.

Lol.....I cited an actual case where a soldier challenged the legality of the war.....and you follow up with saying I've not shown where they draw that info. Let's be clear in that your claim was the average soldier could not be "concerned" with the legal status of a war. I've proven you wrong with the Parades case but let's pretend I didn't.

You cited a case wherein the soldier was determined to be GUILTY because his challenge to the legality of the war was false. I stated that a soldier was not concerned outside of the UCMJ (as well as the constitution but I did not realize that needed to be pointed out) and that this war WAS legal under those. You have proven only your ignorance. If the war actually WAS illegal, the soldier would have something to stand on but it WAS NOT.

 

[FA_Q2]

Pat Tillman objected to the Iraq War you dumbfuck.

Lt Watada objected to the Iraq war but stated he would gladly deploy to afghanistan.

Once again you show you're ignorant of basic facts.

you need to work on your dancing skills CircleJerk. There is a HUGE difference between verbalizing that you don't agree with the war, and refusing to deploy, and you know it.

BTW - In your opinion was Tillman as disrespectful towards Bush as McCrystal was to Obama?

You claimed objectors were just trying to get out of going to war you dishonest fuckwad. I proved that wrong by showing watada was willing to go fight in afghanistan so he wasn't trying to get out of the military. Tillman objected so strongly they sent him back to afghanistan so they granted him what they denied watada. What else ya got you dumb bitch?

Actually, he said MOST and you found a whopping TWO that SAID they would deploy to Afghanistan and not Iraq. WOW, your grasp of evidence and reading comprehensions is less than my 3 year old.....

 

[FA_Q2]

I would also like to point out that you are perusing this as a straw man since you have failed to address the OP and the entire point of this thread - the second amendment and how it has been ruled to apply here. It seems you ignored that part of the post!

 

[CurveLight]

you need to work on your dancing skills CircleJerk. There is a HUGE difference between verbalizing that you don't agree with the war, and refusing to deploy, and you know it.

BTW - In your opinion was Tillman as disrespectful towards Bush as McCrystal was to Obama?

You claimed objectors were just trying to get out of going to war you dishonest fuckwad. I proved that wrong by showing watada was willing to go fight in afghanistan so he wasn't trying to get out of the military. Tillman objected so strongly they sent him back to afghanistan so they granted him what they denied watada. What else ya got you dumb bitch?

Actually, he said MOST and you found a whopping TWO that SAID they would deploy to Afghanistan and not Iraq. WOW, your grasp of evidence and reading comprehensions is less than my 3 year old.....

You're accusing Watada of lying? Based on what? Your fantasies are irrelevent and if your 3 year old can read it's only because your spouse was banging someone else and let you believe the child is yours.

Tillman didn't simply "say" he would go to Afghanistan you dumb fucking bitch. He went and was killed by our own soldiers.

 

[CurveLight]

And yet you have not shown where they are to draw that information. You are oblivious and therefore impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with.

Lol.....I cited an actual case where a soldier challenged the legality of the war.....and you follow up with saying I've not shown where they draw that info. Let's be clear in that your claim was the average soldier could not be "concerned" with the legal status of a war. I've proven you wrong with the Parades case but let's pretend I didn't.

You cited a case wherein the soldier was determined to be GUILTY because his challenge to the legality of the war was false. I stated that a soldier was not concerned outside of the UCMJ (as well as the constitution but I did not realize that needed to be pointed out) and that this war WAS legal under those. You have proven only your ignorance. If the war actually WAS illegal, the soldier would have something to stand on but it WAS NOT.

Under the UCMJ any soldier of any rank in any branch has the duty to examine orders based on their legality and it doesn't matter if the orders come from the CINC, Congress, or a fucking squad leader.

As I said, if you knew anything about the military you would know both Parades and Watada came out victorious compared to what they were facing. The judge in the Paredes case even said all soldiers had probable cause to believe the wars in iraq and afghanistan are illegal. Keep ignoring that you dumbass.

 

[CurveLight]

I would also like to point out that you are perusing this as a straw man since you have failed to address the OP and the entire point of this thread - the second amendment and how it has been ruled to apply here. It seems you ignored that part of the post!

All you pointed out is the depths of your own stoopidity. I've addressed the OP several times and even been complimented for explaining my position regarding the OP.

Tell us again how I failed to address the OP you dumbfuck.

 

[ConHog]

Pat Tillman objected to the Iraq War you dumbfuck.

Lt Watada objected to the Iraq war but stated he would gladly deploy to afghanistan.

Once again you show you're ignorant of basic facts.

you need to work on your dancing skills CircleJerk. There is a HUGE difference between verbalizing that you don't agree with the war, and refusing to deploy, and you know it.

BTW - In your opinion was Tillman as disrespectful towards Bush as McCrystal was to Obama?

You claimed objectors were just trying to get out of going to war you dishonest fuckwad. I proved that wrong by showing watada was willing to go fight in afghanistan so he wasn't trying to get out of the military. Tillman objected so strongly they sent him back to afghanistan so they granted him what they denied watada. What else ya got you dumb bitch?

Awww CircleJerk can't read. Or he's just dishonest. I claimed MOST ,not ALL , and I stand by that claim. It's pretty well accepted that many people join the military for the benefits and then are suddenly conscientious objectors when called to war, and that's being a chicken shit. Which by the way is something you should relate nicely to.

And with that I'm tired of this thread because all you do is post dishonest crap after dishonest crap interspersed with calling other people stupid when you yourself are so ignorant you can't even see when you've been thoroughly whooped.

 

[CurveLight]

you need to work on your dancing skills CircleJerk. There is a HUGE difference between verbalizing that you don't agree with the war, and refusing to deploy, and you know it.

BTW - In your opinion was Tillman as disrespectful towards Bush as McCrystal was to Obama?

You claimed objectors were just trying to get out of going to war you dishonest fuckwad. I proved that wrong by showing watada was willing to go fight in afghanistan so he wasn't trying to get out of the military. Tillman objected so strongly they sent him back to afghanistan so they granted him what they denied watada. What else ya got you dumb bitch?

Awww CircleJerk can't read. Or he's just dishonest. I claimed MOST ,not ALL , and I stand by that claim. It's pretty well accepted that many people join the military for the benefits and then are suddenly conscientious objectors when called to war, and that's being a chicken shit. Which by the way is something you should relate nicely to.

And with that I'm tired of this thread because all you do is post dishonest crap after dishonest crap interspersed with calling other people stupid when you yourself are so ignorant you can't even see when you've been thoroughly whooped.

This is just another claim you won't even bother trying to prove. You never explained how the Eagle Scout shot at Kent was a terrorist......along with several other claims. But let's give you the chance to prove me correct. Support your claim that most are just pussies who don't want to fight. Even though it's a red herring it's funny to see you continue to make an ass of yourself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anyone claiming the wars are illegal fails on the grounds that, in fct, each of the individual wars was legally approved as required by Congress. Further they fail because each of the individual wars is re approved by Congress every time a supplemental budget is approved granting money to the war effort.

The Officer mentioned is the ONLY military member that attempted to properly address his complaints via the system. he refused deployment and made an official claim that the war was illegal.

The Judge in his trial screwed the process up and saved his ass from a LONG prison term. Citing that case does not validate that the wars are illegal. That issue was never addressed.

As for Tillman he was killed by friendly fire in a fire fight. It was an accident that occurs in every war. And will continue to occur in every war after.

You lose on both counts. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment grants an Individual right to own firearms. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are legal.