Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

fireman836 wrote:
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

for the most part they have legitimate cause and alot of the things they have listed would be unlawful orders so with that being said the odds of ever being issued those order's would be pretty slim. Except for #4 there have been several times when states have called a state of emergency for natural disaster's (ex. Hurricane Katrina where they had soldiers in place to protect neighborhoods from looter's).

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/military ... orders.htm

acguy45 wrote:

fireman836 wrote:
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

for the most part they have legitimate cause and alot of the things they have listed would be unlawful orders so with that being said the odds of ever being issued those order's would be pretty slim. Except for #4 there have been several times when states have called a state of emergency for natural disaster's (ex. Hurricane Katrina where they had soldiers in place to protect neighborhoods from looter's).

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/military ... orders.htm

Only in certain States. VA is quite clear that rights can only be suspended by the VA legislature (both houses) pass it and the governor signs it. Unless they meet the emergency measures which requires a super majority, the restriction of rights in VA can not go into effect until July 1st like all normal laws. The VA constitutions also requires that those rights be suspended for a defined period of time, although that point is someone debatable based on the wording. The sections are not large, go read them. We debated that on here a while back.

VA does not allow martial law to be declared. To do so at the Federal level would remove the Republican form of government which the Federal government is required to provide to VA. Unless the VA constitution is followed or amended, it is illegal to do so in this state.

gunderwood wrote:I hear you, but...

shall I limit my speech because the government *could* use it against me in the future? IMHO, that is the same as condemning people for OC because it could cause an incident, despite it being their right.

If the people are afraid to exercise their rights out of fear of retaliation (loose their job, clearance, harassment, etc.), do they really have them?

You are absolutely right. I guess I never thought about it at that angle. Because I am not scared of the gubment or anything else for that matter. There is only one thing on this planet that I fear and it isn't the gubment. Those aren't the only reasons I won't discuss those topics, one biggie is drama.... I hate drama. You discuss those topics and it ALWAYS turns into a p!ssing contest.

Unkn0wN wrote:

gunderwood wrote:I hear you, but...

shall I limit my speech because the government *could* use it against me in the future? IMHO, that is the same as condemning people for OC because it could cause an incident, despite it being their right.

If the people are afraid to exercise their rights out of fear of retaliation (loose their job, clearance, harassment, etc.), do they really have them?

You are absolutely right. I guess I never thought about it at that angle. Because I am not scared of the gubment or anything else for that matter. There is only one thing on this planet that I fear and it isn't the gubment. Those aren't the only reasons I won't discuss those topics, one biggie is drama.... I hate drama. You discuss those topics and it ALWAYS turns into a p!ssing contest.

To which I have no recourse but to agree with you. Some of use enjoy it though.

gunderwood wrote:In fact, if you are military, your oath requires what OK says.

That's true if you are a commissioned officer in the military but not quite all of it if you have enlisted.

For anyone who served as an enlisted member of the US military since 1789, their oath also included the statement, "and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me" or the statement "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

R/Kurt

ksanftleben wrote:

gunderwood wrote:In fact, if you are military, your oath requires what OK says.

That's true if you are a commissioned officer in the military but not quite all of it if you have enlisted.

For anyone who served as an enlisted member of the US military since 1789, their oath also included the statement, "and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me" or the statement "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

R/Kurt

Yes, but the UCMJ requires them to disobey unlawful orders or they can be held accountable for those actions.

gunderwood wrote:

Unkn0wN wrote:

gunderwood wrote:I hear you, but...

shall I limit my speech because the government *could* use it against me in the future? IMHO, that is the same as condemning people for OC because it could cause an incident, despite it being their right.

If the people are afraid to exercise their rights out of fear of retaliation (loose their job, clearance, harassment, etc.), do they really have them?

You are absolutely right. I guess I never thought about it at that angle. Because I am not scared of the gubment or anything else for that matter. There is only one thing on this planet that I fear and it isn't the gubment. Those aren't the only reasons I won't discuss those topics, one biggie is drama.... I hate drama. You discuss those topics and it ALWAYS turns into a p!ssing contest.

To which I have no recourse but to agree with you. Some of use enjoy it though.

I will add this though. Those of us who like debating don't always debate our actual positions. Playing devil's advocate is not that uncommon. It allows you to understand your actual position better by attempting to attack it. Sometimes successfully, which should make you go searching.

On this forum alone, I know I have not argued consistently across all threads and have played the devils advocate a few times, but I enjoy it so...

ksanftleben wrote:

gunderwood wrote:In fact, if you are military, your oath requires what OK says.

That's true if you are a commissioned officer in the military but not quite all of it if you have enlisted.

For anyone who served as an enlisted member of the US military since 1789, their oath also included the statement, "and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me" or the statement "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

R/Kurt

that is true about how UCMJ can jack you.
It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

pretty much damned if you do damned if you don't, it's not what you know it's what you can prove

Pardon my igorance of your states laws,So in the event of a natural disaster here the military wouldn't be called in ? an if they were caleld in the state would have total control over there actions?

acguy45 wrote:

ksanftleben wrote:

gunderwood wrote:In fact, if you are military, your oath requires what OK says.

That's true if you are a commissioned officer in the military but not quite all of it if you have enlisted.

For anyone who served as an enlisted member of the US military since 1789, their oath also included the statement, "and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me" or the statement "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

R/Kurt

pretty much damned if you do damned if you don't, it's not what you know it's what you can prove

Agreed. It is easy for me to say because I don't have to make that choice. In theory, joining an organization which simply says they won't follow unlawful orders (like you said, whatever that means to the government) shouldn't be an issue. As I pointed out earlier, practically, it probably isn't the best of ideas.

acguy45 wrote:Pardon my igorance of your states laws,So in the event of a natural disaster here the military wouldn't be called in ?

It isn't that they couldn't, but rather that it is against the VA constitution and US constitutions to do so without following the prescribed method in the VA constitution. In theory. In practice, they will do whatever they please most likely. Like confiscating guns during Katrina.

Gotcha thanks for clearing it up.

I can't wait to retire for sure it's a saying we have "we defend freedom we don't practice it"

acguy45 wrote:Gotcha thanks for clearing it up.

I can't wait to retire for sure it's a saying we have "we defend freedom we don't practice it"

I like that saying, at least the way I take it. Being self-critical can help individuals and societies improve. Nothing wrong with it, but the "uber-patriots" will nail you to a cross for even suggesting we have, still do and will make mistakes. However, while our country makes mistakes, overall our story is heavily biased for good, IMHO.

Edit: Does that make me a centrist? I don't think the country is evil and appologize for it every chance like Obama, but I recognize that we could do things better, unlike the right-wing talking heads? This is still the greatest country on earth, but our politicians have done some pretty bad things and we let them get away with it.

gunderwood wrote:

gunderwood wrote:To which I have no recourse but to agree with you. Some of use enjoy it though.

I will add this though. Those of us who like debating don't always debate our actual positions. Playing devil's advocate is not that uncommon. It allows you to understand your actual position better by attempting to attack it. Sometimes successfully, which should make you go searching.

On this forum alone, I know I have not argued consistently across all threads and have played the devils advocate a few times, but I enjoy it so...

Oh, I know that some people enjoy it. I will admit, I love reading other people going back and forth, but I don't like doing it myself. It provides great entertainment.

agreed, We have the best country on earth and I love what i do. It's like any other occupation your always gonna have some gripes with the management.

Unkn0wN wrote:
Oh, I know that some people enjoy it. I will admit, I love reading other people going back and forth, but I don't like doing it myself. It provides great entertainment.

I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

gunderwood wrote:

KaosDad wrote:

gunderwood wrote:
If the people are afraid to exercise their rights out of fear of retaliation (loose their job, clearance, harassment, etc.), do they really have them?

Sad, but true. Saw this discussion recently on LinkedIn. Both ARFCOM & GOA have groups there. GOA only has 121 members and ARFCOM has only 12. Why? One of the discussions was that folsk thought it would hurt their chances of landing a new gig if they advertised those groups on their profile. I also think it's because no one would think to search the groups directory for those sorts of things, but why not? Are GOA, ARFCOM & VGOF not simply "professional organizations"? Of course they are. But the plain & simple facts are that employers & potential employres DO check out your on-line presence and what you say/post there. Personally, as someone who has made hiring decisions in the past, that's a bad policy and I never did it.

Looking for unlawful behavior is one thing. AFAIK, OK have not suggested or required any of their members to actually break the law. In fact, if you are military, your oath requires what OK says. Many other public positions are similar, you gave an oath to uphold and keep the Constitution, not subvert it. That is all OK is pointing out AFAIK. Being part of a 2nd Amendment group shouldn't disqualify you...posting on your blog about illegal drugs, etc. is fair game IMHO.

Lawful activity should be fine (even if you don't particularly agree). Unlawful is a different matter.

Just to be clear (as, who knows, one day we might work together) - we are in 100% agreement. All I was pointing out was that I know of employers who do look at what is posted on-line and allow that information to color their decisions.

KaosDad wrote:Just to be clear (as, who knows, one day we might work together) - we are in 100% agreement. All I was pointing out was that I know of employers who do look at what is posted on-line and allow that information to color their decisions.

No worries. I argue passionately, but I do tolerate others. I've pointed out that Bill and I get along well despite disagreeing about some LE/Police state (depending on POV) stuff. Bill and I disagree, but we respect and understand where the other is coming from. I understand that working the street is a hard job with lots of risk and it puts you in contact with bad people often. I don't think that is an excuse to violate civil liberties, but I understand how if you did that of a long time you might wasn't a little flexibility with them at times.

Case in point. Bill offered to do some work on my Ruger. We have disagreed, but I have no worries letting him work on my gun and he was still willing to. Disagreement, but tolerance.

The key is respecting others and tolerating that they disagree with you. Resorting to name calling, calling people idiots makes it virtually impossible to agree to disagree.

/Bill, sorry to pick on you again. I'm putting more rounds though that Ruger before letting you work on it.

First, I am neither pro nor con OK, but these men and women have pledged to do one thing -- live up to the oath of their office which is upholding the Constitution. Notwithstanding the fact they have spelled this out with some detail - nothing more and nothing less -- they have stated that they will do their duty and uphold their sworn oath...

So, all of you speaking out against them are you not essentially validating the picture of evil portrayed by the left...or is that not a fair question?

Oh, I might ask another simple question -- how many here would honestly like to see your elected representatives uphold their oath of office -- which by the way is the very same one the Oath Keepers swear...

zephyp wrote:Oh, I might ask another simple question -- how many here would honestly like to see your elected representatives uphold their oath of office -- which by the way is the very same one the Oath Keepers swear...

I do!

Please vote in this poll:
general-discussion/our-affiliation-with-oathkeepers-t5596.html

So, what I'm hearing is that everyone wants to put the OK emblem back in the mix and put their link back in the left menu - and leave it to each individual member to make the determination whether or not they wish to publish their affiliation with them?

If this is what the majority of forum members want, then I have no problem with that. I just didn't want to have our forum linking to a "Fringe group" - and I haven't really done enough research at this point to make a personal determination of whether OK should be considered as such or not.

It is my opinion that we, as a forum, need to pay close attention to not only what we say and how we say it (as individuals - not only here, but in the entire "Internet Cloud"), but also how we are perceived as a whole entity (VGOF).

Another link to the poll. Please vote:

general-discussion/our-affiliation-with-oathkeepers-t5596.html

I would suggest you only vote in the poll if you would be eligible for it. I am not, so I will refrain from voting as to if this site should have a OK badge. I was simply defending the concept for those that liked it. In theory it should be ok, in practice it may not be.