General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting 2nd Amendment
The following letter was disseminated and signed by over 1,000 current and former Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) in support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, specifically as a defensive measure against tyranny. The letter was compiled through the joint efforts of current and former Special Forces personnel over at www.ProfessionalSoldiers.com, and quietly disseminated for signatures among secure, vetted circles.
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.
Read the rest : http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/#ixzz2JOc75eEI
Read more: http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/#ixzz2JPBQSHE9
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sadbear
(4,340 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)fishiefish
(23 posts)Considering that they were the ones enforcing tyranny in foreign countries.
Plato68
(5 posts)Perhaps your uninformed opinion would change if you knew that the mission of the "Green Berets" was to train small disadvantaged groups to protect themselves from oppressive governments. They are well read and well aware that disarming the populace is a historical norm.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Great first post
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Looks like he got served some pizza. He came and went....just like that.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,452 posts)Nicely stated. Be careful however. Many here these days have an immediate dislike for newcomers, many of them being members with less than year or two tenure themselves.
Again, welcome to Democratic Underground. I hope you will enjoy your participation.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Poster has kicked the bucket 
A HERETIC I AM
(24,452 posts)
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Special Forces (United States Army)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States Army Special Forces, also known as the Green Berets because of their distinctive service headgear, are a special operations force tasked with five primary missions: unconventional warfare (the original and most important mission of Special Forces), foreign internal defense, special reconnaissance, direct action, and counter-terrorism.
Counter-insurgency (FID)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Insurgency, Low intensity conflict, Divide and rule, and Fourth generation warfare
A counter-insurgency or counterinsurgency[1] (COIN) operation involves actions taken by the recognized government of a nation to contain or quell an insurgency taken up against it.[2] In the main, the insurgents seek to destroy or erase the political authority of the defending authorities in a population they seek to control, and the counter-insurgent forces seek to protect that authority and reduce or eliminate the supplanting authority of the insurgents.
Lesmoderesstupides
(156 posts)in Afghanistan who in turn used that knowledge to bring the fight to the USA resulting in 9/11 and are still fighting their new oppressors in Afghanistan today.
Is that the training you are talking about?
I can give you a bunch more examples if you would like
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Would they be in your list?
You know the oppressed and hunted ethnic group that was historical repressed and killed in the VietNamese central highlands. There is a reason they settled in large numbers where they did after the Viet Nam War.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)'init?
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)They must listen to too much Rush and his cohorts.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)Sites like DU with all the hate toward people who own guns and support the 2A.
neverforget
(9,444 posts)But then again, I don't go around DU defending guns (not saying you do) because they are not the "be all, end all" of my rights.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)neverforget
(9,444 posts)I value human life more than a gun maybe that's why I don't feel the hate. 
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)and get shit for supporting an 'unrealistic' view of their holy amendment.
BainsBane
(53,432 posts)paranoid much?
Cha
(300,937 posts)Pres is talking about Sensible Gun Safety.. not taking away their damn right to bears arms.
Get a clue green berets who signed it.
And I have a clue!
Cha
(300,937 posts)
maxsolomon
(33,945 posts)"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."
The "security of a free state" being referred to is the ability to be secure from slave rebellions through the efforts of the slave patrols, which were active militias.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Didn't you hear what Scalia said, Green Berets? The Constitution is dead, dead, dead. Stop changing the meaning of this sacred document. 
Plato68
(5 posts)I understand that, and the "other things" in our history.
I am not surprised that, when we read we focus on a few words in a sentence and form an opinion based in part on what we have heard in repetition.
Do you notice that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Why?
Not so that arms should always be available to the militia.
Not so that every person shall be available to join the militia.
But, to "regulate" the militia.
Regulate, control, keep operating within it's intended boundaries.
Why would our founders write that common citizens must be allowed to keep weapons in order to keep the militia under control? I suspect it's not about deer hunting.
theKed
(1,235 posts)The right of the citizenry to bear arms isn't the means of regulation of the militia. The well-regulated militia is the means for the citizenry to be armed.
Plato68
(5 posts)Is it your belief that the presence of British Forces (the declared "legal" government of the time) was a way to arm colonists?
Or do you propose that, when the National Guard moves into a city to control the actions of it's citizens, that is a way of arming "the people"?
Why, then did the amendment mention controlling the militia and link it to an armed citizenry, instead of some word or phrase that showed it as a source or arms? Why "well-regulated militia" and "the people"? Why not "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
First, the British Forces were not the "legal government" at the time the second amendment was enacted.
Second, "Why not "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?" - that is, more or less, what it is, in fact, saying. The grammatical structure of the amendment is a bit esoteric and not commonly used in contemporary American English, but that's what it is saying.
"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."
It says that a well-regulated militia (an armed force composed of and formed by the general citizenry) is necessary to the security of the state. To that end, the citizenry, it says, have a right to keep arms. The people's right to keep and bear arms hinges on their participation in a well-regulated militia body, a part that is basically ignored by the hard-right.
Plato68
(5 posts)An armed militia cannot search your home without warrant. An armed militia cannot quarter it's members in your home unless in time of war under special circumstances. That armed militia will, of course, be controlled by unarmed citizens
Because, in the case you present......
"The people's right to keep and bear arms hinges on their participation in a well-regulated militia body."
Where do the farmers, and ranchers, and local police officers go to turn in their weapons?
arthritisR_US
(7,318 posts)guard not some jack asses shooting kids in the driveway or stalking and killing a kid on his way home from getting some skittles and pop? Just asking.
theKed
(1,235 posts)The 2nd Amendment is meant as a means for the people to form their own national security - since there was no standing army following the nation's formation. It has been distorted and eviscerated for a very long time. The current Supreme Court has done their share to help this along.
arthritisR_US
(7,318 posts)party, they make me sick
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)and that's saying something
It is vital that Americans separate myths from realities, because what many of us seem to have forgotten is that, in the vision of the founders of the United States of America, the right to bear arms carries with it enormous burdens and responsibilities.
In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900
Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.
These laws also defined what type of guns you had to buy — a form of taxation levied on individual households. Yes, long before Obamacare, the state made you buy something, even if you did not want to purchase it.
One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority.
But rather than invoke the Second Amendment in the coming months, Americans need to learn something about the historical origins of this part of our constitutional tradition. The bottom line is simple: the Second Amendment requires more gun regulation, not less.
arthritisR_US
(7,318 posts)me to understand this all now, thank you for the clarity. Alas, your intelligence will be lost on the obtuse.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)don't believe the hype!
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)the 2nd Amendment would be used to quell any armed insurrection within a state. The yahoos who threaten an armed revolution will be put down by the very amendment they think they're defending. It's just absurd to think our founding fathers would create an amendment that would aid in the destruction of our own government. One need only study the Whiskey Rebellion to understand their intent behind the 2nd Amendment.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)The founders had a word for a bunch of farmers marching with guns without government sanction: a mob. One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority. This was precisely what happened during Shays’ Rebellion, an insurrection in western Massachusetts that persuaded many Americans that we needed a stronger central government to avert anarchy.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900
***
which somehow gets seized on by morans-
http://www.politifake.org/shays-rebellion-shay-rebellion-government-gun-control-politics-30001.html
arthritisR_US
(7,318 posts)called treason. I have really appreciated the the posts tonight. I am learning and grateful for the insight
maxsolomon
(33,945 posts)You merely dismiss it as the "worst ever". Is his history inaccurate? Were Slave Patrols not Militias? Was DOMESTIC insurrection not a major concern of slave-holding states?
Otherwise, I agree with your post - more regulation, more responsibilities for the RKBA.
Response to Plato68 (Reply #25)
Shadar Message auto-removed
Deelee18
(2 posts)The purpose of the Amendment was to protect the citizenry from and oppressive government.
maxsolomon
(33,945 posts)Yeah, yeah, I'm a bad citizen.
Do you contend that Hartmann is incorrect?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)In the first paragraph of Federalist Paper No. 29, Alexander Hamilton writes,
“THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”
He concludes that same paper saying,
“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition."
Hamilton argues if there is an insurrection in one state, the federal government can use its power to march a militia from one state to another to put it down.
Lest someone argue that this is mere liberal spin, then bear in mind in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, the militia was ordered by President George Washington to do precisely that. Burdened with what they felt were unfair taxes, farmers rebelled and rose up in arms in Pennsylvania.
Washington ordered the militias from Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to put it down, and they did. When the 13,000 troops arrived, the 500 insurgents went home. (As an interesting aside, President Washington literally led the troops, riding at the front!)
This historical fact clearly characterizes the intent of the amendment was not to fight against some tyrannical, over-taxing government as the right would have you believe. If it were, those very same founders who included it wouldn’t have utilized it in a manner the precise opposite of how they intended it.
maxsolomon
(33,945 posts)This is what I'm talking about.
Response to maxsolomon (Reply #4)
Shadar Message auto-removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)"Your a special kind of stupid aren't you?"
Is not okay in our community... I have not read the post you are responding too but still your comment is over the top and something that should not be part of our community.
frylock
(34,825 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
Rider3
(919 posts)If you're in combat, then grab your gun. If you are Joe-Everyday-Neighbor, you don't need a high-powered gun. Period. The law was first written when we only had muskets -- not AK-47s.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)
VOX
(22,976 posts)Just want to express our appreciation for using one of our go-to talking points! 
derby378
(30,252 posts)Lewis and Clark had one installed on the rifle they took into the wilderness. I'm keeping my "AK-47."
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Quotes from the article in italics, my responses in bold....
The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
I doubt seriously if you're on the receiving end of a rate of fire of 45-60 rounds per minute versus up to 950 rounds per minute you're really going to be counting the rounds tearing into your body. You're dead or badly wounded either way. I don't even want to know what those children in Newtown were thinking in their final seconds.
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
6-8 seconds fumbling around changing mags may mean all the difference in the world to someone trying to escape from someone intent on killing you. Some of these Green Berets should know that from personal experience.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Let's assume a shooter is using 10-round mags to fire 30 rounds:
Fire 10 rounds in approximately 10-15 seconds,
Change mags in 6-8 seconds,
Fire another 10 rounds in approximately 10-15 seconds,
Change mags in 6-8 seconds,
Fire another 10 rounds in approximately 10-15 seconds
--------------------------------------------------------
Total time elapsed using three 10-round mags: 42-61 seconds.
Now, let's assume a shooter is using a 30-round mag. Total time elapsed using one 30-round mag to fire 30 rounds: approximately 30-45 seconds.
Just my opinion, but it looks possible to me that some potential victims could scramble to safety while the shooter using 10-round mags is changing mags, while their chances of escaping from a shooter using a 30-round mag would be considerably less. Did the Green Berets consider that in their letter of support?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The letter writer states: reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines
That is TWO magazine swaps in a TOTAL of 6 - 8 seconds, NOT 6 - 8 seconds each.
Your state: 6-8 seconds fumbling around changing mags.
You are doubling the time for a magazine swap.
I am familiar with both the M-16 from time in the service and with many different types of semi-auto pistols. A magazine swap with a pistol can be done much faster than with an M-16. With only a little practice a person can swap a pistol mag in no more than 2 seconds. Experts, with a bevelled magazine well and a double stacked magazine can do a swap in 1/2 second, ordinary people, one second.
How far can you scramble in one second?
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...to try to escape one or more gunmen intent on killing them in a school or any other setting? For all of the "concern" expressed by the current and former Green Berets for potential victims they seem to have missed the main point of the recent gun control discussion. Their letter seems much more intent on creating confusion in the minds of their readers than they do in helping to create a real solution.
And yes, I'm familiar with weapons from my time in the service as well. I know for a fact that an untrained civilian, no matter how long they practice, if they practice at all, will swap magazines at a much slower rate than a former or current serviceperson.
One more point...next time you want me to "try reading better", try being a little more diplomatic. I usually respond better to reasonable people, not those intent on being personally insulting.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)If they're practicing then they aren't really untrained, are they?
I think you're trying to make changing out a magazine a lot harder than it is.
Logical
(22,457 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)His mag held 33 rounds, plus one in the chamber = 34 rounds. The FBI said that he fired 31 rounds. That strongly indicates that his extended mag malfunctioned. Oversized mags tend to malfunction a lot. Experienced shooters tend to avoid them because of their unreliability. The follower springs often have incorrect tension over part of their range. That causes some rounds to not feed properly. Extended mags can have other problems too.
In Vietnam it was common to only load 18 rounds into a 20 round mag to help prevent failure-to-feed jams with the M-16. Also we learned to tap the back of the mag on our helmets to make sure the rounds were properly seated in the mag so they would feed correctly.
A mag swap on a pistol can be done more rapidly than people can tackle, as demonstrated by the killers at VT, Luby's, Ft. Hood, and others. But a jammed gun takes much more time to clear the jam.
Logical
(22,457 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)if they guy gets tackled after unloading one mag OBVIOUSLY it is a fact 10 is better than 30
not even worth defending your position.
why not 6 round mags?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Who tackled the killers at Ft. Hood, VT, Luby's and other places? Ans: No one. Each one of them reloaded multiple times. Mag swaps with handguns are fast and easy.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)when, ALSO, in FACT, loughner was tackled by a 70+ year old ex-military guy ALREADY SHOT in the leg and A GUY WITH A GUN
who was SMART ENOUGH not to use it.
so your argument is a false one. that why i think you don't care.
you might look up the settle cafe one where the shooter was taken out by a CHAIR.
or the buhl massacre where the detective RAN THROUGH A BURNING BUILDING to tackle the shooter. and didn't lose his hat.
so give up with the BS already.
plus defending the OP is totally frigging lame.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Has nothing to do with high capacity arms in the hands of civilians.
They have a right to their opinion. At one time the prevailing opinion was Slavery was hunky dorey and women were too stoopid to vote...Good for the troops anyway, they can believe whatever they want.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)They're scared that this will be a slippery slope to take away all guns from the public, which couldn't happen, even if the govt wanted to do that.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Supply Side Jesus
(2,528 posts)give a fuck
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)
okaawhatever
(9,482 posts)reasonable and understand the need for minimal regulations and they understand it's the Constitution that will stop anyone from completely unarming all citizens.
I have been around many and dated a few SF guys. None of the ones I know would sign something like that. Ofcourse they're pretty familiar with constitutional law and aren't afraid that they will be needed to overthrow the government.
I hate to see military guys behaving this way, especially since they are the minority opinion. When I was back at Ft. Bragg a couple of years ago an old friend who works at JSOC was saying they were having to lower the requirements for alot of recruits. I see now what he meant.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Aren't there like 4,000 active right now? And thousands more inactive?
Whoop dee damn doo.
Ohio Joe
(21,857 posts)I don't think we should allow them to own guns either.
American Blood
(2 posts)Who are you to "allow" people? Are you the new king of America? They are saying that you and all your friends do not have the right to tell them what their rights are. They are saying the their rights are laid out by the Constitution and do not mess with them. Get it now? These are the guys that do the Country's dirty work. I think you may want to pay attention. Just saying...
Ohio Joe
(21,857 posts)When they learn to distinguish reality from fantasy they might be worth listening to. Until then, fuck each and every one of the gun nuts.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,725 posts)I could not care less who supports the 2nd Amendment. This issue can be addressed without changing the amendment. If you have a gun, fine, keep it.
If you want to buy a semi automatic modified military type weapon (that's why they are not single shot weapons, that would be no good to a soldier) you have to pass a test or pay a fee or buy a license or something.
If you already have a gun, you are exercising your right under the 2nd Amendment.
Enacting a law regarding modified assault weapons is not infringing on your right............ imnsho 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Current, on the other and, are....well, let's see if JAG gets involved.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)No special rights are conferred upon those who have served in the military.
Those that would think so have never read the Constitution they seem to revere so deeply.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)..than the Corps I served in.
Nobody really cared whether we supported the 2nd Amendment.. or even the Constitution.
Yes, I know what the oath says... but I didn't spend much time discussing the subtleties of the Constitution with the ossifurs and lifer NCO's.
Basically, we were told to just STFU and do our jobs.
So... Special Forces... I'm just thrilled that you support the 2nd Amendment. But I really believe that the Congress, the Pres, and the courts should have more say than you do.
US MARINE CORPS OATH OF ENLISTMENT
"I, (pick a name the police won't recognize), swear..uhhhh....high-and-tight.... grunt... cammies....kill....fix bayonets....charge....slash....dig....burn....blowup....ugh...Air Force women....beer.....sailors wives.....air strikes....yes SIR!....whiskey....liberty call....salute....Ooorah Gunny....grenades...women....OORAH! So Help Me Chesty PULLER!"
X____________________
Thumb Print
XX _________________________________
Teeth Marks
_____________________
Date
theKed
(1,235 posts)
snooper2
(30,151 posts)After that answer,
We will go into statistics and how certain segments of society "left & right of center" tend to follow and may not be the independent thinkers we all like to believe we are of ourselves
JHB
(37,194 posts)Wasn't able to find the answer on the quick, but given the current and recent force levels, and the circa-50-year history of the GBs, the number for former GBs has to be in the tens of thousands.
Which puts this 1000-signature letter in the single-digit percentages.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)is suppose to give you more knowledge on the subject of gun control?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)....is never, ever, ever a good idea. Military in charge of public policy, is one of the scariest shitting crapolla imaginable
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Nearly as many as will die in the next thirty days from hand-guns.
Thanks for sharing your opinion fellas, but yours carries no more weight than, say, that of grieving families of those who died.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I'm an ex-marine and heartily support rigorous gun control and registration of all firearms.
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #46)
Post removed
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)1961-1965
How about you?
westerebus
(2,976 posts)Once you're in, you're in till ya die. Unless you have a BCD.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Unless you consider marching, shitting in holes, eating garbage, and saluting imbeciles, useful.
westerebus
(2,976 posts)1968-1971. West-Pac 1969. 0331.
First Sgt: Ready to re-up?
Me: No Top. I'm gonna grow my hair long, go to college, get some free love, and hope I never have to do this shit again.
First Sgt: Well... that's that... God bless... NEXT!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)That I definitely not going to re-up was a given and the gunny that provided the ritual knew it. But, he did try and convince to extend my enlistment for (as I recall) for 14 months. All the usual blandishments of moving up a grade and choice of duty stations. Then I asked him about the newly heating up war in Vietnam. "Well...uh..it's a possibility you could catch a tour...". Then I told him what I thought of the war, and how I thought it was kind of insulting that he thought I might be willing to go and kill people I didn't know, had nothing against, so LBJ could prove his "anti-Communism".
The result was 30 days of mess duty before I grinned my way through the main gate.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,725 posts)There is an S at the end. Speaking of not serving..........
I was in 1968-72
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)The 2nd Amendment was created to defend against insurrection and invasion. I would be interested to see any historical document that says otherwise, especially where it specifies the need to defend ourselves against our own government should it become tyrannical. It's absolutely absurd to think our founding fathers, while creating our Constitution and Bill of Rights, would devise an amendment aiding in our own government's destruction. The myth these Green Berets are "catapulting" insults the intelligence of the founders. They built many safeguards into the Constitution to prevent the Federal government from becoming tyrannical. It built in a separation of powers, a balance of powers, a chambered Congress and a means for the Constitution to be amended. The very fact our 2nd Amendment rights are still honored today, is proof that the Constitution works.
In the first paragraph of Federalist Paper No. 29, Alexander Hamilton writes,
“THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”
He concludes that same paper saying,
“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition."
Hamilton argues if there is an insurrection in one state, the federal government can use its power to march a militia from one state to another to put it down.
Lest someone argue that this is mere liberal spin, then bear in mind in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, the militia was ordered by President George Washington to do precisely that. Burdened with what they felt were unfair taxes, farmers rebelled and rose up in arms in Pennsylvania.
Washington ordered the militias from Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to put it down, and they did. When the 13,000 troops arrived, the 500 insurgents went home. (As an interesting aside, President Washington literally led the troops, riding at the front!)
This historical fact clearly characterizes the intent of the amendment was not to fight against some tyrannical, over-taxing government as some would have you believe. If it were, those very same founders who included it wouldn’t have utilized it in a manner the precise opposite of how they intended it.
In closing, I have to say the irony is something to behold when you consider the extreme 2nd Amendment advocates who threaten violence should the ownership of guns be regulated. It is indeed the very same amendment that will be used to quell their rebellion, should it come to fruition. So be careful what you advocate for. It may very well come back and label YOU as the enemy within who is threatening our peace and security.
LiberalFighter
(52,727 posts)The crazies, those determined not mentally stable, criminals, etc. That there should be no limits as to what is allowed for firearms. How soon before 2nd amendment crazies demand that fetuses have the same right?
Yet, there are restrictions on when and what can be hunted and the firearm that will be allowed. Yet, there are criterias determining if a person commits murder or it is self-defense. There are prohibitions of firearms in federal and state buildings, prisons, courts, and many other places.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)original poster-
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!
(what an immature crock of shit)
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes.
(they mentioned hitler, they lose automatically. it's an internet rule)
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whomever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
edit - AND WHY WON'T THESE FOOLS SHOW THEIR NAMES????
Plato68
(5 posts)Is that Mr. or Ms. Farminator3000?
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)howz about you?
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)universal background checks, and raise you 60% Americans who supports banning assault rifles.
In reserve, I still have 54% Americans who supports banning high capacity magazines, and another 58% who favors stricter gun control laws.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)The rest of us however, that I have a problem with.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)or SEALS.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)"The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind"
huh? Seems kind of overly simplistic. It's an interesting document but this seems sort of creepy and worshipful.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)JHB
(37,194 posts)According to the Army, as of 2011 current manpower for that force was 5500-6000, which is about double what it was as of September 11, 2001. I can't immediately find numbers for current and former Green Berets still alive, but the number would be in the tens of thousands.
From that number, this letter was "quietly disseminated for signatures among secure, vetted circles" (emphasis mine). I don't know if this really needs explaining, but circulating a document "among secure, vetted circles" is highly likely to boost the numbers positive responses it receives - the vetting would weed out most of the apathetic or unfavorable responses.
So under those circumstances, 1000 signatures doesn't seem all that impressive as a percentage - somewhere in the single digits.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)They're scumbag mercenaries.
bluedigger
(17,115 posts)He did three tours in Vietnam and was refused a fourth tour because his commanders told him "he liked it too much". He retired after 26 years as a Command Sergeant Major (the highest enlisted rank). And he never owned a personal firearm.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)with combat veterans. My dad was a WW2 veteran who came back from war pretty much anti gun.
Rex
(65,616 posts)People REALLY do need to lay off the Socknews! It is rotting their brains!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Their voices are no more important than anybody else's. The idolization of all things military in this country is laughable and very fascistic.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I could get 1000 DU signatures RIGHT NOW to support the Dave Matthews Band, if I really wanted...What would that prove??
Response to Silentnomore (Original post)
Post removed
pacalo
(24,722 posts)BainsBane
(53,432 posts)shall not be abridged for fear of cutting into the profits of the gun lobby.
LaPierre betrayed his motives when opposing background checks before congress. He said criminals won't submit to background checks. That's exactly their fear. They depend on criminals for their livelihood: professional criminals who make a living through their guns and hobbyist criminals who enter the criminal class only after killing someone. That latter group is what the NRA refers to as the so-called law abiding gun owner. Law abiding people have nothing to fear from background checks or limits on magazine sizes. They don't need to kill dozens of people in a minute. So why do they insist on having that capacity if their intentions aren't criminal?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)A: __________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
Thanks in advance.