Rant "...die for your country at 18..." STFU

Bobbytwonames

Trigger Man!
5,000+ posts
Aug 28, 2018
10,589
-544
I have read your initial post...you brought up a 2 tier system for exercising one's rights...you show me where the founders wanted some to be more equal in the expression of any of the rights cleary laid out then everybody else...I agree with hiding behind others service as a reason for feeling entitled to our rights is wrong...just as those that serve have many reasons why they did/do, there are many reasons why people don't/can't...none of those reasons on either side grants more or less depth to their rights...
What about the ⅗'s of a man part? Doesn't that show a two class system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimi77

dragon.breath

Senior VIP Member
10+ year member
Nov 22, 2007
877
206
We ended up fighting a civil war over that two tier system. Then spent over 100 years trying to make everyone equal. We don’t want to go that way again, do we?
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #48
You're in here advocating to restrict people's freedom, but I'll bite, what precisely did you do for my freedom? Would you say I'm more or less free now than I was before you did whatever you did? Did you actually take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States? Have you read it? Do you understand what it means?

Beyond that every man is supposed to register with selective service at 18 years old which means they are eligible to be drafted, handed a machine gun, and sent off to some meat grinder. Furthermore, all able bodied men between ages 17 and 45 are also by law part of the unorganized militia who can be called up by the legislature of the United States or the legislatures of any of the several states to repel invasion or suppress insurrection if needed. Source USC §246 and most states have their own provisions in law or their constitutions for their legislatures mobilizing their militias.

But either way, the entire premise of our nation is that all men are created equal, which is a concise way of saying that there is no lord, king, or knight who has more rights than the next bloke just due to gynecological happenstance of coming from the right family or having his nose up the arse of someone who did. Or in other words, if the King of England has some right that is a right of all free men, given by God.

I would argue that voting is far more dangerous than any infantry armaments and we should probably start aggressively restricting who is allowed to partake in that.
You're still missing the point if you think I'm advocating for restricted freedoms. Please reread my intial post until you understand.

Please don't think responding to our post is a deflection from my initial point.
What did I personally do for your individual freedom? Nothing. Can you name a single person who solely contributed to your freedom?

I took an oath to defend the country. I don't remember the exact quote. Are you splitting hairs here?

I have not read the constitution. Many would lie and say they have. I have read pieces of it, but I have not read it top-to-bottom.

I don't know what you were getting at with your last few paragraphs. Sounds like you were ranting at that point.

I agree! All men are absolutely created equal! What we choose to do after we are created is what sets us apart.

I don't know why I have to say this again when nobody has raised a point against it: Those trained with weapons should have easier access to those weapons.
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #49
A lot of safe gun


Classism is a real actual term that exists

I would really advise you to educate yourself on the meaning if you really want to have this discussion
How is "classism" relevant to this thread? Be specific.

Is it "classism" to suggest properly trained individuals should have more access to the things they are trained on? Answer that directly.

What should I educate myself about? You're crying wolf because your feelings got hurt. You're the type of guy who cries "TYPO" because you don't have any counterpoints.
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #50
We ended up fighting a civil war over that two tier system. Then spent over 100 years trying to make everyone equal. We don’t want to go that way again, do we?
What two-tier system are you talking about? Are you trying to compare slavery to veteran status?
...seriously?
 

dragon.breath

Senior VIP Member
10+ year member
Nov 22, 2007
877
206
Not really. Just pointing out how bad the whole 2 tier system can get if you let it.

the second amendment is part of the bill of rights for American citizens. You start letting one group of citizens have stronger rights than the rest of the citizens, things can go sideways in a hurry. In ways neither of us can imagine right now.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: audiobaun

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #52
Not really. Just pointing out how bad the whole 2 tier system can get if you let it.

the second amendment is part of the bill of rights for American citizens. You start letting one group of citizens have stronger rights than the rest of the citizens, things can go sideways in a hurry. In ways neither of us can imagine right now.
Please answer directly.
 

dragon.breath

Senior VIP Member
10+ year member
Nov 22, 2007
877
206
I don’t know how much more of a direct answer I could give you.


Thank you for confirming the fact that you are just trolling.
 

hispls

CarAudio.com Veteran
5,000+ posts
10+ year member
Sep 10, 2009
12,803
1,210
What did I personally do for your individual freedom? Nothing. Can you name a single person who solely contributed to your freedom?
Glad we cleared that up. Now you can stop using "fighting for your freedom" to virtue signal. I would suggest that by every measure virtually everybody is less free today than we were 100 years ago and no military adventure in the last 120 years has done anything to improve any of our freedom.
I'm advocating for restricted freedoms.
Except for:
Those trained with weapons should have easier access to those weapons.
So how much more "Shall not be infringed" do people with training get than everybody else? Do you believe we should give easier access to the ballot box to those who have had proper training in civics and understand the history of our republic and our system of government? Should only those with the proper training in theology be able to worship at the altar of their choice? Should only those with proper legal training have the right to a fair and speedy jury trial?
I have not read the constitution. Many would lie and say they have. I have read pieces of it, but I have not read it top-to-bottom.
Appreciate your honesty there at least, and I suspect you would be in the vast minority of government employees if you had actually read and attempted to understand what it was you were taking an oath to support and defend. This is an absolute shameful state of affairs IMO and if you're a man of your word and taking a solemn oath means anything to you I'd encourage you to take half an hour out of your life and read the document.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: audiobaun

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #55
Glad we cleared that up. Now you can stop using "fighting for your freedom" to virtue signal. I would suggest that by every measure virtually everybody is less free today than we were 100 years ago and no military adventure in the last 120 years has done anything to improve any of our freedom.

Except for:

So how much more "Shall not be infringed" do people with training get than everybody else? Do you believe we should give easier access to the ballot box to those who have had proper training in civics and understand the history of our republic and our system of government? Should only those with the proper training in theology be able to worship at the altar of their choice? Should only those with proper legal training have the right to a fair and speedy jury trial?

Appreciate your honesty there at least, and I suspect you would be in the vast minority of government employees if you had actually read and attempted to understand what it was you were taking an oath to support and defend. This is an absolute shameful state of affairs IMO and if you're a man of your word and taking a solemn oath means anything to you I'd encourage you to take half an hour out of your life and read the document.
You're painting me as anti-liberty and latching onto a tangent. Is the title unclear? I'm sick of people using "...you can die for your country at 18..." as an argument against age restrictions, which is why I stated that multiple times and titled the thread as such. It's a dumb comparison used by dumb people because they think it sounds good. It's about as clever as saying "veterans have killed people so I should be able to kill people!".

The point everyone is getting butthurt about (that those trained with weapons should have easier access to weapons) was NOT about restricting access to weapons; it was that IF weapons rights are restricted, there should be exemptions to those restrictions.

This is a separate topic, but since you brough up useless analogies, I'll add a few: Should we stop making people pass a test to get a driver's license? How about pilots? Should you be able to hunt without hunter's safety? What about scuba certification? Should certifications be abolished altogether? Why or why not?

I get you're specifically bringing up amendments and I am not, but the constitution also guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is not upheld. What are the limitations on liberty and pursuit of happiness? Are driving, flying planes, hunting, scuba diving, et cetera not liberties? What if they make you happy?

Rights have restrictions and limitations. I don't agree with it, but I acknowledge it, and I know I can't change it. You're going to have to get over that fact if you want to have a realistic conversation about rights. Nobody will take you seriously no matter how loudly you scream "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!". With that in mind, and assuming everyone has access to the proper training, tell me why those trained with weapons should not have easier access to weapons.
 

metalheadjoe

Unapologetic prick
10+ year member
Oct 21, 2007
1,456
735
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
Glad we cleared that up. Now you can stop using "fighting for your freedom" to virtue signal. I would suggest that by every measure virtually everybody is less free today than we were 100 years ago and no military adventure in the last 120 years has done anything to improve any of our freedom.
Would you prefer the phrase "signed a contract stating I am willing to fight and die for your freedom should the need arise"? Is that easier to downplay? Honest questions.
 

Jimi77

Junior Member
Sep 17, 2017
729
274
You show me anywhere in the founding documents where it's implied that there should be a 2 tier system of rights...our rights ARE NOT granted by the government btw...they are inalienable...
Haven't been on here in forever and really jumped on board to ask some audio questions, but couldn't resist a good political debate.

So I take it you missed the part about women not being able to vote or blacks being 3/5ths of a person. Furthermore, regardless of weather we own guns and who and what type of guns we access to, clearly we live in a multi-tiered society. Ever visit an Indian reservation? I see no reason why suddenly when it comes to assault rifles, automatic weapons, etc that there can longer be tiers in our society. For example, my kids go to better school than kids from the hood and our representatives in DC send their kids to private schools that are much better than the public school my kids attend.

So as somebody who has served this country and received combat training on the firearms in question, I see no reason what-so-ever, that I shouldn't have greater access to said weapons. As a matter of fact, I would say the 2nd Amendment even implies that I should have greater access to certain firearms vs joe schmuckatelly citizen who owns multiple assault rifles to make up for some deficiency in his pants.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As a (former) member of the regulated Militia, I certainly see no reason why those of us served in the well regulated Militia shouldn't have different access than Joe citizen, just like Joe citizen doesn't have access to our bases, classified information, c4 and hand grenades.

I for one could certainly do without these "fake" Patriots that have been popping up out of the woodwork like crazy since Dubya invaded Iraq. The idiots with their "tactical" vests and Grunt Style t-shirts. Every time I ask some a-hole in a Grunt Style t-shirt and ask what branch he served in, they didn't f'n serve - makes me want to kick them straight in the ballz. Nothing worse than a fake grunt. Hell, I won't wear a "Grunt" t-shirt because I was in the Air Wing - have some f'n respect (for grunts). They're just like the a-holes with their AR's "defending" the constitution, but where the fawk were they when the bullets were flying? It's easy to wear the shirt and take an AR to the range, when somebody else made the sacrifices and did the dirty work.

Semper Fi my brothers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: metalheadjoe

Jimi77

Junior Member
Sep 17, 2017
729
274
I'm a 22 year Active Duty retired veteran. While serving I was trained on many weapons and weapon systems. When being trained how to use weapons I learned the weapons history, design, limitations and abilities. Before being able to utilize the weapon I had to learn how to disassemble and assemble it. Additionally I had to learn how to properly load it, aim it and shoot it while maintaining strict safety. I had to shoot well enough to qualify to use the weapon for its intended purpose. I was presented multiple scenarios in which the weapon could need to be utilized and had to demonstrate my decision making ability in varying situations. Finally I learned how to make sure the weapon was safe when finished firing it then I had to clean, maintain and store the weapon. I was then responsible for the weapon and its use. I was issued a card with my certification on the weapon and I had to requalify on the weapon every year or before deploying in the event the weapon was to be used. My point to all of this? My opinion is that in order for anyone to own a weapon I feel as if the person should firstly pass a back ground check and then they should attend similar training in order to own, operate and ensure its safe operation. You know..... similar to getting your driver's license. To make things even safer...maybe require people who own/operate a weapon to require some sort of liability insurance. If a self defense issue arises you're trained, your weapon should operate and in the event of an "accident" you have insurance. If self defense if warranted you have proof that you're qualified to operate the weapon.
You sir a fawking genius!!! Rodek for POTUS or a least put him in charge of ATF.
 

Jimi77

Junior Member
Sep 17, 2017
729
274
Not really. Just pointing out how bad the whole 2 tier system can get if you let it.

the second amendment is part of the bill of rights for American citizens. You start letting one group of citizens have stronger rights than the rest of the citizens, things can go sideways in a hurry. In ways neither of us can imagine right now.
Clearly, one group of citizens have stronger rights than the rest of us (us being the middle the class). They're called the wealthy, the 1% (although the 1% of the 1% would be a better description). Conversely there are citizens who have lesser rights, privileges, etc - the mentally ill or retarded for example, the poor, or even Brittney Spears up until a few months ago. There has always been and always will be those with greater privileges and those with lesser privileges. I'm not sure why we hold up equality as some sort of ideal when we so clearly don't practice it as individuals or as a society.
 

hispls

CarAudio.com Veteran
5,000+ posts
10+ year member
Sep 10, 2009
12,803
1,210
IF weapons rights are restricted, there should be exemptions to those restrictions.
The exemption is if some traitor wants to come try to disarm me I'll send them straight to Hell or die trying.
Should we stop making people pass a test to get a driver's license? How about pilots? Should you be able to hunt without hunter's safety? What about scuba certification?
Yes, yes, yes. We have drivers licenses now and that doesn't seem to do much by way of keeping stupid people off the roads. Have you ever met anybody who couldn't pass a drivers license test? I don't think any airline is going to let anybody fly their planes without whatever training they deem adequate and I'm fairly confident anybody with the money to buy, keep and maintain a private aircraft isn't going to figure it out as they go. Absolutely any free man should have the right to hunt or fish to feed themselves with no strings attached. I don't know a thing about scuba licenses but I don't see any need for me to try to restrict people from strapping on a tank and swimming under water.
the constitution also guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No it doesn't, and it's doubly sad that you still couldn't be arsed to take 20 minutes out of your life to read the document to which you swore a solemn oath to protect and defend.
Would you prefer the phrase "signed a contract stating I am willing to fight and die for your freedom should the need arise"?
Every man who signs up for selective service does this. I'm not downplaying your civil service, but let's not pretend you or anybody else alive today has done anything that has improved my freedom.
the 2nd Amendment even implies that I should have greater access to certain firearms
Another one who fought for my freedom and took an oath to support and defend a document they never read.
It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." not "the right of the standing army to bear arms". In what world would a bunch of people who just took up arms against the standing army of a tyrannical government think that it was super important to enshrine into law a """right""" for only the standing army to be armed?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: spokey9

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Latest threads