doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com TRASHED THREAD #502

Wrong thread Little Creek. (kidding)

On the other side of craigd's argument I don't believe Justice Scalia served in the military. Anyone doubt his commitment to the Constitution? Or think less of it?

______________________
Everybody dance now!

Craig, reference Kerry, I always thought the back and forth between his campaign and Bush's reference military service was stupid. Both served, both received honorable discharges. Good place to leave it. But Kerry & Co stepped on it big time, IMO, by trying to make an issue of Kerry's service (I remember his "reporting for duty!" speech at the Dem convention) vs Bush's. I once heard Bob Dole--a man with a military record that's pretty hard to question--remark that he'd told Kerry he should have been a "quiet hero". IMO, too bad Dole didn't use Clinton's draft dodging record to beat him over the head. But that was before 9/11, and other than veterans, no one really cared.

I recall a couple libs, on another board, stating that Bush had gone "AWOL". I was in the Reserves at the same time as Bush (late 60's), and actually had similar "irregularities" on my record: missed drills, missed Annual Training. In my case, it was because I moved from Iowa to DC (to take a job with CIA). It was 1968 and I had less than 6 months left before my enlistment was up. I visited 2 or 3 Guard and Reserve units out there. Because of Vietnam, those units were full strength and they had no interest whatsoever in welcoming me for the few months I had left. But everyone who was in the Reserves back then understood that. When I reenlisted several years later, post-CIA, those "irregularities" were right there for everyone to see. No one ever questioned them. It never came up when my paperwork went in for a Top Secret clearance; never came up when my commanding officer put me in for a direct commission; never came up when I was selected to command units on a couple different occasions.

All that being said . . . sure, there are veterans who are anti-hunting and anti-gun. It is their RIGHT to hold that position, whether we agree with them or not. But that does not change the fact that by serving, they made a commitment to the very Constitution that gives us the right to support gun ownership--but which also gives them the right to oppose it.

Re the comment on Justice Scalia, further down the line, I had to look up his bio. He came of age when the draft really meant something--as I did. However--and the same is true for me--back then, it was pretty much an automatic deferment if you went to college. (I joined the Guard in high school, and my fellow college-bound classmates thought I was nuts because I didn't have to do it.) But Scalia (in addition to being a very dedicated hunter) ended up with perhaps the very best platform from which to defend gun rights. A lot of people, unless they're somehow disqualified from serving, have the opportunity to join the military. In contrast, only a very few are ever going to sit on the federal bench (let alone the Supreme Court!), where they have an even greater opportunity to demonstrate their support for the Second Amendment.

Larry, it was interesting to read your remembrance of the draft. I attended college and law school both on student deferment. I did do four years of ROTC in college though, and had an infantry officer's job awaiting graduation.

I am in a law firm with about 40 lawyers with offices in Atlanta and here in my home town. As far as I am aware, I am the only one in the group who ever experienced military service.

The cessation of the draft and the volunteer Army has to my mind been instrumental in the liberalization of America and the "hate America first" attitude to the point that you and I may no longer recognize it as we remember from our formative years. Only military (or other
public, like maybe the Peace Corps) service or the threat of the draft obligation can truly give one the stake in America that makes the best citizens. JMHO...Geo

Though I'd admit I don't agree with quite all the rest that you said, I appreciate the time and effort in your reply.

On the previous page, you mentioned that an honorable discharge has 'proven' some higher authority to make decisions on the 2nd, admittedly to oppose it. I would hope you're not saying that we should accept their decisions, and leave it at that.

Since you expanded a bit on what you feel the value of an honorable discharge is for the example in question. Possibly you can see that once politicized, the commitment seems to more to the self than the Constitution. I also think there's a difference between swearing an oath for the purposes of resume building, and actual words and actions of commitment. As soon as that good place to leave it, the discharge, was crossed, the budding politician testified before congress and continues to show to this day that commitment seems to mean bending, skirting around and evolving of the Constitution. All I was offering was an opinion example that it may not be the best advice to blindly follow a blanket qualification. If one advocates for an anti-hunting and anti-gun regulator and judicial appointer based on the status of their military discharge, couldn't that reasonably call into question an individual's commitment to the 2nd?

I've mentioned it a few times in the past and stand by my appreciation for your service to the country.

Ahem,
So you guys like the 30" BSS for Clays ,or what??
franc

Good point Franc. But it is Larry who continues to keep straying off topic with his silly idea that certain citizens have a stronger commitment to the 2nd Amendment or the rest of the Constitution. Now the short list of Super-Citizens has expanded from veterans to Supreme Court Justices who never served in the Military.

Of course, Larry is wrong again, but he will move Heaven and Earth to ever avoid admitting being wrong. There are both veterans and non-veterans who strongly support the Constitution. And there are both veterans and non-veterans... and even Supreme Court Justices... who work to undermine the Constitution. That's why we're all so concerned about who gets picked to replace Antonin Scalia. But Larry is now making excuses for the veteran John Kerry. Of course he has the Right to attempt to gut the 2nd Amendment. And we have the right to be very critical of that. Veterans fought and died to preserve those rights, and real veterans who understand what their service was for do not think they have some superior level of rights that other U.S. citizens do not have. Now don't get me wrong. There are certain citizens who get extra Rights. Some minorities get Affirmative Action preferences. Atheists get to stifle the religious expression of others. A lot of Democrats get to vote more than once, such as Hamilton County Ohio Board of Elections worker Melowese Richardson who admitted voting for Obama 6 times. Hell, even dead Democrats often get to keep voting while veterans who go on to become felons lose the right to vote. There are also veterans who go waiting and wanting for medical care at VA Hospitals while illegal aliens get immediate attention at any E.R.

If gjw seriously thought I was trashing veterans, I respectfully say he has as much a reading comprehension problem as Larry. I already said I respect the service of our vets, and I said I respect Larry's service. I certainly respect gjw's service and I respect the extra level of 2A commitment he and his wife have made as Life NRA members. But I do not respect the egotistical bloviator Larry. I'm surprised he hasn't told us he dated Jackie Kennedy and makes award winning wine like his older brother. And I do not respect anti-gun Trolls like Ed who come here and pretend to be gun guys. Like I said, I don't care if Ed was a Medal of Honor winning 4 Star General. In my opinion, he has repeatedly proven his commitment to weakening the 2nd Amendment which would only serve to hasten the day that we can't even own and shoot sporting clays shotguns. Larry wants to give Ed (and John Kerry) a podium.

Craig, the only thing I said on the previous page about what an honorable discharge has proven is this:

"But anyone who's come out of the military with an honorable discharge has proven something others have not." Just to clarify, since you apparently didn't/don't understand: What they have proven is that they made a commitment to their country (which only a relative few make these days), and that they have followed through on that commitment. That commitment is to support the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The honorable discharge is proof positive of satisfactory completion of that commitment.

And Keith, you also have reading problems. Not a "stronger" commitment, but a DIFFERENT commitment. Does that make a veteran a "super citizen"? Nope. Makes him a veteran. And not making any excuses for Kerry. Pretty sure he's never posted here. But if he does, until Dave decides to pull the plug on him--and that goes for Ed too--then they both have rights under the Constitution to free speech. That amendment comes right before the Second. Expect even you can count and figure that one out, Keith. Dave's the one who gives us this podium. Whatever Ed has proven to you, why insist on butting in when there's a legitimate discussion of sxs for sporting clays going on--to which, apparently, you had nothing to contribute? Hey, Dig just started a post--to which you even contributed--about defending hunting rights. Opens the door to you to start one where you can talk about defending gun rights all you want. And people can go there expecting to hear about gun rights. At which point you're playing by the rules to say whatever is on your mind.

You see, it's this way: An old French philosopher named Voltaire once supposedly said (although he never actually did): "I may not believe in what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Pretty much how I feel about Ed or Kerry or anyone else who chooses to post here. The part about staying on topic . . . well, that's just common courtesy. Which some folks clearly lack. But hey, they're also into misrepresenting the statements of others--so what can you expect?

Inferiority complex bothering you that badly, Keith, for not having made the same commitment veterans have made? That even John Kerry made? I guess I can understand that. They served. You didn't. Too late to make up for that now.

I now officially swear off further mud wrestling with the pig. You only get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

My father was career Navy and I grew up in bases all over the country. I also served 4 years in the Marines with a year in Vietnam in 1965-66.I can state without reservation that there are "veterans" that I would not trust for 5 seconds with my back turned.There are vets worthy of respect,most I believe, and others deserving a prison term if not a firing squad.

Hiya Lar,
If I ever get invited over to your place, I know highly doubtful, will you be okay if I tramp around on your furniture exercising my first amendment right? Maybe we should remember who's house this is before we get the french to defend our right to free speech.

As to reading and comprehension problems, you said, 'the debate on what constitutes support of the 2A. Military service clearly does'. It's back just a page or two. You 'clarification' is kind of like back peddling.

Anyway, if you'd rather not start your own thread, why open the door? No, I don't think you're a mud wrestling pig, but if the pen fits jump in and wallow?

Oink Oink Larry! That ought to be something you can comprehend.

craigd beat me to the punch on your silly and erroneous statement about Ed having First Amendment rights here on this BBS. He also succinctly corrected you on your accusation that I have the same sort of reading comprehension problems as you. FYI, the 1st Amendment is to protect political speech, and this is a private BBS owned and operated by one Dave Weber, who has already stated in the past that he does not want or appreciate anti-gun comments being posted on his site. Dave can and has censored whomever and whatever he wishes, and he has totally silenced Ed on at least three occasions. So far, he has not done that to me, even when you cried to him like a whiny little girl. As to your statement not made by Voltaire, are you telling us that you'll defend to the death the right of Ed or John Kerry to make anti-gun and anti-hunting statements... but that very same staunch defense of free speech does not extend to keith? Sure looks that way Larry.

That's what I meant earlier today when I said "Veterans fought and died to preserve those rights, and real veterans who understand what their service was for do not think they have some superior level of rights that other U.S. citizens do not have." Contrast that with your ridiculous idea that Ed or John Kerry have unlimited rights to trash the 2nd Amendment, but I don't have any right to say anything that the Great Larry Brown does not approve of. Have you noticed that Ed bailed on you here Larry? Several of us told you he was a self-serving Troll. The last thing Ed really wanted was a discussion of SC guns. Ever hear the term "Useful Idiot" Larry? Thanks for being one and for proving our point.

Now let's address your ridiculous parsing of words concerning my egregious error of suggesting that you just might consider your "DIFFERENT" commitment to the 2A as a "STRONGER" commitment. Tell us Larry, just what did you mean by "DIFFERENT"? You also called it "the TRUE commitment to the Second Amendment. Remember this?



So lets analyze this like any normal person with a brain might. According to you, your commitment via military service is a "500 pound gorilla" that never gets mentioned. And it is the only one with "any real TEETH". And it is the "TRUE" commitment! Any normal person who read those things just might conclude that you consider your commitment stronger than mine, or any other person who did not serve in the military. Then when you go on to ask about the "inferiority complex" you incorrectly assume I must have for not serving in the military... well it becomes obvious that you must feel that you are superior and that your commitment is stronger. No, you didn't say those exact words. But it is very obvious that you have NOT been saying that your "DIFFERENT" and "TRUE" commitment with "real TEETH" is either a weaker or equal commitment than those who are not veterans. If it ain't equal and it ain't weaker... what does that leave us to conclude???... unless you are dealing with a self-described wordsmith who will say and do anything to ever avoid admitting to being wrong.

You really are a piece of work Larry.... the Energizer Bunny of bloviating jerks.