Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

^^^^^

Just a couple of reactions to the story above.

The Navy I served in will disagreed with the statement "You have every right to disobey an order if you think it is illegal," says Army spokesman Nathan Banks. "But you will face court-martial, and so help you God if you are wrong. Saying something isn't constitutional isn't going to fly."
Sorry Mr Banks, You of all people should know that you have given up that right voluntarily when you enlisted, along with many others like Free Speech for example. Illegal orders are a grey area but having the RIGHT to disobey any order, is not true.

Why is this once again coming coming back to a race issue. I dont' care if the man is purple, his administration is screwing things up worse than any modern day POTUS. The race card is their defense because it's easy. Resorting to the use of race as a crutch, is an admission of your own lacking of arguement skills and also puts your own people on notice that they're idiots and can't compete on a level playing field. I'd feel like some uneducated moron because that's the best argument I could muster up. I don 't hate dislike him for being black, If you stop and look for a second I'm sure you'll find many more legit reasons for for hating him. I'd hate a white replublican male if he ran the country into the ground the way Obama has.

Not all gun owners aspire to be part of some apocolypse fearing, militia joining, type citizen. The liberals just lump us all together, once again out of laziness. They sensationalise every statistic and twist things for their agenda regardless of the truth.

Both sides have extremists be it left or right.

Rick, if you have something to be gained for linking to Ok, especially if it's a way of keeping this site running, I say do it. I do appreciate you asking for our opinion but it is your site and your choice what you allow to be here.

DWinter wrote:Rick, if you have something to be gained for linking to Ok, especially if it's a way of keeping this site running, I say do it. I do appreciate you asking for our opinion but it is your site and your choice what you allow to be here.

I don't think we have anything to gain here at VGOF by linking to OK. We don't have any sort of link exchange arrangement with them. I'm just trying to offer links that are useful to our members, as well as provide some personality to our site by offering the NRA, VCDL, etc badges in our profiles. There is an OK badge there as well (well, there *was*, and likely will be again) that people can add to their profiles to identify themselves as a "Proud member of OathKeepers".

I appreciate that I have leeway to run the site as I please, but I also understand that this site wouldn't be here without its members.

zephyp wrote:...if you are a leftist socialist...you aren't one of those -- are you? Say it aint so...

Army veteran. NRA Life Member. Former ACLU Member. Current government employee.

I used to serve this country in uniform and now I do it as a civilian. My political leanings aren't relevant.

michaelyw wrote:

zephyp wrote:...if you are a leftist socialist...you aren't one of those -- are you? Say it aint so...

Army veteran. NRA Life Member. Former ACLU Member. Current government employee.

I used to serve this country in uniform and now I do it as a civilian. My political leanings aren't relevant.

I think he was just yanking your chain.

However, isn't this a political topic?

michaelyw wrote:

zephyp wrote:...if you are a leftist socialist...you aren't one of those -- are you? Say it aint so...

Army veteran. NRA Life Member. Former ACLU Member. Current government employee.

I used to serve this country in uniform and now I do it as a civilian. My political leanings aren't relevant.

Gee, I can say exactly the same thing excepting the ACLU and my political leanings are relevant...

@Garrett - actually I wasn't kidding...

michaelyw wrote:

zephyp wrote:...if you are a leftist socialist...you aren't one of those -- are you? Say it aint so...

Army veteran. NRA Life Member. Former ACLU Member. Current government employee.

I used to serve this country in uniform and now I do it as a civilian. My political leanings aren't relevant.

Man - you were doing so well all the way up to that ACLU part. Former because you had an epiphany, I hope?

Seriously though - I don't think you can come in here and post the way you did on your first post and not expect to get jammed up.

By the way - you were the deciding vote.

And, I extend an apology to Michael for being judgmental...not very Christian of me.

I am proud to be an Oath Keeper. I'll match michaelyw's credentials and raise them, minus the ACLU. I didn't find anything questionable in OK's literature or on their website. What I find beyond questionable are the host of Constitutional violations perpetrated by the police and Guard during Katrina. Those folks violated their oaths and obeyed unlawful orders to violate basic civil rights apparently without question. Don't think that it couldn't happen in your town or state.

As an "everyday joe" I'll share my opinion.

From the view of most sheeple, the Oath Keepers seem like a scary militia group or fringe outfit spreading fear. But they aren't from what I've gathered. I did feel that way until I checked out the website and thought they seemed like an alright group.

I feel that VGOF has every right to affiliate with the OathKeepers, but since I am not MIL/LEO or anything, whether or not they choose to keep that affiliation does not directly matter to me. I will continue to support the website either way, but would respect and admire the decision to retain affiliation with them more than cut ties.

I hope the admins make an informed and not an ideological or fear-driven choice, but I will support their decision, as it is their website.

I have to agree with TBob here, and everyone who voted, thank you. The OK badges and link have been added back into the site here at VGOF.

It seems (to me) that the goal of OathKeepers is to remind those who take an oath exactly what that oath means. It's not just a bunch of words that you raise your right hand, repeat after me and words words words - let's have cake!

The Oath is to be taken very seriously and in a lot of cases, I think people don't take the time to reflect and comprehend the words coming out of their mouths.

To "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States" means to also "Support and Defend the PEOPLE of the United States". If it were ever to come to a time where our government made a drastic move such as blockading cities or confiscating guns, those who have taken an oath will be the ones who are told to execute the orders. Oathkeepers tries to remind those who have taken an oath that the "End Customers" of their oath are the American people, and that blindly following tyranny in government is contradictory to the oath that they have sworn.

Hey! I was down for maintenance and when I got back voting was over!!!!

I also agree with TBob, As a retired LEO and former Military I think I have a right to voice my opinion as I support any and all oath's that I have taken. I will not support anyone that lump's actions that are wrong from some LEO's and Military into all Military and LEO'S.Anymore then I would condem anyone on this board because of their Race / Color or Creed or choice of Religion.
Bill

All,

I know that we have had a long and healthy discussion here but I wanted to share what has happend on June 25th 2010. I will not go into detail here I will let you read the document for yourself, but to me these ICE Agents are taking the first steps in upholding the Constitution of the United States and speaking out against their leaders and the way they are ignoring the Rule Of Law.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/259-259-vote-no-confidence.pdf

Here is from the Union page itself

http://www.iceunion.org/union/3377/news/ice-union-votes-no-confidence-assistant-secretary-morton

How many of these ICE Agents are a member of the OathKeepers I do not know maybe none of them, but they are at least trying to do the right thing.

Will it matter to this administration probably not?

Very interesting. Thanks for the info and the links.

TBob wrote:Very interesting. Thanks for the info and the links.

I just thought that some folks might want to know that there are other ways to go about it; That's all.

I bet this will never see the light of day on the major news channels now will it?

Fox at least has been showing it regularly so it is getting out to the public.

allingeneral wrote:

michaelyw wrote:

zephyp wrote:...if you are a leftist socialist...you aren't one of those -- are you? Say it aint so...

Army veteran. NRA Life Member. Former ACLU Member. Current government employee.

I used to serve this country in uniform and now I do it as a civilian. My political leanings aren't relevant.

Man - you were doing so well all the way up to that ACLU part. Former because you had an epiphany, I hope?

Unlike many people, when I swore to support and defend the constitution I wasn't picking and choosing which parts to ignore and which parts to support. I joined the ACLU because of their strong history in supporting civil liberties. Prior to Heller, it didn't bother me that the ACLU didn't support 2nd Amendment rights because it was an undecided issue at the federal level.

After the Heller decision, I hoped they would reconsider their stance and embrace 2nd Amendment rights as one more civil liberty that they should be supporting. No such luck.

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

I canceled my membership and wrote them a letter explaining why. From time to time I still get mail from them, asking me to rejoin. Once they stop picking and choosing which constitutionally protected rights they support, I'll be happy to rejoin.

michaelyw wrote:Prior to Heller, it didn't bother me that the ACLU didn't support 2nd Amendment rights because it was an undecided issue at the federal level.

Really? The 2nd amendment wasn't worth defending or wasn't a civil right until Heller? That is the problem with liberals, they have way to much faith in the SCOTUS. Somehow nine justices matter more than the Constitution itself. If those nine justices said you could only eat one cheeseburger a month, they would be out turning in family and neighbors for grabbing a second big mac.

Sorry, the SCOTUS is not sovereign. They are a branch of government just like the others and if they fail to do their job properly we the people and the States should ignore them. Just like politicians, a justice or two could occasionally use some tar and feathers.