Assault Weapons Ban

**Blue** · 09 Jan 09,, 03:38

[quote]

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

You guys are all too far from the ocean for me to feel comfortable living there, but if you ever need backup, sing out.

But aren't you afraid of the govts hurricane machine being used on you?

First a client state, then a kingdom by itself, then a republic, then an empire.

The Romans did have dictators at various periods, but it meant something different than how we use it today. In the ancient world (Rome wasn't the only nation to use dictators), a dictator was generally appointed when the nation faced a crisis that couldn't be solved by the usual political/administrative process.

Just like in Star Wars

)

) Actually I see the same thing happening now. FISA was a scary precursor to that, IMO. I figure the balloon will go up in the ME and Obama will have to be granted special wartime powers to "insure our freedom and security"

Boy that would really piss off Hillary wouldn't it?:P

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 09 Jan 09,, 04:42

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

But aren't you afraid of the govts hurricane machine being used on you?

Hurricanes are just nature's way of pointing out which trees you should have cut down last year. We don't get them bad in the Northeast, but I have ridden a couple of big ones out much further South; still didn't bother me. Of course, I'm probably better prepared for that sort of thing than the average citizen. We did already have a huge ice storm this winter. Some people were without electricity for almost a month! Again, primarily the result of not staying on top of tree cutting.

Its too bad that Katrina didn't come a year earlier. In 2005, Fire-Rescue International was in New Orleans. They couldn't have asked for better equipment, or a better bunch of people to run it.

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Just like in Star Wars

)

) Actually I see the same thing happening now. FISA was a scary precursor to that, IMO. I figure the balloon will go up in the ME and Obama will have to be granted special wartime powers to "insure our freedom and security"

Boy that would really piss off Hillary wouldn't it?:P

I'm starting to hear normally level-headed folks talking about "FEMA Camps" and the like. So, far-fetched or not, this scenario seems to be on a lot of minds.

I think Hillary would love it. As Secretary of State, she could instantly expand the DSS from a small cadre of extrememly competent professionals, to about a dozen "Internal Security Divisions," staffed mostly by illegal aliens and drug addicts.

**toemag** · 21 Jan 09,, 18:54

While you were sleeping, others have been weaving, didn't take long now did it.

I copied what you'll find about two thirds down the page of which I have provided a link.

# Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

Tony

**gunnut** · 21 Jan 09,, 19:10

Make the assault weapon ban permanant just might put the republicans back to power in congress in 2 years.

**~~dalem~~** · 21 Jan 09,, 21:26

For those that didn't pay attention: Told ya so.

-dale

**BadKharma** · 21 Jan 09,, 23:11

Originally Posted by dalem

For those that didn't pay attention: Told ya so.

-dale

Preaching to the choir brother.

**RadioPatrol** · 22 Jan 09,, 00:18

Originally Posted by dalem

For those that didn't pay attention: Told ya so.

-dale

yeah when a socialist gets elected what does one expect .....

**JOgershok** · 22 Jan 09,, 06:00

Take a gander at his plan to eliminate Don't Ask - Don't Tell. (Clinton) sandwiched in with his policy on Civil Rights

Civil Rights

CIVIL RIGHTS
"The teenagers and college students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry and cleaning somebody else's kitchen -- they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted; whether their civil rights would be protected by their government; whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs.... We have more work to do."
-- Barack Obama, Speech at Howard University, September 28, 2007

Support for the LGBT Community

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Now, I know I am preaching to the choir but this started on DAY ONE of this administration.

**RadioPatrol** · 22 Jan 09,, 10:39

Originally Posted by JOgershok

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Now, I know I am preaching to the choir but this started on DAY ONE of this administration.

It is no longer the military it is a social experiment ..........

those that have never served don't get it ........

**astralis** · 22 Jan 09,, 17:38

RP, Jogershok,

It is no longer the military it is a social experiment ..........

those that have never served don't get it ........

that would be me-- i don't really get it. how does sexual orientation affect unit coherence and combat ability? it seems to me that the de-segregation of the armed forces back in the 50s or allowing black soldiers into combat units in the civil war was a bigger social experiment.

but anyway, we're getting OT here.

**JOgershok** · 23 Jan 09,, 06:47

Originally Posted by astralis

RP, Jogershok,

that would be me-- i don't really get it. how does sexual orientation affect unit coherence and combat ability? it seems to me that the de-segregation of the armed forces back in the 50s or allowing black soldiers into combat units in the civil war was a bigger social experiment.

but anyway, we're getting OT here.

Perhaps, you never will. Isn't Shalikashvili, the same general who had a stroke and then decided that gays were OK in the military?

Didn't Shinseki decide that everyone would wear the beret? Generals are more politician than leaders. Maybe that is the drawing point to it all. They have been "taking it" so much that they believe the rest will enjoy if it is called the "norm."

**rick857** · 23 Jan 09,, 07:22

Originally Posted by astralis

RP, Jogershok,

that would be me-- i don't really get it. how does sexual orientation affect unit coherence and combat ability? it seems to me that the de-segregation of the armed forces back in the 50s or allowing black soldiers into combat units in the civil war was a bigger social experiment.

but anyway, we're getting OT here.

IMHO for many the issue is the emotional stability of the troops. Granted such concerns are typically stereotypical, but they remain ingrained.

Why don't most Americans want women in combat units? The typical concern centers on their emotional stability in a traumatic situation. But potential issues created by romantic involvement between soldiers (focusing on their romantic interest at the expense of the mission or their job) are also common.

What does that have to do with sexual orientation? Many see gays as more feminine than masculine in their emotional stability, not to mention their physcial capabilities. Thus the concern that they might not handle the trauma of combat well. Romantic involvement between same sex individuals has the same potential effect as romantic involvement between opposite sex individuals. Physical capabilities are also potential issues. Imagine the unit that gets in 6 replacements, learning once they are there that 2 are gay and rather lacking in upper body strength/endurance/etc. Would any commander in his right mind assign the less capable soldiers to anything but admin fluff jobs? Just think of all the complaints when gay soldiers are passed over for promotion because they've never worked in their assigned MOS, due to their lack of ability versus the "straight" soldiers.

So if gays are now to be welcome in the military do we treat them like men and leave combat arms open to them? Or do we treet them like women and bar them from combat arms? If we bar them from combat arms the concern might be that right before a deployment to an unpopular combat zone some percentage of a unit might suddenly decide it was gay, as a tool to avoid the deployment.

Another major issue is the higher percentage of HIV/AIDS in the gay community. How might the military make sure that the gay troops are avoiding these and other STDs? Will soldiers be willing to tend a gay soldier's wounds knowing that they are more likely to have HIV than other soldiers? In a combat zone it's fairly common for soldiers to donate blood to be used to care for their fellow troops. Will the capability exist to fully test that blood or will wounded soldiers be tormented with the possibility that a gay soldier might have given them blood and HIV?

I'm sure I missed some concerns, but I think you'll agree that this is enough to make the issue of open gays in the military one of concern.

Rick Cox

**JOgershok** · 23 Jan 09,, 09:55

Originally Posted by rick857

IMHO for many the issue is the emotional stability of the troops. Granted such concerns are typically stereotypical, but they remain ingrained.

Why don't most Americans want women in combat units? The typical concern centers on their emotional stability in a traumatic situation. But potential issues created by romantic involvement between soldiers (focusing on their romantic interest at the expense of the mission or their job) are also common.

What does that have to do with sexual orientation? Many see gays as more feminine than masculine in their emotional stability, not to mention their physcial capabilities. Thus the concern that they might not handle the trauma of combat well. Romantic involvement between same sex individuals has the same potential effect as romantic involvement between opposite sex individuals. Physical capabilities are also potential issues. Imagine the unit that gets in 6 replacements, learning once they are there that 2 are gay and rather lacking in upper body strength/endurance/etc. Would any commander in his right mind assign the less capable soldiers to anything but admin fluff jobs? Just think of all the complaints when gay soldiers are passed over for promotion because they've never worked in their assigned MOS, due to their lack of ability versus the "straight" soldiers.

So if gays are now to be welcome in the military do we treat them like men and leave combat arms open to them? Or do we treet them like women and bar them from combat arms? If we bar them from combat arms the concern might be that right before a deployment to an unpopular combat zone some percentage of a unit might suddenly decide it was gay, as a tool to avoid the deployment.

Another major issue is the higher percentage of HIV/AIDS in the gay community. How might the military make sure that the gay troops are avoiding these and other STDs? Will soldiers be willing to tend a gay soldier's wounds knowing that they are more likely to have HIV than other soldiers? In a combat zone it's fairly common for soldiers to donate blood to be used to care for their fellow troops. Will the capability exist to fully test that blood or will wounded soldiers be tormented with the possibility that a gay soldier might have given them blood and HIV?

I'm sure I missed some concerns, but I think you'll agree that this is enough to make the issue of open gays in the military one of concern.

Rick Cox

I think that hits the bases pretty well.

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 23 Jan 09,, 11:26

Originally Posted by rick857

IMHO for many the issue is the emotional stability of the troops. Granted such concerns are typically stereotypical, but they remain ingrained.

Why don't most Americans want women in combat units? The typical concern centers on their emotional stability in a traumatic situation. But potential issues created by romantic involvement between soldiers (focusing on their romantic interest at the expense of the mission or their job) are also common.

What does that have to do with sexual orientation? Many see gays as more feminine than masculine in their emotional stability, not to mention their physcial capabilities. Thus the concern that they might not handle the trauma of combat well. Romantic involvement between same sex individuals has the same potential effect as romantic involvement between opposite sex individuals. Physical capabilities are also potential issues. Imagine the unit that gets in 6 replacements, learning once they are there that 2 are gay and rather lacking in upper body strength/endurance/etc. Would any commander in his right mind assign the less capable soldiers to anything but admin fluff jobs? Just think of all the complaints when gay soldiers are passed over for promotion because they've never worked in their assigned MOS, due to their lack of ability versus the "straight" soldiers.

So if gays are now to be welcome in the military do we treat them like men and leave combat arms open to them? Or do we treet them like women and bar them from combat arms? If we bar them from combat arms the concern might be that right before a deployment to an unpopular combat zone some percentage of a unit might suddenly decide it was gay, as a tool to avoid the deployment.

Another major issue is the higher percentage of HIV/AIDS in the gay community. How might the military make sure that the gay troops are avoiding these and other STDs? Will soldiers be willing to tend a gay soldier's wounds knowing that they are more likely to have HIV than other soldiers? In a combat zone it's fairly common for soldiers to donate blood to be used to care for their fellow troops. Will the capability exist to fully test that blood or will wounded soldiers be tormented with the possibility that a gay soldier might have given them blood and HIV?

I'm sure I missed some concerns, but I think you'll agree that this is enough to make the issue of open gays in the military one of concern.

Rick Cox

In all candor, I find a certain percentage of heterosexuals to be effimenate, by my standards, and I have trained some who just can't keep up with the class syllabus. Should I ridicule their sexuality as the reason that they have fallen behind?

**JOgershok** · 23 Jan 09,, 12:02

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

In all candor, I find a certain percentage of heterosexuals to be effimenate, by my standards, and I have trained some who just can't keep up with the class syllabus. Should I ridicule their sexuality as the reason that they have fallen behind?

No but that does not mean that they pass because they attended. That is what we are being asked to do (give them a seat because they are a minority and pass them for the very same reason.)

If the job is translating (that is the claim of the OBAMA administration as to one of the compelling reasons) and the Arabs are not offended then by all mean bring on the translator who is gushing. I somehow believe the Arabs will kick about openly gay males but not the effeminate.