Quoted: Let's say, tomorrow, Congress and George W. Bush decide it's time to go house-to-house and collect guns. Your unit is among one of the ones collecting guns nationwide, and also to suppress "terrorist gun owners" from revolting. Not just specific ones, all of 'em. You do as ordered. . . How-the-fuck is that respecting the Constitution and living by the will of the people?

Federalist 78:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."


The military's oath of enlistment binds one to uphold and defend the Constitution. If one were to perform some blatantly unconstitutional action such as gun confiscation, not only would they enforcing an invalid act, but they would also be breaking their oath of enlistment.


If it ever happens that violent revolution is the only way to restore the Constitution to being the law of the land, it can not be "sedition" to advocate such. It is only sedition to advocate the overthrow of the Constitution.

Quoted: Quoted: Let's say, tomorrow, Congress and George W. Bush decide it's time to go house-to-house and collect guns. Your unit is among one of the ones collecting guns nationwide, and also to suppress "terrorist gun owners" from revolting. Not just specific ones, all of 'em. You do as ordered. . . How-the-fuck is that respecting the Constitution and living by the will of the people? Federalist 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." The military's oath of enlistment binds one to uphold and defend the Constitution. If one were to perform some blatantly unconstitutional action such as gun confiscation, not only would they enforcing an invalid act, but they would also be breaking their oath of enlistment. If it ever happens that violent revolution is the only way to restore the Constitution to being the law of the land, it can not be "sedition" to advocate such. It is only sedition to advocate the overthrow of the Constitution.

It's not quite that simple:

"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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

What do you expect us to do when the orders of the POTUS contradict the Constitution, who makes that determination?  There is no easy answer, though you can rest assured the vast majority of us who swore that oath will not carry out any blatantly unlawful orders.  

It is sedition to advocate the overthrow of the Contitutionally elected government, as is evident in the USC.  

The assault weapons ban WAS put into law. I call this "infringement". I don't think the government will go door to door confiscating weapons any time soon, BUT they can financially devastate you for violating weapons laws. If liberals take office, they'll probably go after the assault rifles again.

I, for one, welcome my jackbooted overlords.  I am hoping that i may improve upon my status by selectively fellating the proper authorities.  I may even offer the services of my wife and children in an effort to gain favor with the local officials.  I am but the property of this country and am subject to all its laws, as this is a nation of laws, and laws are infallible and for the benefit of the people.  

I could never lift a finger against those in power as it may result in consequences set upon me, thus I will be happy to serve as best I can in any effort that may interrupt my enjoyment of the status quo.  

   mods please lock thread

Quoted: Quoted: Applied digital solutions is a company in Florida stock symbol adsx manufactures identity microchips for human implantation. They are being evaluated for implanting people traveling to countries where kidnap and ransom is rampant. The insurers are interested. Child abduction, anti terrorism, IRS fraud, counterfeiting etc could all be good arguments for implantation. The Whitehouse, democrat and republican have conducted many acts against the Constitution without reprisals.  Remember Waco? Blatant violation of using the military against citizens. Kent state. The estate tax. How did that ever pass? The government now hides legislation in other legislation, knowing that the public wouldn't pass it otherwise. We seem to be blind to it all. I'm just as guilty. I remember being pissed that the Davidians were being wronged, although I thought the followers were dumb for believing David Koresh was Christ. They still had the right to follow what they wanted. I didn't do anything. Why should I upset "my little applecart"? I am curious as to how far the ARFCOM society will let things go before they draw a line in the sand. Will it be after all guns are outlawed? How did blacks organize a million man march? I was impressed to see all those people taking time off from their jobs, and traveling to Washington. I don't want a big brawal to errupt on the board. I am just curious to see if anyone else is thinking that a line needs to be drawn. Or does it? Should we just live with it? In response to a successful revolution or coup, or if the government in power suspends the constitution outright & tries to turn the US into a dictatorship, ala Hitler in 30's Germany. That's it. I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemeies foreign and domestic. It's pretty clear to me what that means - start a revolution/coup/etc, I am obligated to fight against you. Period...

And you'll win, too.  Kill every last one...

Quoted: Quoted: I am faced with an elected government that the citizens 'have had enough with'... If the citizens have 'had enough' they would vote the bastards out (the Government in power must stand election every 2-4 years, remember...)... If they stay in, well then the citizens must not be angry enough...  How would I know that the 'rebels' aren't going to install a dictatorship, or socialisim, or who knows what else??? I wouldn't... So I would be faced with a legitimately elected 'bad' government that would be gone in 2-4 years, vs a bunch of citizens trying to override the constitutionally elected government  by force of arms... So, you're saying right here and right now, that's it's okay for politicans to violate the Constitution as long as they are legally in office? It's only after they don't end their terms of office that you support their overthrow? My friend, suspension of the Bill of Rights is A HELL OF A LOT MORE TRAITOROUS than staying an elected official longer than you are legally entitled to. For christ's sake, FDR did this (although, he was a socialist bastard that signed the NFA into law, also, so you see the evils that go hand in hand here?). But so long as the government still respects the constitution & lives by the will of the people as expressed in elections, I cannot support revolution and must fight against it. ...That's where you argument fails. Let's say, tomorrow, Congress and George W. Bush decide it's time to go house-to-house and collect guns. Your unit is among one of the ones collecting guns nationwide, and also to suppress "terrorist gun owners" from revolting. Not just specific ones, all of 'em. You do as ordered. . . How-the-fuck is that respecting the Constitution and living by the will of the people?

I don't consider that a realistic possibility...

I look at this logically - the only reason for them to start 'collecting guns', is if they have first decided to change our form of government.... Kind of a 'Night of the long knives' sort of thing - you sieze power, and then you take measures to maintain it.....

So, in my world, the 'big red line in the sand' is when the government in charge decides to change our form of government, by suspension of the constitution or whathaveyou....

I don't see a collection of guns scenario without aborgation of the constitution, arrest of political opponents, and the guy in charge declaring himself regent/supreme leader/lord protector/whatever....

My reasoning is this:
Any government that passes 'bad law' but leaves when the voters say 'get the fuck out' is just a bad government - we've lived thru 'em before, and SCOTUS or follow-on government has fixed things well enough...

A government that rises to the status of 'domestic enemy' is one that refuses to abide by the will of the voters, suspends election, or aborgates the entire constitution.

We have had 'constitutional crises' before that were resolved by the voters, the Supreme Court, or by time... Very few were resolved by force of arms....

If you want to see what you are describing above, then start a revolution, and it WILL happen... Remember, the only time Habeus Corpus has been suspended in US history, the only time the Supreme Court was told 'The Court has ruled, let them enforce it', was during time of rebellion - the Civil War....

Dave_A - what if they call it a "National Emergency"
A "temporary mesaure" for the safety and security of our country

We don't need to take up Arms.  We need those in government (local/state/fed) to cut with the greed & personal agendas.

Have you seen the headlines today/yesterday?

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_us/press_secretary_arrested_10

How about some fucking accountability!

Quoted: I, for one, welcome my jackbooted overlords.  I am hoping that i may improve upon my status by selectively fellating the proper authorities.  I may even offer the services of my wife and children in an effort to gain favor with the local officials.  I am but the property of this country and am subject to all its laws, as this is a nation of laws, and laws are infallible and for the benefit of the people.   I could never lift a finger against those in power as it may result in consequences set upon me, thus I will be happy to serve as best I can in any effort that may interrupt my enjoyment of the status quo.

dammit yek, you owe me a new fucking keyboard!!! I just snarfed Mt Dew out of my nose after reading this.  

Quoted: Applied digital solutions is a company in Florida stock symbol adsx manufactures identity microchips for human implantation. They are being evaluated for implanting people traveling to countries where kidnap and ransom is rampant. The insurers are interested. Child abduction, anti terrorism, IRS fraud, counterfeiting etc could all be good arguments for implantation. The Whitehouse, democrat and republican have conducted many acts against the Constitution without reprisals.  Remember Waco? Blatant violation of using the military against citizens. Kent state. The estate tax. How did that ever pass? The government now hides legislation in other legislation, knowing that the public wouldn't pass it otherwise. We seem to be blind to it all. I'm just as guilty. I remember being pissed that the Davidians were being wronged, although I thought the followers were dumb for believing David Koresh was Christ. They still had the right to follow what they wanted. I didn't do anything. Why should I upset "my little applecart"? I am curious as to how far the ARFCOM society will let things go before they draw a line in the sand. Will it be after all guns are outlawed? How did blacks organize a million man march? I was impressed to see all those people taking time off from their jobs, and traveling to Washington. I don't want a big brawal to errupt on the board. I am just curious to see if anyone else is thinking that a line needs to be drawn. Or does it? Should we just live with it?

I gotta call the on this one.

This whole post is so loaded that its pathetic.  Asking how people feel about the million man march and then saying somthing assinine like (I'm impressed to see all those people taking time off their jobs"  Nothing like begging for some small minded dipshit to say somthing clever like "dey is black so dey ain'ts gots no jobs to begin wit!".  This post is a troll post if I ever saw one.

The poster originally asks a question that only an idiot would actually answer (regardless of how they felt about th esubject), then moves on into racially loaded questions designed to bring out the KKK idiots that lurk about, and then it ends with the ever ubiquitious "I don't mean to start an internet brawl, I just want to really, really, really, know the truth....c'mon guys, help a dude out." bullshit.

Either this guy is  a liberal writer for a paper,or a  political action group looking for a bad guy to deamonize, a govt. agent, or an outright idiot. Pick one.

It suprises me how people can ask questions like these and try to pass them off as innocent inquiries.   sheesh.  how stupid do they think we are? (no need to really answer).

Chris

Quoted: Quoted: Federalist 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." The military's oath of enlistment binds one to uphold and defend the Constitution. If one were to perform some blatantly unconstitutional action such as gun confiscation, not only would they enforcing an invalid act, but they would also be breaking their oath of enlistment. If it ever happens that violent revolution is the only way to restore the Constitution to being the law of the land, it can not be "sedition" to advocate such. It is only sedition to advocate the overthrow of the Constitution. It's not quite that simple: "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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

But it is that simple. If the President issues an unlawful/unconstitutional order, you are not obligated to follow it. Period.

What do you expect us to do when the orders of the POTUS contradict the Constitution, who makes that determination?  There is no easy answer, though you can rest assured the vast majority of us who swore that oath will not carry out any blatantly unlawful orders.

I don't expect that many would (I'm in the military too), but you never know.

It is sedition to advocate the overthrow of the Contitutionally elected government, as is evident in the USC.

Hitler was elected. If an equivalent were elected POTUS and proceeded upon a similar programme (suspension of rights, etc), would it be sedition to advocate his violent overthrow? I say no.

Quoted: Applied digital solutions is a company in Florida stock symbol adsx manufactures identity microchips for human implantation. They are being evaluated for implanting people traveling to countries where kidnap and ransom is rampant. The insurers are interested. Child abduction, anti terrorism, IRS fraud, counterfeiting etc could all be good arguments for implantation. The Whitehouse, democrat and republican have conducted many acts against the Constitution without reprisals.  Remember Waco? Blatant violation of using the military against citizens. Kent state. The estate tax. How did that ever pass? The government now hides legislation in other legislation, knowing that the public wouldn't pass it otherwise. We seem to be blind to it all. I'm just as guilty. I remember being pissed that the Davidians were being wronged, although I thought the followers were dumb for believing David Koresh was Christ. They still had the right to follow what they wanted. I didn't do anything. Why should I upset "my little applecart"? I am curious as to how far the ARFCOM society will let things go before they draw a line in the sand. Will it be after all guns are outlawed? How did blacks organize a million man march? I was impressed to see all those people taking time off from their jobs, and traveling to Washington. I don't want a big brawal to errupt on the board. I am just curious to see if anyone else is thinking that a line needs to be drawn. Or does it? Should we just live with it?

1.

2.

It must be "assaultweb week" over here or something

Quoted: Might want to tread lightly on this topic.   4.) Posting comments or links in support of illegal activities including, but not limited to, threats against the life of any living person, doing harm to a state or federal official, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

Um-HMMMMMM.  My thoughts exactly.  

Yawn,

Boring and needs new material.

Quoted: It must be "assaultweb week" over here or something

Things must be slow over there these days.

Hey, it's not .gov you want to be worying about squire, it's pizza hut!

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

So, have he ACLU missed the point entierly, or are they just playing to their audience?

/PHil

Quoted: Just live with it.. American Idol is on now and NASCAR starts soon don't it?

It's like mind control or something...

Quoted: I, for one, welcome my jackbooted overlords.  I am hoping that i may improve upon my status by selectively fellating the proper authorities.  I may even offer the services of my wife and children in an effort to gain favor with the local officials.  I am but the property of this country and am subject to all its laws, as this is a nation of laws, and laws are infallible and for the benefit of the people.   I could never lift a finger against those in power as it may result in consequences set upon me, thus I will be happy to serve as best I can in any effort that may interrupt my enjoyment of the status quo.

Fuck yeah !!

Look at the Iraqis who fellate us.
They get authority/cop positions, new uniforms, new guns, good food/lodging and a salary.

Humility pays dividends my friend.

Its not the govt that you need to worry about, its BIGFOOT
Seriously though, the majority of Americans have never even shot a gun before, so how in the hell would they help start a revolt? Sad but true.

Tagged for entertainment purposes.



Oh and IBNT!

Quoted: <snip> I don't want a big brawal to errupt on the board. I am just curious to see if anyone else is thinking that a line needs to be drawn. Or does it? Should we just live with it?

I think a better question is: Do you have any pics of RachelF?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemeies foreign and domestic. It's pretty clear to me what that means - start a revolution/coup/etc, I am obligated to fight against you. Period...   Such a twisted sense of duty. My friend, when your bosses go collecting guns door to door, or suspend the Bill of Rights, then according to the Constitution (you know, that little document you're supposed to uphold), YOU AND YOUR BOSSES WILL BE THE DOMESTIC ENEMIES OF THE STATE. And, if someone comes to my house to violate a law, government or not, they will not be appreciated here. Take that as you wish. I doubt the Army will ever come knocking on your door asking for your guns - at least not under a legit elected government.... And here's a question for you: I am faced with an elected government that the citizens 'have had enough with'... If the citizens have 'had enough' they would vote the bastards out (the Government in power must stand election every 2-4 years, remember...)... If they stay in, well then the citizens must not be angry enough...  How would I know that the 'rebels' aren't going to install a dictatorship, or socialisim, or who knows what else??? I wouldn't... So I would be faced with a legitimately elected 'bad' government that would be gone in 2-4 years, vs a bunch of citizens trying to override the constitutionally elected government  by force of arms... Now, if we had politicians who had been defeated in an election refusing to give up their seats, or a President deciding that 8 years just wern't enough & he wasn't leaving, then that's another story, or similar... That would be different, but I doubt there would be any trouble getting such folks removed... It wouldn't rise to a citizen revolt, it would be handled internally... But so long as the government still respects the constitution & lives by the will of the people as expressed in elections, I cannot support revolution and must fight against it.

You have a lot to learn.

First, our government does NOT respect the Constitution or the Bill of Rights anymore. I could site a blantent violation on every sentence of both, that still holds legal in the eye of the courts today. Just the fact that the Supreme Court won't hear a 2nd Amendment case, because they would have to over rule most of the laws on the books, should tell you something.

Second, You took and oath to UPHOLD the CONSITUTION, NOT the decisions of elected officials. You are suppost to defend the CONSTITUION, not some jackass in Washington. As long as that jackass doesn't go against the Constitution or Bill of Rights, then there is no problem. But most of the politicians throughout our history should have been arrested for treason. But they aren't, the more they get away with, the more they will take.

Third, you are right about one thing, people will let this happen and people that talk like you will help a dictator come to power, because you think your oath to protect, means the politicians instead of the actual principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I took that same oath 26 years ago, and I was like you...blind to the truth and ignorant of it.

You wrote..."But so long as the government still respects the constitution & lives by the will of the people as expressed in elections, I cannot support revolution and must fight against it."

The Consitution is not respected and we do NOT live by the "will" of the people. This is a RESPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. First, you HAVE to abide by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, after that, it's up to the "will" of the people. If that "will" violates the Constitution or Bill of Rights at any time, it is void.

So you are between a rock and a hard place. People are stupid and will not learn, so they can vote with an informed opinion...Americans are ignorant and do not wish to learn...and YOU took an OATH to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. Not the "will" of the people.

So what's left? Revolution? It will never happen. It will have to get MUCH worse than it is today before soccer mom will support the changing of the politicians in Washington. And that's what we are really talking about here, the change of corruption. And when you change that corruption, which is our elected officials, you are going to get a bunch of the same. The problem will remain the same.

We have the best government system in history, IF it worked correctly. But we have too many people that are corruptible in these positions of authority, and it doesn't change.

So what's the answer? I won't even say I have a clue what it is. Vote?...yes. Call and bug the crap out of our corrupted officials?...yes. Try to change things through advocacy groups?...yes (but that buys in to the corruption too). Try to educate the public?...BIG YES! (this is where you are going to have the best bang for your buck) Open revolution?...never happen. The closest thing you'll see are riots like what's going on in France. And "that" might just put enough pressure on the officals to do the right thing.

So what are you going to do to DEFEND the Constitution when "our" elected officials flush it down the toilet over the illegal alien issue? Nothing...just like very other violation that you haven't defeneded against. Come off your high horse and see the truth for once.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I don't want a big brawal to errupt on the board. I am just curious to see if anyone else is thinking that a line needs to be drawn. Or does it? Should we just live with it? I think a better question is: Do you have any pics of RachelF?

I just happened to have this left on my webserver, with some other ARF photoshop crap from a while back.....



I was never a (RF) fan, but ya gotta give the people what they want...

When gov becomes tyrannical--they become the domestic enemy.  That's when YOU defend the COTUS and the people it protects--not the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX...

The author of this post wasted his 87th post on this!

Quoted: Quoted: Such a twisted sense of duty. My friend, when your bosses go collecting guns door to door, or suspend the Bill of Rights, then according to the Constitution (you know, that little document you're supposed to uphold), YOU AND YOUR BOSSES WILL BE THE DOMESTIC ENEMIES OF THE STATE. And, if someone comes to my house to violate a law, government or not, they will not be appreciated here. Take that as you wish. yeS...yES...YES! I just dont understand any other frame of mind....It's just disturbing

Except for those who are posting here from .gov computers, there isn't any other frame of mind here. However, discussing the question invites unwanted attention and can be readily (and deliberately) misconstrued at a later time. Furthermore, with a couple of common exceptions, even people (serious people, at least) I've heard discuss the issue can't give a comprehensive answer, because the potential varieties of provocation are so multifarious and their duration and intensity so contingent. I'd imagine that many people here have a bright line - and that we all know what it is - but that  that line is preceded by a broad grey area that allows a serious person to say only "I know the rights God gave me. I know the rights the Constitution guarantees me and my brothers and sisters and the powers it affords the government. I know my capabilities and I know my duty. I will have to trust my future judgment. One way or the other, you can write my answer on my tombstone or my commitment papers."

If we don't get beer sales on Sunday's I'm going to do something!

Probably buy more beer on Saturday.

will I still have TV during the revolution?

I don't think there is a single person here who would advocate the overthrow of our government.

Restoring it to its rightful role as defined in the Constitution of The United States is a different matter.

Just about all of us are appalled at how casually people in the government ignore the oath they swear to uphold.

er, ENGLISH ACCENTS??

Quoted: Might want to tread lightly on this topic.   4.) Posting comments or links in support of illegal activities including, but not limited to, threats against the life of any living person, doing harm to a state or federal official, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

da-da-damn, I thought this meeting was about the violent re-implementation of the U.S. Constitution... without the 17th amendment, the "born" part of the 14th, adding term limits...

just da-da-damn.  

Quoted: Quoted: In case any of you are unaware of United States Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, section 2385 here it is: Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government ~yadda yadda yadda~ It's called sedition, it's illegal.  Read it learn it know it.  If you want to talk treason or sedition you better do it face to face.   You mean the government made it illegal to overthrow the government?  I'm shocked.  Really...

Whodathunkit- Im not suprised the almighty .gov made it illegal to overthrow them, Runs contrary to out FF believes and words laid out however

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's say, tomorrow, Congress and George W. Bush decide it's time to go house-to-house and collect guns. Your unit is among one of the ones collecting guns nationwide, and also to suppress "terrorist gun owners" from revolting. Not just specific ones, all of 'em. You do as ordered. . . How-the-fuck is that respecting the Constitution and living by the will of the people? Federalist 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." The military's oath of enlistment binds one to uphold and defend the Constitution. If one were to perform some blatantly unconstitutional action such as gun confiscation, not only would they enforcing an invalid act, but they would also be breaking their oath of enlistment. If it ever happens that violent revolution is the only way to restore the Constitution to being the law of the land, it can not be "sedition" to advocate such. It is only sedition to advocate the overthrow of the Constitution. It's not quite that simple: "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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). What do you expect us to do when the orders of the POTUS contradict the Constitution, who makes that determination?  There is no easy answer, though you can rest assured the vast majority of us who swore that oath will not carry out any blatantly unlawful orders.   It is sedition to advocate the overthrow of the Contitutionally elected government, as is evident in the USC.

Chairborne, I would think that the judiciary layers would supercede. The president takes an oath to uphold the constitution, period. If he/she violates this, then his powers cease. I think the US populace needs to be more strict. Clinton was impeached. He should've been removed right then, not allowed to finish his term. This would send a message to successors that we aren't going to play around. We are the boss. The PRESS, if they want to retain the powers of the 1st amendment shouldn't allow the military to restrict their access to info. It's almost laughable what the press tolerates these days. It's a show. I remember the media on the beach filming the SEAL insertion during the first Gulf War. Total Hollywood. FAKE, rigged.

Quoted:    mods please lock thread

Murdoc, your signature speaks volumes. You don't lead all of us, pal. And asking the "mods to lock the thread"?? What are you afraid of? Are you military or Law EnfARCEMENT? Either way, we lead you.

CoC violation - "advocating the overthrow of the government."