1,100 Green Berets show support for the 2nd Amendment

[SandEagle]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...s-signed-for-protection-of-the-2nd-amendment/

if 1,100 GBs are cool with it, so am I.

 

[sigurros81]

Wake me up when it's 1,100 Spartans.

 

[fskimospy]

I seriously couldn't care less if they are green berets or not.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I seriously couldn't care less if they are green berets or not.

Wait, so what you are saying is you don't support the troops?

 

[soundforbjt]

In other news, millions of potheads support legalizing pot.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You know what they say...

Opinions are like assholes -- everyone's got one, and some of them are located 2.5 feet below a green beret.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, so what you are saying is you don't support the troops?

Well if they are current troops they are violating military regulations by voicing political opinions under the color of their uniform. That aside though, I'm just tired of people trotting out The Troops all the time.

 

[sigurros81]

You know what they say...

Opinions are like assholes -- everyone's got one, and some of them are located 2.5 feet below a green beret.

I didn't know Green Berets are able to detach their assholes from their bodies. That's some serious elite training right there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I seriously couldn't care less if they are green berets or not.

Me neither. It's that they have a better point that what's being spewed by many on the opposing side that counts. There may be 1100 assholes writing something, but they aren't as big an anus as a great many who hold office.

 

[momeNt]

I'm waiting for when 2/3 of all citizens are cool with it. Until then I won't support removing a right.

Maybe we should have a national referendum on removing the second amendment?

 

[Incorruptible]

Well if they are current troops they are violating military regulations by voicing political opinions under the color of their uniform. That aside though, I'm just tired of people trotting out The Troops all the time.

Considering that they are defending the 2nd Amendment they are patriots and should be supported

 

[LegendKiller]

Considering that they are defending the 2nd Amendment they are patriots and should be supported

Who are they defending it from?

Last I checked there isn't a foreign power trying to enforce their government upon us. If you are implying they should defend it from ordinary Americans you are a pathetic person.

Their voice counts no more or no less than any other individual in this country. This isn't Starship Troopers no matter how much righty nutters want it to be.

 

[HomerJS]

Considering that they are defending the 2nd Amendment they are patriots and should be supported

Considering there are very few people against the 2nd amendment they are preaching to the choir

 

[SpatiallyAware]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Considering there are very few people against the 2nd amendment they are preaching to the choir

You must not spend much time around here.

 

[JohnShadows]

Who are they defending it from?

Last I checked there isn't a foreign power trying to enforce their government upon us. If you are implying they should defend it from ordinary Americans you are a pathetic person.

Their voice counts no more or no less than any other individual in this country. This isn't Starship Troopers no matter how much righty nutters want it to be.

^^^ I don't think they were/are defending it (or us) in Afghanistan or Iraq, either. I get sick of hearing that whole line.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Who are they defending it from?

Last I checked there isn't a foreign power trying to enforce their government upon us. If you are implying they should defend it from ordinary Americans you are a pathetic person.

Their voice counts no more or no less than any other individual in this country. This isn't Starship Troopers no matter how much righty nutters want it to be.

So you didn't pay attention to the UN trying to ban firearms? And starship troo....how the hell does that even fit?

 

[LegendKiller]

So you didn't pay attention to the UN trying to ban firearms? And starship troo....how the hell does that even fit?

Again, when the UN tries to pass laws in the US or the government enforces it, the *PEOPLE* will protect the 2nd Amendment. Do you even understand how this country works?

The military doesn't do shit to enforce our laws internally.

You'd think somebody so educated as yourself would understand that.

 

[LegendKiller]

^^^ I don't think they were/are defending it (or us) in Afghanistan or Iraq, either. I get sick of hearing that whole line.

It's a silly idea and one that is sadly massively misguided. They may be protecting us there from attacks over here (or were in Afghanistan only) but they didn't (and don't) have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Personally, if I were (ex)military I'd be furious about the shit that people do/say in my name.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a silly idea and one that is sadly massively misguided. They may be protecting us there from attacks over here (or were in Afghanistan only) but they didn't (and don't) have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Personally, if I were (ex)military I'd be furious about the shit that people do/say in my name.

I think it's that over time people have just found it too easy to take advantage of America's bizarre military fetishism. Anything they can staple The Troops onto, they will.

The most recent (barely) credible threat to the 2nd amendment went away in the early 90's. I'm willing to bet that the majority of those green berets have never spent one minute of their lives defending the second amendment.

I do think they have something to say in talking about the effect of magazine sizes on rampage-ability, but to me their argument made me think that limiting them was an even better idea.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Again, when the UN tries to pass laws in the US or the government enforces it, the *PEOPLE* will protect the 2nd Amendment. Do you even understand how this country works?

The military doesn't do shit to enforce our laws internally.

You'd think somebody so educated as yourself would understand that.

Don't pander.

The military DOES in fact get to enforce our laws, but not under the command of the POTUS. They do it under the command of each state's governor. I think the last time the US Military operated within the US borders under the command of the POTUS was when the 101st escorted students of Little Rock High.

Moreover....well, the oath you take in the armed forces:

I, (NAME), 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.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't pander.

The military DOES in fact get to enforce our laws, but not under the command of the POTUS. They do it under the command of each state's governor. I think the last time the US Military operated within the US borders under the command of the POTUS was when the 101st escorted students of Little Rock High.

Moreover....well, the oath you take in the armed forces:

This is extremely wrong. State governors have zero control over federal military personnel. They have a measure of control of the National Guard for their state, but even that is subject to being overridden by federal authority. As for the army, navy, air force, marines? Never.

Moreover the military does not in a general sense have any ability to enforce domestic laws. The only circumstances it is allowed to do so in are those specifically authorized by the Constitution or by an explicit act of Congress. Currently there aren't any authorizations that allow them to engage in this.

Little Rock was a constitutional matter as in the judgment of Eisenhower the state was unwilling to safeguard its citizens from organized violence.

EDIT:

Also importantly, you didn't bold other important parts of the oath:

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.

That means no domestic law enforcement, except in extremely limited circumstances as mentioned above.

 

[RampantAndroid]

This is extremely wrong. State governors have zero control over federal military personnel. They have a measure of control of the National Guard for their state, but even that is subject to being overridden by federal authority. As for the army, navy, air force, marines? Never.

Moreover the military does not in a general sense have any ability to enforce domestic laws. The only circumstances it is allowed to do so in are those specifically authorized by the Constitution or by an explicit act of Congress. Currently there aren't any authorizations that allow them to engage in this.

Little Rock was a constitutional matter as in the judgment of Eisenhower the state was unwilling to safeguard its citizens from organized violence.

EDIT:

Also importantly, you didn't bold other important parts of the oath:


That means no domestic law enforcement, except in extremely limited circumstances as mentioned above.

I didn't bold them because it only furthers my point: that the military does have a role inside the US, however much I dislike that idea. As for the POTUS commanding the military, he cannot command the armed forces inside the US. What IKE did was not strictly legal - it was not until 2007 (and amendments made in 2008) that it became legal for the president to order the armed forces around inside the US.

But yes, I should have been clearer: I am talking about the national guard.

 

[LegendKiller]

I didn't bold them because it only furthers my point: that the military does have a role inside the US, however much I dislike that idea. As for the POTUS commanding the military, he cannot command the armed forces inside the US. What IKE did was not strictly legal - it was not until 2007 (and amendments made in 2008) that it became legal for the president to order the armed forces around inside the US.

But yes, I should have been clearer: I am talking about the national guard.

Posse Comitatus Act still exists and has significant teeth against such "defense" of laws, so much so that most will refuse to challenge it. What Eisenhower did was not in violation of PC as the Force Acts allow the usage only when the rights of others are in danger and those rights are not being enforced by a state governor. Again, the route by which the usage of PC inside the US is fraught with huge Constitutional ramifications and is one that is rarely, if ever, challenged except under the most extreme circumstances.

The military still has absolutely no standing to "defend" the 2nd Amendment and is not "defending" it at this time. To give them any higher standing in what to say is to place them outside of civilian leadership and order, something which is utterly against the Constitution and any philosophy by the founding fathers.

Finally, the reference to Starship Troopers is that soldiers are citizens and are the only ones who have a say. Obviously hyperbole but effective nonetheless.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Considering there are very few people against the 2nd amendment they are preaching to the choir

There are too many people trying to strip it away and still call it the second amendment.