Posted on Feb 27, 2016
Who will you call when the enemy brings war on American soil?
8.82K
91
87
10
10
0
If your anti gun, pro Democrat, answer me this! We have integrated women into combat arms. The war on guns has begun and the tolerance of the intolerant has happened. The question is, who will you call when the enemy brings war on American soil? This is a serious question. I would like some actual answers. If you don't know, or wish to see the other side's story, share this!!!! I would like to hear! I'll respond as at as I can.
Posted in these groups: 
Duty
Duty
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 22
15
15
0
Step away from the computer and take a deep breath. Your anger serves no good purpose. No "anti-gun Democrat" is going to call on anyone to defend America. When attacked, America will be defended without the need for any call. We the People will rise up bearing arms if and when the federal government fails in its duty and the enemy infiltrates our nation. Always trust in that and be at peace. Fortunately, our government is disbanded every two years and we have the peaceful means of giving ourselves a better one laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness. Now take all that energy and hit the streets. Meet your neighbors and show them your passion. Advocate clearly and reasonably for the kind of leadership we need. Then vote. Take your family and friends to their polling places if you must, and help them participate. Get active. Get involved. Don't just sit around stewing in the cauldron of your anger.
(15)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC (Join to see) - I can't honestly say what Bernie Sanders is. What's tragic (or funny depending on your point of view) is that Bernie can say either. He claims to be a socialist but when pressed to define socialism, is at a loss. Again, tragic or funny, if Hillary is indicted and Bernie becomes the DNC nominee, his base of support, though enthusiastic, isn't showing any inclination to show up to vote. Thus, I'm not overly worried about Bernie. Trump frightens me the most. He is a progressive, determined to extend the powers of the President to make America great again. He believes that can only be accomplished if he has his way. What's really interesting about the progressives is that their ideology is founded on the premise that a government with enumerated powers simply can't succeed (despite the fact that it succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the Founders and far beyond the successes of any other form of government before or since). In their view, the President should be able to do anything he wants so long as it isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution or by law. That would suit Trump just fine, wouldn't it? Hillary too.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster - I understand the dilemma. Sorry for my typos. I am saying that Apple only cares about stock price maximization (Finance 320 college) so if they don't want to play ball with the FBI and the US GOV but they say 'yes master' to the despots they kiss ass too to get a foot in their market, then maybe the threat of losing market share will allow the board to override the Legal Department's advice and allow justice to prevail in allowing us to crack the Iphone the SBDO terrorists had. The ACLU and freedom in the USA infringes upon the majority Christians that want a nativity scene yet in Canada it is allowed to digitally say 'Merry Christmas' on buses and Nativity scenes at Government buildings without the 1 in 10000 athesist getting offended. The USA corporations should show due diligence and allow the FBI access since like I said in so many words before only the criminals are protected (gun control) and the expected level of privacy/implied consent should be waivered in a criminal case where the 'privacy' of two dead ISLAMIC JIHADISTS yes Hillary this is your monty pyton knights of NI forbidden word. The Islamic Jihadists who killed many in San Bernardino should have no expected level of privacy and their phones should be unlocked!
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
LTC (Join to see) - In reality, it is actually ROI that they are concerned about, not stock price maximization. Try working in the software industry or publishing and you will find out real quick. Ask your accountant if you don't believe my statement.
And forget about Canada and what is legal or illegal there, that has no bearing on the situation. Next in the examples with religion, I would not go there if I were you, especially since laws being applied to religion are not applied equally and therefore creates a further problem, and really has no place in this discussion, unless we really want to talk and discuss "True Equality Under the Law" or as stated more legally by the Supreme Court in 1891 stated "...all citizens, under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, are entitled to “equal and impartial justice under the law.”" I will not even go into the Blackstone Formulation, which seems to be currently on a downslide within the front end of the justice system here in the United States, and has been for some time. What is really depressing about statements similar to yours, is that there is nothing that would hold back the FBI or any other government agency from misusing a tool such as what is being discussed. In addition, do you think that Apple as a company should do this for free? How should they be compensated for the real effort that it would take to do what is being asked? I also think that we should listen to what Phil Zimmerman has to say about the subject.
And forget about Canada and what is legal or illegal there, that has no bearing on the situation. Next in the examples with religion, I would not go there if I were you, especially since laws being applied to religion are not applied equally and therefore creates a further problem, and really has no place in this discussion, unless we really want to talk and discuss "True Equality Under the Law" or as stated more legally by the Supreme Court in 1891 stated "...all citizens, under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, are entitled to “equal and impartial justice under the law.”" I will not even go into the Blackstone Formulation, which seems to be currently on a downslide within the front end of the justice system here in the United States, and has been for some time. What is really depressing about statements similar to yours, is that there is nothing that would hold back the FBI or any other government agency from misusing a tool such as what is being discussed. In addition, do you think that Apple as a company should do this for free? How should they be compensated for the real effort that it would take to do what is being asked? I also think that we should listen to what Phil Zimmerman has to say about the subject.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster - thanks SSG I will have to look into that. I just was showing how sometimes the minority or the terrorists are protected by the fear of a slippery slope 1984 totalitarian state like what is in PRNK. I am sure they would pay since the DOD pays $160 billion over budget for a buggy product so I am sure Apple would get some compensation. My Canda comment was a slam to the zealot ACLU atheist faction.
Thanks for your comments. I just have a lot of frustration in how the gears of progress or law work as fast as a Apollo or Space Shuttle moving launch pad sometimes.
Thanks for your comments. I just have a lot of frustration in how the gears of progress or law work as fast as a Apollo or Space Shuttle moving launch pad sometimes.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
8
8
0
SSG (Join to see) I am liberal and I support rational gun control, so I'll answer your questions.
1. Yes, we have integrated women into combat arms. Not sure what the point is for this comment.
2. "War on guns has begun and the tolerance of the intolerant has happened." - What do you mean by this? Has someone come for your guns? Or are you referring to magazine capacity limits? Or... what? And what intolerant things are being tolerated now? Gay marriage? Again, not sure what the question is.
Ok, ok, so now I got the question. "Who will I call on when the enemy brings war on American soil?" Ghostbusters. Duh. Ok, but seriously, I think we will all call first on the integrated military. And if there is an Army sniper providing overwatch on your street in your neighborhood, I don't think you will care that that it's a female behind the scope. In reality, you will never know. Will you care that the person who pulled the lanyard that rains down fire from the sky on the enemy in your backyard is a female? I doubt it. Steel rain knows no gender. Will you care that the Apache pilot providing close air support to your position is a transgender Warrant? Nope. All you will care about are rounds on target.
I am more than happy to call on ANY military servicemember in a time of trouble to provide suppressive fire, to secure a perimeter or to conduct a night raid against the enemy.
So, I think it's high time we get our collective noses out of the genitals of everyone else and get on with the "support and defend" part of our job.
Wait, and who else will we call on if the enemy is at our door? The police, the firemen, and every man woman and child with a hatchet, hammer or chainsaw. Every one of the 300+ million firearms in the country (and no, no one is taking them away). Everyone stands. Everyone fights. Everyone.
1. Yes, we have integrated women into combat arms. Not sure what the point is for this comment.
2. "War on guns has begun and the tolerance of the intolerant has happened." - What do you mean by this? Has someone come for your guns? Or are you referring to magazine capacity limits? Or... what? And what intolerant things are being tolerated now? Gay marriage? Again, not sure what the question is.
Ok, ok, so now I got the question. "Who will I call on when the enemy brings war on American soil?" Ghostbusters. Duh. Ok, but seriously, I think we will all call first on the integrated military. And if there is an Army sniper providing overwatch on your street in your neighborhood, I don't think you will care that that it's a female behind the scope. In reality, you will never know. Will you care that the person who pulled the lanyard that rains down fire from the sky on the enemy in your backyard is a female? I doubt it. Steel rain knows no gender. Will you care that the Apache pilot providing close air support to your position is a transgender Warrant? Nope. All you will care about are rounds on target.
I am more than happy to call on ANY military servicemember in a time of trouble to provide suppressive fire, to secure a perimeter or to conduct a night raid against the enemy.
So, I think it's high time we get our collective noses out of the genitals of everyone else and get on with the "support and defend" part of our job.
Wait, and who else will we call on if the enemy is at our door? The police, the firemen, and every man woman and child with a hatchet, hammer or chainsaw. Every one of the 300+ million firearms in the country (and no, no one is taking them away). Everyone stands. Everyone fights. Everyone.
(8)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Define 'rational' in the gun control debate? That is even before one considers 'shall not be infringed'? You mean the rational control like in Chicago and other places with the highest 'rational' controls and highest crime rates?
We can disagree, as this site proves, but supporting something goes beyond not lying to oneself during the hours you are in uniform too.
The entire attack on guns by the Progressive Left is a red herring, always has been and always will be, at least until they enforce the laws already on the books. You do not enforce the laws, a crime happens, and then you demand more legislation? This before even realizing the tool used by the criminal is not the problem.
Define 'rational' in the gun control debate? That is even before one considers 'shall not be infringed'? You mean the rational control like in Chicago and other places with the highest 'rational' controls and highest crime rates?
We can disagree, as this site proves, but supporting something goes beyond not lying to oneself during the hours you are in uniform too.
The entire attack on guns by the Progressive Left is a red herring, always has been and always will be, at least until they enforce the laws already on the books. You do not enforce the laws, a crime happens, and then you demand more legislation? This before even realizing the tool used by the criminal is not the problem.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
LTC (Join to see) - I think that you need a refresher class on Black American History.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSG Brad Sand - I was pretty sure I defined rational already...
Rational - In accordance with reason and logic.
Everything I said about control is based in reason and logic. I think it's reasonable to expect people to have some training on a deadly weapon before they carry it around. I also think it's logical. Don't you? Basing an argument for opposing any and all gun control based on the Second Amendment and Constitution is not "rational" or "logical" by definition. Those are emotional arguments based on "tradition" and fear of government oppression - which may have been valid at one point in time, but times have changed, as they always do, and the government and society must change with it. As has been pointed out, when the Constitution was written, it was legal to own slaves, women were second-class (or third-class citizens) and the rate of fire for firearms used by people was about 1-2 rounds per minute. Societal changes have made slavery illegal, and women have moved up to being 1.5-class citizens. Yet some people think everyone should have access to every gun out there.
I'm all for throwing out all the gun laws we have on the books, in exchange for required training and qualification.
I've never said guns are the problem. The problem is people - and their laziness to not be trained or qualified on a deadly weapon that they want to wander down the street with. Gun owners, as a whole, are a greater threat to themselves or their families through sheer negligence than any criminal out there.
Rational - In accordance with reason and logic.
Everything I said about control is based in reason and logic. I think it's reasonable to expect people to have some training on a deadly weapon before they carry it around. I also think it's logical. Don't you? Basing an argument for opposing any and all gun control based on the Second Amendment and Constitution is not "rational" or "logical" by definition. Those are emotional arguments based on "tradition" and fear of government oppression - which may have been valid at one point in time, but times have changed, as they always do, and the government and society must change with it. As has been pointed out, when the Constitution was written, it was legal to own slaves, women were second-class (or third-class citizens) and the rate of fire for firearms used by people was about 1-2 rounds per minute. Societal changes have made slavery illegal, and women have moved up to being 1.5-class citizens. Yet some people think everyone should have access to every gun out there.
I'm all for throwing out all the gun laws we have on the books, in exchange for required training and qualification.
I've never said guns are the problem. The problem is people - and their laziness to not be trained or qualified on a deadly weapon that they want to wander down the street with. Gun owners, as a whole, are a greater threat to themselves or their families through sheer negligence than any criminal out there.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google