Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
Politics Of Hunting & Guns (NOT General Politics)
***i talked to an army soldier today about the 2nd ammendment****
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SidecarFlip" data-source="post: 787398" data-attributes="member: 39764"><p>In a nutshell, what I'm saying is simply, one, subordinates follow orders of their superiors. </p><p> </p><p>Case in point, I didn't agree with what our commanders ordered us to do in 'Nam, but we did it anyway, whether you agreed with it in principle or not, it was an order to be carried out..... and we carried out those orders.</p><p> </p><p>Secondly, if Obummer altered the Constitution or the wording of any Amendments, or the removal of any Amendment, service personnel would be obligated to carry out the orders of their commanders or face desertion, disgrace or a Court Martial.</p><p> </p><p>Consequently, you can read the fellow's comments (that you spoke with) a couple different ways, depending on how you want to interpret them.</p><p> </p><p>Upholding the Constitution as it is now written.......or.......upholding the Constitution as it may be altered.</p><p> </p><p>We are all aware that there is a large segment of the Liberal political group that wants to flush the Constitution as it's now written and remake it into a 'modern day' Constitution or should we say a Socialist Doctrine.</p><p> </p><p>....Why I maintain that dereliction of duty in the face of civil unrest, will rest solely with the individual because orders will come down to enforce any Constitution whether it's the present one or a new one.</p><p> </p><p>I've been there, many years ago and I still vividly remember the choice and the consequences of directly disobeying an order.</p><p> </p><p>If I was the soldier (in the service station) I probably would have answered in kind.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SidecarFlip, post: 787398, member: 39764"] In a nutshell, what I'm saying is simply, one, subordinates follow orders of their superiors. Case in point, I didn't agree with what our commanders ordered us to do in 'Nam, but we did it anyway, whether you agreed with it in principle or not, it was an order to be carried out..... and we carried out those orders. Secondly, if Obummer altered the Constitution or the wording of any Amendments, or the removal of any Amendment, service personnel would be obligated to carry out the orders of their commanders or face desertion, disgrace or a Court Martial. Consequently, you can read the fellow's comments (that you spoke with) a couple different ways, depending on how you want to interpret them. Upholding the Constitution as it is now written.......or.......upholding the Constitution as it may be altered. We are all aware that there is a large segment of the Liberal political group that wants to flush the Constitution as it's now written and remake it into a 'modern day' Constitution or should we say a Socialist Doctrine. ....Why I maintain that dereliction of duty in the face of civil unrest, will rest solely with the individual because orders will come down to enforce any Constitution whether it's the present one or a new one. I've been there, many years ago and I still vividly remember the choice and the consequences of directly disobeying an order. If I was the soldier (in the service station) I probably would have answered in kind. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
Politics Of Hunting & Guns (NOT General Politics)
***i talked to an army soldier today about the 2nd ammendment****
Top