Tndeer Logo

Page 12 of 14 « First<1011121314>
Topic Options
#3652843 - 04/22/14 08:49 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: FLTENNHUNTER1]
Crappie Luck Moderator
Non-Typical


Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 61366
Loc: Smith Co.

Offline
"The U.S. government wants the 67-year-old rancher to pay more than $1 million in grazing fees, but Bundy does not recognize the federal government."

Where does the media come up with these quotes? So they just throw stuff out there to see what sticks?
_________________________
"To find out who your real rulers are, simply look to those whom you CANNOT criticize..."
--Voltaire

Top
#3652989 - 04/23/14 04:55 AM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: Bambi Buster]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 45448
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

content Online
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
True or not, it significantly diminishes the hope of current, or former, military personnel standing for the constitution and not taking up arms against U.S. citizens.


The Constitution according to MUP.


America according to MUP. We have some awesome military personnel here, and all across the land, and they have admonished that they would never take up arms against our citizenry. This guy in the article is an example of a standing army that was mentioned a few posts ago by Locksley, that gets paid, and does whatever his "employer" tells him to do. Do you not see anything wrong at all with this?
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
#3653463 - 04/23/14 03:29 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: MUP]
Bambi Buster
14 Point


Registered: 01/29/04
Posts: 8728
Loc: Middle Tennessee

Offline
 Originally Posted By: MUP
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
True or not, it significantly diminishes the hope of current, or former, military personnel standing for the constitution and not taking up arms against U.S. citizens.


The Constitution according to MUP.


America according to MUP. We have some awesome military personnel here, and all across the land, and they have admonished that they would never take up arms against our citizenry. This guy in the article is an example of a standing army that was mentioned a few posts ago by Locksley, that gets paid, and does whatever his "employer" tells him to do. Do you not see anything wrong at all with this?


America according to MUP/The Constitution according to MUP. Same difference. It's in the "according to" that the problem lies. The problem is that when there is no consensus as to what the America/the Constitution mean and no consensus on who has the final say in what they mean, there will be no America. Everybody doing whatever they feel like is a recipe for anarchy, mob rule, or tribalism at best.

Both of the Ft Hood shooters were United States citizens. Though they were both stopped by contract civilian law enforcement officers, If they had been shot by MPs, would that have been a violation of Posse Comitatus? Enemies of the Constitution are not always foreign nationals.

In reply to your post about standing armies, I suggest a close look at the U.S. Army oath of enlistment. I would be genuinely interested in what changes in wording that you or others here might suggest.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Unfortunately, perhaps even fatally for our Republic, universal suffrage, demographics, and elections have consequences.
_________________________
"The American military is like a finely crafted sword. To be effective, it must be wielded by a discerning, skilled and merciless hand."

Top
#3653480 - 04/23/14 03:58 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: Bambi Buster]
de novo
10 Point


Registered: 07/21/08
Posts: 4032
Loc: Middle TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster


I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


It creates uncertainty when the first part of the oath (defend the Constitution) and the second part (obey the POTUS) are in direct conflict.


 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster

Unfortunately, perhaps even fatally for our Republic, universal suffrage, demographics, and elections have consequences.


Ted Kennedy's Immigration Act of 1965 can be added to that list.
_________________________
“Reality is what continues to exist whether you believe in it or not.” 

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”

Top
#3653506 - 04/23/14 04:45 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: Bambi Buster]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 45448
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

content Online
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
True or not, it significantly diminishes the hope of current, or former, military personnel standing for the constitution and not taking up arms against U.S. citizens.


The Constitution according to MUP.


America according to MUP. We have some awesome military personnel here, and all across the land, and they have admonished that they would never take up arms against our citizenry. This guy in the article is an example of a standing army that was mentioned a few posts ago by Locksley, that gets paid, and does whatever his "employer" tells him to do. Do you not see anything wrong at all with this?


America according to MUP/The Constitution according to MUP. Same difference. It's in the "according to" that the problem lies. The problem is that when there is no consensus as to what the America/the Constitution mean and no consensus on who has the final say in what they mean, there will be no America. Everybody doing whatever they feel like is a recipe for anarchy, mob rule, or tribalism at best.

Both of the Ft Hood shooters were United States citizens. Though they were both stopped by contract civilian law enforcement officers, If they had been shot by MPs, would that have been a violation of Posse Comitatus? Enemies of the Constitution are not always foreign nationals.

In reply to your post about standing armies, I suggest a close look at the U.S. Army oath of enlistment. I would be genuinely interested in what changes in wording that you or others here might suggest.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Unfortunately, perhaps even fatally for our Republic, universal suffrage, demographics, and elections have consequences.


No change in wording at all, just that it be adhered too. Whats the issue with that? And I take, by your reference to the Ft. Hood shootings, that you do see Mr Bundy as a domestic terrorist after all, correct?
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
#3653510 - 04/23/14 04:51 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: MUP]
DirtyBear0311
8 Point


Registered: 09/01/12
Posts: 1671
Loc: Milan, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: MUP
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
True or not, it significantly diminishes the hope of current, or former, military personnel standing for the constitution and not taking up arms against U.S. citizens.


The Constitution according to MUP.


America according to MUP. We have some awesome military personnel here, and all across the land, and they have admonished that they would never take up arms against our citizenry. This guy in the article is an example of a standing army that was mentioned a few posts ago by Locksley, that gets paid, and does whatever his "employer" tells him to do. Do you not see anything wrong at all with this?


America according to MUP/The Constitution according to MUP. Same difference. It's in the "according to" that the problem lies. The problem is that when there is no consensus as to what the America/the Constitution mean and no consensus on who has the final say in what they mean, there will be no America. Everybody doing whatever they feel like is a recipe for anarchy, mob rule, or tribalism at best.

Both of the Ft Hood shooters were United States citizens. Though they were both stopped by contract civilian law enforcement officers, If they had been shot by MPs, would that have been a violation of Posse Comitatus? Enemies of the Constitution are not always foreign nationals.

In reply to your post about standing armies, I suggest a close look at the U.S. Army oath of enlistment. I would be genuinely interested in what changes in wording that you or others here might suggest.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Unfortunately, perhaps even fatally for our Republic, universal suffrage, demographics, and elections have consequences.


No change in wording at all, just that it be adhered too. Whats the issue with that? And I take, by your reference to the Ft. Hood shootings, that you do see Mr Bundy as a domestic terrorist after all, correct?


Out of curiosity, how has the oath not been adhered too?
_________________________
Semper Fi

Just because it's bad-a** don't mean it's a good idea.


Top
#3653513 - 04/23/14 04:54 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: de novo]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 45448
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

content Online
 Originally Posted By: de novo
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster


[color:#000066]I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


It creates uncertainty when the first part of the oath (defend the Constitution) and the second part (obey the POTUS) are in direct conflict.


My thoughts as well.
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
#3653514 - 04/23/14 04:56 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: MUP]
Bambi Buster
14 Point


Registered: 01/29/04
Posts: 8728
Loc: Middle Tennessee

Offline
 Originally Posted By: MUP
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
True or not, it significantly diminishes the hope of current, or former, military personnel standing for the constitution and not taking up arms against U.S. citizens.


The Constitution according to MUP.


America according to MUP. We have some awesome military personnel here, and all across the land, and they have admonished that they would never take up arms against our citizenry. This guy in the article is an example of a standing army that was mentioned a few posts ago by Locksley, that gets paid, and does whatever his "employer" tells him to do. Do you not see anything wrong at all with this?


America according to MUP/The Constitution according to MUP. Same difference. It's in the "according to" that the problem lies. The problem is that when there is no consensus as to what the America/the Constitution mean and no consensus on who has the final say in what they mean, there will be no America. Everybody doing whatever they feel like is a recipe for anarchy, mob rule, or tribalism at best.

Both of the Ft Hood shooters were United States citizens. Though they were both stopped by contract civilian law enforcement officers, If they had been shot by MPs, would that have been a violation of Posse Comitatus? Enemies of the Constitution are not always foreign nationals.

In reply to your post about standing armies, I suggest a close look at the U.S. Army oath of enlistment. I would be genuinely interested in what changes in wording that you or others here might suggest.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Unfortunately, perhaps even fatally for our Republic, universal suffrage, demographics, and elections have consequences.


No change in wording at all, just that it be adhered too. Whats the issue with that? And I take, by your reference to the Ft. Hood shootings, that you do see Mr Bundy as a domestic terrorist after all, correct?


1. I don't understand what you mean.

2. At this point, I see Mr. Bundy as a deluded domestic scofflaw who believes his personal interpretation of the Constitution and the law are the only correct ones. At this point, I do not consider him a terrorist. Some of his followers, though, are right at the ragged edge.
_________________________
"The American military is like a finely crafted sword. To be effective, it must be wielded by a discerning, skilled and merciless hand."

Top
#3653515 - 04/23/14 04:58 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: de novo]
Bambi Buster
14 Point


Registered: 01/29/04
Posts: 8728
Loc: Middle Tennessee

Offline
 Originally Posted By: de novo
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster


I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


It creates uncertainty when the first part of the oath (defend the Constitution) and the second part (obey the POTUS) are in direct conflict.


 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster

Unfortunately, perhaps even fatally for our Republic, universal suffrage, demographics, and elections have consequences.


Ted Kennedy's Immigration Act of 1965 can be added to that list.


Indeed. A major factor in the demographics side of the equation. One of a great many things for which I hope he burns in hell.
_________________________
"The American military is like a finely crafted sword. To be effective, it must be wielded by a discerning, skilled and merciless hand."

Top
#3653516 - 04/23/14 05:00 PM Re: More info of the BLM/Bundy stand off [Re: DirtyBear0311]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 45448
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

content Online
 Originally Posted By: DirtyBear0311
 Originally Posted By: MUP
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
 Originally Posted By: Bambi Buster
 Originally Posted By: MUP
True or not, it significantly diminishes the hope of current, or former, military personnel standing for the constitution and not taking up arms against U.S. citizens.


The Constitution according to MUP.


America according to MUP. We have some awesome military personnel here, and all across the land, and they have admonished that they would never take up arms against our citizenry. This guy in the article is an example of a standing army that was mentioned a few posts ago by Locksley, that gets paid, and does whatever his "employer" tells him to do. Do you not see anything wrong at all with this?


America according to MUP/The Constitution according to MUP. Same difference. It's in the "according to" that the problem lies. The problem is that when there is no consensus as to what the America/the Constitution mean and no consensus on who has the final say in what they mean, there will be no America. Everybody doing whatever they feel like is a recipe for anarchy, mob rule, or tribalism at best.

Both of the Ft Hood shooters were United States citizens. Though they were both stopped by contract civilian law enforcement officers, If they had been shot by MPs, would that have been a violation of Posse Comitatus? Enemies of the Constitution are not always foreign nationals.

In reply to your post about standing armies, I suggest a close look at the U.S. Army oath of enlistment. I would be genuinely interested in what changes in wording that you or others here might suggest.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Unfortunately, perhaps even fatally for our Republic, universal suffrage, demographics, and elections have consequences.


No change in wording at all, just that it be adhered too. Whats the issue with that? And I take, by your reference to the Ft. Hood shootings, that you do see Mr Bundy as a domestic terrorist after all, correct?


Out of curiosity, how has the oath not been adhered too?


By military, former or current, choosing to defend a domestic terrorist, by engaging U.S. citizens. Of course, this is just my opinion.
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
Page 12 of 14 « First<1011121314>


Moderator:  Crappie Luck, Tennessee Todd, RUGER, Unicam, stretch, Cuttin Caller, Bobby G, Kimber45 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4105854
RUGER
87560
Deer Assassin
65590
BSK
61366
Crappie Luck
51376
spitndrum
Newest Members
crose84, Fisher 1959, AKeys, GUIDO, Bnpainter
13382 Registered Users
Who's Online
129 registered (Sting, DaveB, 280longshot, mossyhorns300, Backstrapcrazy, cbhunter, 16 invisible) and 177 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13382 Members
42 Forums
95640 Topics
1119351 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Forum Donations
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!

TN Burn Safe

Generated in 0.29 seconds in which 0.003 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression enabled.