wants to violate their oaths.
"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting
and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or
slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.
"See, I'll let you keep YOUR guns; all you have to do is forget that oath to the Constitution and do what you're told."
Lawdog has expanded on his '2nd Amendment as cake' post. A part:
Come your
"compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a
silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying
a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?
In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we
felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We
"compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms
License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch
of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.
In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE
CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a
legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely
imported in 1967.
Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?
You want to know how badly the military is screwed?
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said
Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the
military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded –
and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask:
“Does it really have to be that high?”
Attention Dempsey: if you actually have to ask that question, then you're unworthy of the uniform you wear and the rank you hold.
Were you always a crapply little politician in uniform, or did you become this way?
2 comments:
"...the Pentagon will ask: 'Does it really have to be that high?'"
My reading was that Dempsey was making a 'slippery slope' argument. He wasn't saying saying he wants to drop the requirements, but that's what the end result would be after the policy was implemented and it was deemed there were too few women qualifying.
He was complaining that he would have to answer questions about why any standard still existed.
As for Generals as politicians, they have the same instincts as judges -- lawyers with political connections become "your honor" instead of lawyer/politicians, members of two groups held in low repute.
Post a Comment