Author Topic: Even the Department of Justice agrees (Read 1415 times)

Raider179 · « **Reply #45 on:** May 10, 2005, 02:47:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tumor
Yes, in fact they are volunteers. This is all part of the contract when you volunteer.

If it got to the point that we were having to use these "clauses" in their contracts then I would think our military is way understaffed. And I don't count as a volunteer as someone who has served their tour, doesn't want to be in Iraq, and is forced to go back because of the "emergency" clause. You might but I don't.

Elfie · « **Reply #46 on:** May 10, 2005, 02:55:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
If it got to the point that we were having to use these "clauses" in their contracts then I would think our military is way understaffed. And I don't count as a volunteer as someone who has served their tour, doesn't want to be in Iraq, and is forced to go back because of the "emergency" clause. You might but I don't.

Everyone who volunteers has inactive reserve time on their contracts. The inactive reserve time can be served prior to your enlistment (in the case of delayed enlistment folks like myself) or at the end of your tour. Those folks are reserves that can be called back anytime during their inactive reserve duty. Or they can be kept on active duty until that reserve time is finished.

They are still volunteers. They volunteered knowing they had reserve duty after their active duty was finished.

Yeager · « **Reply #47 on:** May 10, 2005, 03:05:51 PM »

Its kind of a misnomer, a genuine volunteer is free to choose not to volunteer at any time. Rather, people who enlist in the military agree to abide by a contract with the government. I am pretty sure the contract states that the enlistee can be retained indefinately at the governments discretion. So...you could say they voluntarily agree to sign a contract but once signed they cannot simply quit whenever they want to. This reality I believe, shows itself in diminished recruiting to the military. Average young people are beginning to understand that military service is a contractual obligation. Once entered into you become the property of someone other than your mother.

bunch · « **Reply #48 on:** May 10, 2005, 05:56:58 PM »

What with the well know corruptability of thomas jefferson and his constant state of debt & horniness, one is lead to wonder how much the firearms lobby paid him off

weaselsan · « **Reply #49 on:** May 10, 2005, 06:03:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
It's one of the most outdated parts of the constitution... everything else sooner or later gets modified in some way to reflect the requirements of todays world.

We do that by something called a "Constitutional Amendment".
Two thirds of the State Legislatures must pass it.

weaselsan · « **Reply #50 on:** May 10, 2005, 06:13:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... IIRC, the Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.

And the Judicial Branch simply interprets the law....If they attempt to improperly interpret the Bill of Rights to project their own ideologies, we will spell it out to them very clearly with a Constitutional Amendment. The "Bill of Rights" are rights given to the people, not the Government. If they can not understand that they can be removed through impeachment.

Tumor · « **Reply #51 on:** May 10, 2005, 06:19:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
If it got to the point that we were having to use these "clauses" in their contracts then I would think our military is way understaffed. And I don't count as a volunteer as someone who has served their tour, doesn't want to be in Iraq, and is forced to go back because of the "emergency" clause. You might but I don't.

Obviously... but it doesn't matter. When you sign on (volunteer), you either know/knew what you are/were getting in to, or you aren't/weren't paying attention. When I signed on... I knew I was 4 active and 4 Inactive reserve. When I retire, I know I'll be eligible to be called back up. It's a simple as that, and not paying attention to what your volunteering for is not an excuse.

Raider179 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 10, 2005, 06:55:30 PM »

I understand what you are saying. I just am not sure about the terminology of "volunteer" army. Technically why would we need such a clause in the contracts? Couldn't congress just pass a law overnight like the shiavo one which says we can keep people past their enlistment agreements and call back retiree's if neccessary. My point is that if it has gotten to this point where we need to do that to our soldiers, we need more soldiers. What happens if a war breaks out somewhere else now?

lazs2 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 11, 2005, 08:40:33 AM »

mt.. I understand... I just thought that it was time your wife picked up a new anti second amendment cliche from some of the far left corners of the internet.

Raider... I doubt that many people would stand alone against large government forces for any freedom... That is like saying that we should take away freedom of speech to see how many would resist arrest.

If the government simply banned all private ownership of guns they would be clumsily (and messily) puting out uprisings all over the place... their heavy and clumsy hand would enrage even more people and riots would ensue. those "guns hidden at an uncles house" would come out.

I am curious tho as to why you trust the government so much that you feel that they should be the only group armed in America. You seem very afraid of organized religion and it would follow that you would fear an even more powerful entity like government yet.... you would assure that they were even more powerful? Perhaps you feel that the government will allways be in agreement with your beliefs?

lazs

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #54 on:** May 11, 2005, 09:38:54 AM »

Quote

Hey.. I'd like to have guns myself too, but I don't buy the excuse that the right to carry arms would somehow make people able to remain free from the states oppression / make the state behave rationally.

If you'd like to have guns why don't you? You're not making any sense.

Fishu · « **Reply #55 on:** May 11, 2005, 09:55:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
If the government simply banned all private ownership of guns they would be clumsily (and messily) puting out uprisings all over the place... their heavy and clumsy hand would enrage even more people and riots would ensue. those "guns hidden at an uncles house" would come out.

They'd never ban all the private guns, you just would need an actual reason to own one and you would need a license for each gun.

It hasn't drawn out people elsewhere in the world either.

Finland has this "de-militarized" zone called Åland, which is an autonomical island.
They do have more registered guns per population than rest of the country and speculations are that they have a bunch of unregistered guns too, making it possible to give a weapon for each of its ~20,000 residents.
It becomes a horribly outcry for them, if even a single unarmed person in military dressing steps out of a ship on the way by.

So the gun control isn't exactly the total gun ban nightmare you're thinking of.

Siaf,

Didn't I express myself clearly?
I wouldn't get a gun for myself or defend having a weapon with an excuse that it will keep me and my fellas 'free' of the government, if they someday go nuts.
If the government goes nuts, the guns of the 2nd amendment wouldn't do a jack to stop them, neither my fellas.

However if I could choose to have legal firearms, grenades, other explosives and shoulder launched missiles, then I'd say the excuse would be valid.

So why doesn't it make sense?
I could want the guns just for the guns itself, or hunting or target shooting.... right?
I'd say that hardly anyone in the states actually buys the guns just in case the government goes nuts.
It's either related to a hobby or personal security, against the other armed wackos.

Naso · « **Reply #56 on:** May 11, 2005, 09:56:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/page3.html

I had a... somewhat... positive feeling when I saw the Italian casualties listed among the others.

It's like a recognizment(sp?) of the contribution given by my country in Iraq (of wich I disagre), and in Afganistan (of wich I agree).

Side by side, even if many here think otherwise.

Nice done CNN.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #57 on:** May 11, 2005, 10:14:01 AM »

Quote

Hey.. I'd like to have guns myself too

This part is not clear. Are you saying you can not have guns for some reason or what? And if not, why? Do you have a mental illness or a criminal record stoping you from getting one?

Quote

They'd never ban all the private guns, you just would need an actual reason to own one and you would need a license for each gun.

You forget that lazs has watched every X-file episode there is. He's convinced that the cancer man will collect all his toys away immediately if he registers them.

Fishu · « **Reply #58 on:** May 11, 2005, 12:14:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
This part is not clear. Are you saying you can not have guns for some reason or what? And if not, why? Do you have a mental illness or a criminal record stoping you from getting one?

Haven't bothered to get any weapons yet.

Yeager · « **Reply #59 on:** May 11, 2005, 01:32:48 PM »

I have herad recently that new jersey law makers are considering a bill that would confiscate the personal property of citizens found to have unregistered firearms. For all intents and purposes the state would be confiscating the homes and vehicles of people who by most reasonable standards would be a law abiding citizens with the exception that they failed to register their rifles and handguns.

I would not take kindly to that sort of infringement if I were unfortunate enough to live in new jersery.