If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
The founders did indeed envision that tyranny, being a natural outgrowth of
consolidated power, would need to be checked by the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment- second only to the first amendment- is indeed 1) the only practical way to enforce the other nine; and 2) the "reboot button" for the republic. It is fascinating to go back and re-read the federalist/anti-federalist arguments engaged in at the time of our founding. How far have we strayed; and all of it so predictable. We are currently living the worst fears of those who opposed a strong central government. Many of the checks and balances have been tossed, one by one, over the gunwales in order to address one "unfairness" or the other over the years. Liberty for Security and all that. Anyhow, this is not a political forum (gee- sure looks like one) so I'll let everyone else have the last word. As if that would stop 'em . . . Steve Swartz "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Leslie Swartz writes The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll up pretty quickly. Am I a "radical asshole"? I'm a "gun nut" by UK standards. Steve, just to clarify, are you advocating the deliberate murder of anyone who disagrees with your opinion? I'd definitely think that the Founding Fathers didn't envisage an Argentinean-style "dirty war" against their own people when they drafted the Constitution. -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:46:22 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: In message , Ed Rasimus writes Any questions? Yes, but they're quibbles rather than arguments. I'd argue details of many of those statements while agreeing with them overall. But, then you've proven yourself to be a rational individual who offers greater depth to the discussion than simple name calling or sloganeering. As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held convictions. The hard part is to rise above the pig-wrestling and listen to the other side's argument, demand that both sides offer fact and reason, then make objective rather than subjective choices. Ain't easy. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.
George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH. In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap. -He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it. Walt |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
From: (WalterM140)
Ed Rasimus wrote in message ... On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: The constitution was intact until Bush was elected. Arthur Kramer OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact? Article One. Commentary on the News Hour last night indicated that since the Congress is charged with regulation of the armed forces, Bush usurped that power by trying to dictate how prisoners would be treated. Ooops. Really? Try Article 2, section 2: Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States Article 1 section 8 describes funding the military, declaration of war and making regulations. Those regulations are now called UCMJ. Tell me how Bush "usurped" that article. The legal experts they had said that most of the documents released by the White House dealt with how to twist the law so as to avoid being charged with felonies. Disgusting. No, they said what was being suggested didn't violate any law. They twisted nothing. Sitting on the hood of your car isn't a violation of law, it is also not twisting the law. Bush is the worst president -ever- and he has to go. Gee, that sounds like an absolute. I take it you have compared him to each and every president in detail? Walt Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH. George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH. In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap. -He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it. Is he still "highly decorated" if he threw his awards away? Pete |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
Article One. Commentary on the News Hour last night indicated that since the Congress is charged with regulation of the armed forces, Bush usurped that power by trying to dictate how prisoners would be treated. Ooops. What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you? What part of separation of powers escapes you? The founding fathers were very concerned about usurpation of power by the executive branch. Bush has usurped the Constitution and he has to go. Walt |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... What part of separation of powers escapes you? The founding fathers were very concerned about usurpation of power by the executive branch. Bush has usurped the Constitution and he has to go. Please. The last thing the left wants is Constitutional government. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you? Pick up a book on
Constitutional Law and you'll find that the "regulation of the armed forces" applies to how the members of the force shall be governed and treated. This is handled through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is still in force. This was also discussed by the panel last night on the News Hour. What the Bush administration wanted was a direct violation of the UCMJ, under the article covering assault. I don't have a copy of the UCMJ. I believe they said it was Art. 77. These legal experts all agreed that they had never seen anything like this before. One of them said he "almost fell out of his chair" when reading these documents recently released. DO note that these actions of the lawyers in the executive branch so incensed lawyers in the JAG office that they went outside the government and reported these activities to outsiders, I believe in the New York Bar Association. Ed, you need to wake up. Walt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
30 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 31st 04 03:55 AM |
11 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 11th 03 11:58 PM |
04 Oct 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 4th 03 07:51 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 8th 03 02:51 AM |