The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I am calling out all those that are 45 years or older or even younger people that might live in the country and know better. I love my country but this isn't the same country as it was when I was little. Why should real Americans even think about giving up guns? I know there are some crazys out there but lets look at it like this. Look at Switzerland. Some might say it is an anarchy. No wonder most countries do not mess with them. They all pack heat . Something else they do is they trade with in their community.Look at their crime rate compared to the rest of the world. Like one might grow carrots and celery and another might grow cabbage and lettuce. SO on and so on through out their neighborhood. They trade with in their small community so even if their dollar fails they wont starve unlike us.This sort of reminds me of what it was like to grow up in the early 70s and live in other countries to boot. Fresh bread at your door and milk without growth hormones and pesticides. It would be nice to get back to ignoring left and right wingers and get back to America and what we were and should be.
Think about it!

This could be a fun thread.

Hooligan wrote:This could be a fun thread.

LOL! Calling me out, indeed...

I guess not.

Apparently, the way to create the only gun control thread on the internet with no responses is to mention the barter system. Interesting.

Hooligan wrote:I guess not.

Apparently, the way to create the only gun control thread on the internet with no responses is to mention the barter system. Interesting.

I'll trade you this lead for your gold.

Ok so here is the deal as far as I see it and sorry for not being able to respond for a while. What I have seen since the 80s and Regan has been rights being taken away. (remember they couldn't check your glove compartment without a warrant?) Today I see everything since then all the way to who we have in control now, as a sham compared to what I was brought up to believe we and what we are supposed to be. I thought we were supposed to be free. I thought we were Americans. I do not want to sound anti US because I am not. I love this country but it is a lie. Guns.... So there is some idiot that shoots a bunch of people in a movie theater..... There is an idiot or two that shoots people in his school.... There is the occasional idiot that shoots his father in law he doesn't get on well with in his hunting accident.... Soon people soon if you can't connect the dots you will be surprised. I was born in the 60s and the 70s was the great era. We or at least I could even in North Arlington, go across the street and be fed a P and B sandwich with a glass of milk and no one had to worry where I was or was there some nut case around or is he safe from school and the strange people doing the nasty these days. I know they were always there we were warned but it was a case of one out of a million not an excuse to disarm the American public. I would suggest do not get your carry permit and do not do anything to add your name to the long list of people carrying. Just trying to help and it really ticks me off to see what is going on.

Also it is the perverts and the crazys and the terrorists that are all great reasons besides our American duty to carry!

Kilmer72 wrote: I would suggest do not get your carry permit and do not do anything to add your name to the long list of people carrying.

Kilmer72 wrote:Also it is the perverts and the crazys and the terrorists that are all great reasons besides our American duty to carry!

So you think people should or should not get a carry permit?

I live in NJ, anyway, so I don't get the option.

Hooligan wrote:

Kilmer72 wrote: I would suggest do not get your carry permit and do not do anything to add your name to the long list of people carrying.

Kilmer72 wrote:Also it is the perverts and the crazys and the terrorists that are all great reasons besides our American duty to carry!

So you think people should or should not get a carry permit?

I live in NJ, anyway, so I don't get the option.

i think he's suggesting, in a rather rambling and disjointed way, that the Government cannot be trusted to protect a list of CCP holders once the black-helicopter crowd takes over. You know... Red Dawn...

Countertrey wrote:the Government cannot be trusted to protect a list of CCP holders once the black-helicopter crowd takes over.

Um, hate to break it to you CT, but the black-helicopter crowd took over long ago. They are just tightening the noose.

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:the Government cannot be trusted to protect a list of CCP holders once the black-helicopter crowd takes over.

Um, hate to break it to you CT, but the black-helicopter crowd took over long ago. They are just tightening the noose.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is, indeed, a real threat to liberty, it is true... But, so long as the oath of office sworn by our military obliges them to defend, not a man, but a concept, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, I will take comfort.

Countertrey wrote:so long as the oath of office sworn by our military obliges them to defend, not a man, but a concept, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, I will take comfort.

I like the optimism, but I don't share your comfort.

Hooligan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:so long as the oath of office sworn by our military obliges them to defend, not a man, but a concept, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, I will take comfort.

I like the optimism, but I don't share your comfort.

That's sad for you. I understand your skepticism... But, it's not merely optimism... It's knowledge of the character of our military. The one thing that makes the US military different from virtually every other one in the world, is that oath. All other major militarys swear an oath to an individual, or group of individuals... A nation, a president, a monarch, etc. Ours is to a set of ideas. There are exceptions... There always are... But, most believe when they take that oath... And afterwards.

They WILL do the right thing.

Countertrey wrote:

Hooligan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:so long as the oath of office sworn by our military obliges them to defend, not a man, but a concept, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, I will take comfort.

I like the optimism, but I don't share your comfort.

That's sad for you. I understand your skepticism... But, it's not merely optimism... It's knowledge of the character of our military. The one thing that makes the US military different from virtually every other one in the world, is that oath. All other major militarys swear an oath to an individual, or group of individuals... A nation, a president, a monarch, etc. Ours is to a set of ideas. There are exceptions... There always are... But, most believe when they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

They WILL do the right thing.

I'm treading carefully on this topic, because I do respect our military men and women, but the hurricane Katrina fiasco left a lasting impression on me. A region under martial law, occupied by the National Guard, not only allowed, but enabled the police to throw the Constitution out the window. I feel like whatever decisions are made at the top will get carried out, one way or another.

Hooligan wrote:I feel like whatever decisions are made at the top will get carried out, one way or another.

I tend to agree. Dissenters would be quickly weeded out, and by the time it became obvious that the enemy was domestic, it would be too late.

I would propose the I have some experience in military culture. There is certainly no history of threats to civilian rule here, but I believe that there is a strong well of moral courage that would compel our military to "do the right thing"...

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:the Government cannot be trusted to protect a list of CCP holders once the black-helicopter crowd takes over.

Um, hate to break it to you CT, but the black-helicopter crowd took over long ago. They are just tightening the noose.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is, indeed, a real threat to liberty, it is true... But, so long as the oath of office sworn by our military obliges them to defend, not a man, but a concept, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, I will take comfort.

I listened as my son, Redskin Dan v1978, took the Oath of Allegiance on a hot morning in 2003. Begins, best I remember, "I pledge to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Significant. Under Hitler the German Army pledged loyalty to The Leader. The US military follows a constitution that puts ultimate power in the hands of elected officials. Dislike their decisions? Vote them out. Our military does not make the laws. Our political tradition goes back to 17th Century disputes in England, at the end of which Parliament made it clear that it, and only it, could pass the taxes that paid the Army and the Navy.

Hooligan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Hooligan wrote:
I like the optimism, but I don't share your comfort.

That's sad for you. I understand your skepticism... But, it's not merely optimism... It's knowledge of the character of our military. The one thing that makes the US military different from virtually every other one in the world, is that oath. All other major militarys swear an oath to an individual, or group of individuals... A nation, a president, a monarch, etc. Ours is to a set of ideas. There are exceptions... There always are... But, most believe when they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

They WILL do the right thing.

I'm treading carefully on this topic, because I do respect our military men and women, but the hurricane Katrina fiasco left a lasting impression on me. A region under martial law, occupied by the National Guard, not only allowed, but enabled the police to throw the Constitution out the window. I feel like whatever decisions are made at the top will get carried out, one way or another.

The oath taken by the National Guard is not the same as the one taken by the Federal military, nor their reserves. Also, the National Guard has a law enforcement mission that the Federal military cannot have (Posse Commitatus). Aside from that, the Guard did what they were supposed to do in NO... so, can you be more specific regarding the vague aspersions you are casting upon them?

The Guard goes through the same basic training as regulars and reserves, at the end of which they all take the same oath, at least nowdays. A governor has some authority over the state's National Guard, but the first oath is to protect and defend the US Constitution.

As best I remember, the worst problem with Katrina was

(1) Badly designed and engineered levees. Compare to the Netherlands, which outs a lot of effort into holding back the North Sea.

(2) Could not evacuate people quickly enough. Should have started sooner?

(3) Louisiana National Guard infantry battalion and logistic unit had been deployed to Iraq. They were scheduled to return as Katrina built up...a NY battalion switched places to get the Louisiana troops on the first available planes.

(4) By law, and maybe by FEMA short-sightedness, the regulars at Ft Hood, in Texas, were kept at the base. Hood has a lot of big trucks (high-riders), strange armored vehicles intended to ford small streams, helicopters, and disciplined Soldiers who could have been trusted to get the sick and elderly from hospitals and nursing homes. There has to be some allowance for rare emergencies.

(5) For comparison, New Jersey, New York State, New York City, and the US Government did well with Sandy...a nor-easter that hit New Jersey and New York at high-tide.

welch wrote:The Guard goes through the same basic training as regulars and reserves, at the end of which they all take the same oath, at least nowdays. A governor has some authority over the state's National Guard, but the first oath is to protect and defend the US Constitution.

As best I remember, the worst problem with Katrina was

(1) Badly designed and engineered levees. Compare to the Netherlands, which outs a lot of effort into holding back the North Sea.

(2) Could not evacuate people quickly enough. Should have started sooner?

(3) Louisiana National Guard infantry battalion and logistic unit had been deployed to Iraq. They were scheduled to return as Katrina built up...a NY battalion switched places to get the Louisiana troops on the first available planes.

(4) By law, and maybe by FEMA short-sightedness, the regulars at Ft Hood, in Texas, were kept at the base. Hood has a lot of big trucks (high-riders), strange armored vehicles intended to ford small streams, helicopters, and disciplined Soldiers who could have been trusted to get the sick and elderly from hospitals and nursing homes. There has to be some allowance for rare emergencies.

(5) For comparison, New Jersey, New York State, New York City, and the US Government did well with Sandy...a nor-easter that hit New Jersey and New York at high-tide.

Welch, your comments regarding the mission and oath of the guard are simply not quite accurate. I have some experience here... there are minor, but significant differences in the oath, due to the allegiance that it obligates to the Governor of the State. The Guard, unless federalized, is also NOT subject to limitations imposed by posse commitatus. This is a MAJOR point, as the Guard can be used in Law enforcement... Federal troops may not. Did you know that the Governor can decline federal missions, short of a specific Presidential declaration? Unless the Guard units are formally "Federalized", the Governor gets to determine what missions the units will, and will not, accept. In other words, unless the units are ordered to active Federal Service, their missions are what are directed by the Governor... period.

Regarding (3) above, The full complement of the 225th Engineer Brigade of the Louisiana Army National Guard (approximately 5000 soldiers, uniquely skilled to provide disaster assistance) was available, and was engaged. Any claims that the Engineers lack the combat skills of Infantry in order to provide "security" are false, as the engineers must train to some proficiency as "leg" infantry, as "fight as infantry" is the 4th mission of the Engineers. Claims regarding the "handicap" this caused were, in my opinion, nothing more than a cynical attempt to deflect responsibility for an under-reaction by the Governor of LA at the time. In terms of obtaining additional Guard troops for security, the then Governor needed only to make a request to neighboring states governors, and troops would have been made available and sent. This scenario occurred just this past winter, in Massachusetts, when that state was overwhelmed by a paralytic snow storm that buried Boston. A request by Duvall Patrick for assistance was granted by Paul Lepage of Maine, who responded by sending his own National Guard engineers to help.

Countertrey wrote:can you be more specific regarding the vague aspersions you are casting upon them?

I was alluding to the gun confiscation that went on during the Katrina aftermath. Years ago I spoke to a guardsman who was deployed to the region who had no issue with the confiscations, because armed people were dangerous. That rubbed me the wrong way.

Hooligan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:can you be more specific regarding the vague aspersions you are casting upon them?

I was alluding to the gun confiscation that went on during the Katrina aftermath. Years ago I spoke to a guardsman who was deployed to the region who had no issue with the confiscations, because armed people were dangerous. That rubbed me the wrong way.

It would rub me the wrong way as well... But, I need to point out (this goes to my response to Welch, above) the Guard was on STATE orders at the time. The Guard, in it's state role, is not the Army. It is a tool of the Governor. This is not simply nuance... It is a major difference.

Today, law enforcement caught and killed one of the two psycho killers who escaped from Dannemora. Guy had a shotgun, probably taken from one of the hunter's cabins they have been living in for the last three weeks. This state looks down on people who want to "hunt" with an AK-47 or the civilian version of the M-16, but imagine if a hunter had stashed a few heavy weapons in a cabin. The worst damage seems to have been a bullet-hole in an RV, maybe shot from a deer-rifle held by the other killer. Much worse with heavy weapons.

welch wrote:Today, law enforcement caught and killed one of the two psycho killers who escaped from Dannemora. Guy had a shotgun, probably taken from one of the hunter's cabins they have been living in for the last three weeks. This state looks down on people who want to "hunt" with an AK-47 or the civilian version of the M-16, but imagine if a hunter had stashed a few heavy weapons in a cabin. The worst damage seems to have been a bullet-hole in an RV, maybe shot from a deer-rifle held by the other killer. Much worse with heavy weapons.

A person shouldn't be allowed to own a semi-auto rifle because a felon might break in and steal it?

Hooligan wrote:

welch wrote:Today, law enforcement caught and killed one of the two psycho killers who escaped from Dannemora. Guy had a shotgun, probably taken from one of the hunter's cabins they have been living in for the last three weeks. This state looks down on people who want to "hunt" with an AK-47 or the civilian version of the M-16, but imagine if a hunter had stashed a few heavy weapons in a cabin. The worst damage seems to have been a bullet-hole in an RV, maybe shot from a deer-rifle held by the other killer. Much worse with heavy weapons.

A person shouldn't be allowed to own a semi-auto rifle because a felon might break in and steal it?

That is his premise... Never mind that NO ONE "stashes" quality weapons in a cabin... I have no idea what he means by "heavy" weapons, as no one has any use for Ma Duce in a hunting cabin... not even considering that automatic weapons are illegal without a nearly impossible to get Federal permit...