Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry.

Gat, I could fill ten pages of this forum with things of this nature but I'll make this short and sweet since I'm headed to the range in a few minutes to get some shooting in. The term "Freedom Of Religion" simply means we're not forced to worship in the same house of worship "Her Majesty The Queen" worships in for fear of being thrown in prison if we disobeyed. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot inscribe something with a religious reference - and for you to take it to this extreme is just plain stupid. Our own Supreme Court has a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging up - but that doesn't mean only Christians get to file suit, now, does it? The majority of our Founding Fathers founded our country on Biblical principals. Political correctness gone overboard has covered most of that up, and this is nothing more than a case of political correctness gone overboard as well.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again - when you begin contributing to other posts related to firearms and quit attacking others for their beliefs, maybe I'll not see you as a troll.

_________________________________________
You can polish a turd to a fine shine, but it's still a turd.

gatlingun6 wrote: The fundamental LAW of our nation — the basis of our liberties — is the Constitution, not the Bible. Indeed, it is the Constitution that elected officials are sworn to uphold.

Ah, and this gets at the very heart of this discussion and very big problem. As a Christian I do not particularly need to see Biblical references in the Constitution. I would much prefer to see men and women with Godly character in office who are sworn to uphold our Constitution. We arent seeing very much of that right now (Godly character OR upholding the Constitution). The reason our Founders wanted separation of church and state wasnt to guarantee our religious freedom. Thats accomplished by the 1st Amendment. They wanted separation because they knew based on history of the Catholic church that far too much power, much of it corrupt, could be and had been exerted over the citizenry.

The Constitution's "power" is limited by the men and women sworn to uphold it who sit in powerful positions. The people's ability to exert power via the Constitution is limited by un-Constitutional laws made by the corrupt legislators - those not upholding what they are sworn to do. The solution is to put honest men and women in office and ensure that legislation passed is IAW the Constitution.

Regarding God's word -- this is a completely different situation. It doesnt matter who speaks or wields it. There is life and power in God's word and His Word needs no help whatsoever from men or women. This is backed up again and again by the Word itself...

USMCGunner wrote:I'm not a very religious guy, but I say F-'em. The line has to be drawn somewhere. If not, the godless libs and the ACLU will keep pushing and pushing.

As far as the Fox article, who in the hell is this spokesman?

Capt. Geraldine Carey, a Marine Corps spokeswoman, said Tuesday in an e-mailed statement that "we are aware of the issue and are concerned with how this may be perceived." Carey said Marine Corps acquisition officials plan to meet with Trijicon to discuss future buys of the company's sights. The statement did not say what the nature of those discussions would be.

Sure as hell doesn't sound like the Corps I left behind. THAT Marine Corps would have responded with too f-ing bad, the scopes get the job done. OR if you have an issue with it, then you can grind it off the rifle you pick up to help do the job.

Separation of church and state is cool for some things, but the people carrying these weapons depend on their faith to get through the day and the next day after that. We need to remember that.

IF the old USMC was as insensitive, intolerant and bigoted as your post implies, Thank God that Corps is dead and buried forever! Of course that is a huge IF. Nevertheless, congratulations to the men and women from all creeds, faiths, ethnic groups, racial groups, political persuasions and nationalities who have maintained the best traditions of the USMC while turning away from what you seem to think was typical of the old Corps.

No wonder it was a Marine officer in Al Anbar Province who concluded that merely killing Sunni insurgents was a bankrupt strategy that was bound to fail. On his own initiative he decided and implemented a program where he invited Sunni insurgents to talk rather than fight. From that gutsy step, talking to men who possibly had American blood on their hands, came the "Sons of Iraq". General Petraeaus went on to capture and doctrinally bless this same strategy, known as disaggregation, in the capstone joint Counter Insurgency Operations Manual. It's the same strategy in operation today in Afghanistan and Pakistan (AFPAK).

Maybe the attitude of this new Corps, their respect for each other, and their intolerance of all kinds of bigotry accounts for recent Commandants and others saying that today's Marine is the best trained, most motivated, and best fighting Corps they have ever seen. My respect and admiration for them, indeed for all the men and women of the Armed Forces can only grow.

How could anyone have other than the utmost regard and confidence in them now that they have decided to tackle that last vestige of intolerance, i.e. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT). Under the able leadership of President Obama, Secretary Gates, OJCS Chairman Mullen, General Petraeaus, Senator Webb and others both high ranking and low the bells are tolling for DADT. To that, once again, it's good riddance to this ill conceived policy.

Oddly enough "The War on Terror" will in part be responsible for ending DADT. Our NATO counterparts have shown it's courage and competence that we value not one's sexual orientation. Our Special Operations Forces were the first to closely serve with openly Gay individuals from the CIA's paramilitary forces and counter-terror FBI agents. As most said, no big deal as long as they performed.

In closing, as General Petraeaus so succinctly stated in his recent testimony before Congress: "The time has come". Indeed it has! The principles embodied in our Constitution continues its long and sometimes tragic and tortuous journey towards that "more perfect union".

Gat6

gatlingun6 wrote: In closing, as General Petraeaus so succinctly stated in his recent testimony before Congress: "The time has come". Indeed it has! The principles embodied in our Constitution continues its long and sometimes tragic and tortuous journey towards that "more perfect union".

Gat6

So, Jim, what kind of military do you want? One that stands up and fights or cries like girls. Below is an excerpt from an MSNBC article (which I'm sure you find authoritative) regarding the recent sinking of a South Korean ship. My stomach turned as I read this part. Perhaps I shouldnt feel that way not knowing all the details and shame on MSNBC for printing this part...Link to the story below that...

"Yells and screams filled the air," witness Kim Jin-ho, a seaman who was on a local passenger ship bound for Baengnyeong, told cable news channel YTN. "Marines on deck were desperately shouting: 'Save me!'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36052055/ns ... iapacific/

I wont say that I directly attribute what you are talking about to the way those Korean sailors behaved in the face of conflict but I will say that the liberal doctrine being pushed on our military will result in a weaker fighting force.

We dont need that in this world. There is too much going on and who know what battle our military might have to sincerely fight in the future. Drug runners from Mexico perhaps. I shudder to think what pacified soldiers might do when they find decapitated corpses or a line of bodies with Columbian neckties...

VBshooter wrote:Another example of PC gone wrong,,, THis country has to stop wanting everyone to like us.. The government is a joke when they start this crap ...If the people of a nation we are spending billions in money and our military members lives has an objection then by all means F,. em!! No more apologies,No more PC, No more period... It;s time to be the nation we truly can be again..... Stop bending over backwards to make freindly with these twits and get back to the vaulues that created this nation.

Hmmm I wonder what American values your intolerant and profane rant typifies. Why pretend, own up to it. The above diatribe is indicative of YOUR values, which of course is your right. But why try and project your values onto greater America? Could it be that you wish to blame some fictional notion of American values for your own intolerance? What nation do you want us to be again? Gives us a year, a date, an era you wish us to return to when we were the nation you claimed we were. I'm curious, exactly where are we bending over backwards, and what action fits that definition?

If you listened to every modern President and Secretary of State our foreign policy goals in a nutshell are a world with less conflict, a world where disagreements are resolved by words, not bullets, a world where the peoples of every nation enjoy some form of representative government, and a world where capitalism is the dominant economic system. If ever those 4 are achieved everything else falls into place, or so we think.

If your rant is taken at face value you to seem want a simple foreign policy. i.e. F... the rest of world!. Did I get it right?

Gat6

next jim will extol the virtues of the United Nations on us.......

GS78 wrote:next jim will extol the virtues of the United Nations on us.......

I'm quivering with anticipation...

He must think the only "good ranting" is one in which you scathingly attack your own country in order to appease your country's enemies, you know, like the Obama 's often do.

gatlingun6 wrote:[ Gat6
The fundamental LAW of our nation — the basis of our liberties — is the Constitution, not the Bible. Indeed, it is the Constitution that elected officials are sworn to uphold.

Really jim, the story here is not whether, or when the inscriptions were placed on the sights. It is the fact that a story like this was made into such a BFD by the media in the first place. Are you going to pretend it(the story itself) wasn't done purposely? with malicious intent? like someone else said pages ago; this story was intended to stir the pot.

We had a saying a long tome ago in another armpit of the world, "If ya don't stir it; it don't stink.


I'm still waiting for you to produce all the fresh new faces of conservatism ready to take the reins of the party, that you invoked in an earlier post on this thread.....?

zephyp wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote: In closing, as General Petraeaus so succinctly stated in his recent testimony before Congress: "The time has come". Indeed it has! The principles embodied in our Constitution continues its long and sometimes tragic and tortuous journey towards that "more perfect union".

Gat6

So, Jim, what kind of military do you want? One that stands up and fights or cries like girls. Below is an excerpt from an MSNBC article (which I'm sure you find authoritative) regarding the recent sinking of a South Korean ship. My stomach turned as I read this part. Perhaps I shouldnt feel that way not knowing all the details and shame on MSNBC for printing this part...Link to the story below that...

"Yells and screams filled the air," witness Kim Jin-ho, a seaman who was on a local passenger ship bound for Baengnyeong, told cable news channel YTN. "Marines on deck were desperately shouting: 'Save me!'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36052055/ns ... iapacific/

I wont say that I directly attribute what you are talking about to the way those Korean sailors behaved in the face of conflict but I will say that the liberal
doctrine being pushed on our military will result in a weaker fighting force.

We dont need that in this world. There is too much going on and who know what battle our military might have to sincerely fight in the future. Drug runners from Mexico perhaps. I shudder to think what pacified soldiers might do when they find decapitated corpses or a line of bodies with Columbian neckties...

ephyp:
You know I do enjoy engaging you; however typically you employ what some might call the stalking horse or the straw man strategy. Here's a couple of examples: "So Jim when did you stop beating your spouse?" or "You know this terrorist has knowledge of a bomb that's set to go off would you torture him to get the information". If this is a conscious strategy, you are trying to shift the terms of debate onto favorable grounds for yourself without first proving a single point. However, in fairness to you I'm not going to say that's your strategy until I know the following:

1. What does an apparent catastrophe non-combat related incident, as far we now know, on an unknown type South Korean naval vessel have to do with homosexuals serving openly in our armed forces? I read the article in the link you gave and others reporting the incident. Did I miss something? Were those screams coming from Gay South Korean Marines?
2. Pray tell what is "liberal doctrine"? Where might I find that phrase defined?
3. How have soldiers been pacified? Who or what has pacified soldiers with what action.
4. What's the point of your "decapitated corpses or line of bodies with Columbian neckties"? Atrocities against American soldiers and American diplomats have happened before. Surely you are not suggesting that ending DADT would somehow affect our response?

Without taking too time and space let's look at the Afghanistan conflict that President Obama Team's smartly renamed the AFPAK Conflict in recognition of the central role of Pakistan in our fight against Al Queda.
1. The President's Team has reinforced and employed a new strategy in AFPAK. NATO is on the offensive in the heart of Taliban territory on both sides of the border. Afghanistan is no longer a NATO Economy of Force mission. The new strategy is one that employs all the elements of National power, not just military power.
2. Drone usage has increased by some 400%, and more are being employed in a wider area as we speak.
3. Pakistan's Army has gotten serious for the first time ever and are in the field actively engaged against the Taliban and Al Queda (Most experts attribute's this change to the personal persuasion of the President with Pakistan's President, and with Secretary Clinton and her Team who are engaged with Pakistan's civilian and military leaders 24/7. The Taliban with the arrest and killings in Karachi are finding out they have no truly safe havens.
4. U.S. paramilitary and Special Operations Forces are in action From Pakistan to Somalia to a degree that has never happened before.
5. For the first time The USAF is training and employing more Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) than at any point in their history. A number of new UAVs are coming online that will provide a quantum leap forward in our capabilities. Several of the new UAVs can stay aloft providing continuous coverage for weeks and months on end without landing.
6. Casualties and capture of key Al Queda and Taliban Leadership has occurred on a greater scale than at any time during the last 7 years.
7. Don't listen to me, listen to the pleas of released Al Queda and Taliban communications where enemy individuals are beseeching Osama to do something, to lead, to come forward, anything.
6. Experts have said that our CIA is more aggressive than ever, and that Director Panetta is interested in success, not political ideology or telling the President what he wants to hear. In a recent example a Predator UAV drone identified the alleged master mind behind the killing of 8 CIA agents in Afghanistan. He was sitting on a roof receiving treatment for a kidney condition. However before they could fire he was joined by his spouse on the roof. The operators informed the Director that the man's spouse was now in the line of fire. Without any hesitation the Director said "take the shot". Later that week the media reported that the Taliban confirmed the death of the insurgent leader and his spouse.

There is evidence from every corner of a new but quiet and very aggressive campaign against Al Queda. The President's Team apparently have no desire or need to rush before the cameras to tout every success large or small in this campaign. Even the American public has noted this change. I know you love polls, well the most recent poll shows a more than 20 point swing in attitudes about the war in AfPAK, 55% support now support it.

I'll close with an answer to your first question. The kind of military I want is in the main the military we already have. As we have heard from the leadership our military is the best equipped, the best trained, the best motivated, and the best fighting force the world has ever seen. I want that plus more of that! I want a military where integrity is what they show by their deeds, not just their words. I want a military dedicated to the principles of honor, duty, country, selfless service, sacrifice, and respect for each other. I want a military that fights like savages, but does not become or act like savages. I want them to understand that war is both a science and an art and I want them to have the professionalism at all levels to master their craft. I want a military that is flexible and one that learns from its mistakes. I want to see more General Odiernos who went from an arrest them all mentality to one of we must protect non-combatants. I want a military that that makes every attempt to understand and think like their enemy. I want them to be confident but not arrogant, compassionate but not indifferent to the plight of non-combatants. I want them to know, as General Petreaus reminded them, that a gun is not always their most important weapon. I want them to be intolerant of intolerance within their ranks. I want them to take their oaths seriously and not subvert the organization and nation to which they have pledged their unyielding loyalty by taking a contradictory oath of organizations, such as Oath Keepers and other so-called self described patriot groups, led by unelected demagogues who seek not to uphold the Constitution but to destroy it. I want them to remember that they represent the best of American values and ideals. I want them to reflect the country for which they
serve. I could go and on, but I think you get the idea.

Why any of this has a thing to do with ending DADT is beyond me. Homosexuals have always served in the armed forces, so why should we force them to conceal who they are in order to serve. General Petreaus and Admiral Mullen are right, the time is now!

Gat6

Jim, we already have the military "you want" you just don't recognize it through all the liberal smoke screens you're trying to see through.

@gatlingun - can you say or spell "diatribe?"

"Gat",

I have but one line to reply to your points 1-7, and two #6's listed above:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100327/ap_ ... war_deaths

If you took the time to read that - there's also double the amount of US deaths and triple the amount of injuries in the first 3 months this year... Kinda makes you wonder why our illustrious "leader" would forecast where our troops were going and how long they'd be there.

As for your rant about "DADT" - what on God's green earth does that have to do with a scripture reference code being placed on a sight? If you want the "best of everything" for our military, shouldn't they purchase the best sights for the job irregardless of what's on the side? Sounds to me like religious discrimination, actually... So what is it about Christians that you don't like?

GS78 wrote:I'm still waiting for you to produce all the fresh new faces of conservatism ready to take the reins of the party, that you invoked in an earlier post on this thread.....?

I hope you packed a lunch. Better yet, I hope you quit waiting - I've got a feeling replying with facts and sources rather than talking points learned from Hillary and Nancy is not one of his strong suits...

CCFan wrote:"Gat",

- I've got a feeling replying with facts and sources rather than talking points learned from Hillary and Nancy is not one of his strong suits...

(pssst).... I'm not really anticipating anything of substance out of this troll, I just like to poke at 'em till they go back under the bridge...

zephyp wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote: The fundamental LAW of our nation — the basis of our liberties — is the Constitution, not the Bible. Indeed, it is the Constitution that elected officials are sworn to uphold.

Ah, and this gets at the very heart of this discussion and very big problem. As a Christian I do not particularly need to see Biblical references in the Constitution. I would much prefer to see men and women with Godly character in office who are sworn to uphold our Constitution. We arent seeing very much of that right now (Godly character OR upholding the Constitution). The reason our Founders wanted separation of church and state wasnt to guarantee our religious freedom. Thats accomplished by the 1st Amendment. They wanted separation because they knew based on history of the Catholic church that far too much power, much of it corrupt, could be and had been exerted over the citizenry.

The Constitution's "power" is limited by the men and women sworn to uphold it who sit in powerful positions. The people's ability to exert power via the Constitution is limited by un-Constitutional laws made by the corrupt legislators - those not upholding what they are sworn to do. The solution is to put honest men and women in office and ensure that legislation passed is IAW the Constitution.

Regarding God's word -- this is a completely different situation. It doesnt matter who speaks or wields it. There is life and power in God's word and His Word needs no help whatsoever from men or women. This is backed up again and again by the Word itself...

You would prefer to see men and women with “Godly character” who are sworn to uphold the Constitution? Are you joking? The Constitution is a political document, so how does one of Godly character swear to uphold a secular document? Please name which politicians who have either run for office, or have been elected who fit that definition in recent memory. What man or woman would be so arrogant as to even hint, or imply that they are of Godly character! In that phrase, I also ask: Whose God?

Neither you nor I can ever fully know or understand God, or God’s ways and therefore God’s character. Yet here you are wanting mere mortal man or woman who represents an insignificant political party to somehow possess an unknowable character. Who will bless this person as authentic, you? You and Islamists are advocating the same thing. This mixture of political ideology and religious theology inevitably corrupts both. As the world has repeatedly seen it’s a toxic and explosive combination where religion suffers the most. Religion simply becomes a tool of mortal men, and women to gain, and hold power by any means necessary. I prefer to see decent, honest, compassionate, intelligent men and women of high moral and ethical character of any religion, or no religion at all running for office and serving. Why would I or anyone else want a politician with the hubris to say he is wielding God’s word on say the floor of the Congress. Mike Hukabee was right when he said Jesus would be too smart to run for office.

It's truly odd that you constantly cite the framers/founders and the Constitution as if that's where your loyalty lies. In fact your rhetoric identifies you as an Anti-Federalist. You would have been among those campaigning to reject that Godless document, as many clerics of the day called it, the Constitution. But for a few votes your side, the Anti-Federalists, would have succeeded in scuttling the Constitution and the United States as we know it.
How do I know you are an Anti-Federalist? For one thing you constantly speak in reverential tones about the Framers in the context of your 2 favorite Amendments, the 1st and the 2nd. The Framers, however, that you so revere, the majority, disparaged the very idea of a Bill of Rights as unnecessary. Before the end of the Constitutional convention in Sep 1787 George Mason proposed that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution. That idea was rejected by majority vote. So the Constitution forwarded to the States for ratification consisted of a Preamble, VII Articles and the signatures of 39 of 55 Framers. George Mason’s and other’s signatures are conspicuously absent most due to the refusal to include a Bill of Rights.
The Federalist papers, which some called the most important post convention documents written in support of ratification of the Constitution , and authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote about the lack of a Bill of Rights : In Federalist No 84, Miscellaneous objections to the Constitution they noted: Several State Constitutions had no Bill of Rights, essential rights were already codified in the Constitution (Among those rights they cited the writ of habeas corpus, no Bills of Attainder, trial by jury, etc.); more importantly they claimed a Bill of Rights would be dangerous, “it would afford a colorable pretext to claim more powers than were granted. Why declare that things shall not be done when there is no power to do it? … . And that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press clearly implies that the national government has a power to regulate it.” You should read all of No 84.
When the Federalists saw that the Constitution was headed for defeat in the 2 most important States, New York and Virginia they relented and agreed that after ratification the new Congress would conclude a Bill of Rights. This was in their view a small price for the creation of a strong central government. They did not see the Bill of Rights as having much of an effect on citizens. In the short run they were right since initially the Bill of Rights did not apply to individual citizens or the States. They were instead express limits on what the new Federal Government.

Another indicator of your true Anti-Federalist sentiments is that you rarely if ever cite a main Constitutional article in your posts. You constantly claim that we the people are unable to exercise our Constitutional rights because corrupt legislators have enacted all these unconstitutional laws. That’s empty rhetoric until you: 1. Name the corrupt legislators. 2. Cite the laws in force that are unconstitutional, or some of them. 3. Which of your rights have been taken away by unconstitutional laws? 4. What rights have you lost since President Obama was inaugurated and who or what took it from you.
Finally I’m surprised that you, who I assume is also a Virginian, do not seem to know that the 1st Amendment’s principle “freedom of religion” came to us not from the U.S. Constitution, but from the Virginia Constitution! Yet another reason that Virginians can take pride in, i.e. the shaping of the national and many State Constitutions.
Gat6
Don’t try and pull a Palin on me

@gatlingun - Ok, Jim. Whatever you say....

gatlingun6 wrote:You would prefer to see men and women with “Godly character” who are sworn to uphold the Constitution? Are you joking?

THAT is one of the problems with this country...

gatlingun6 wrote: You would prefer to see men and women with “Godly character” who are sworn to uphold the Constitution? Are you joking?

Actually I was very serious. If we had people with Godly character running this country we would not be having this discourse. There would be far fewer problems than we currently have. Both sides a guilty and so are we the people for not demanding it. We've allowed ourselves to be suckered in by "diversity" "tolerance" "political correctness" when we should have demanded morals, character, and ethics from our leaders.

What do we get instead. A bunch of power crazed lunatics looking to take over the country.

Here's a small example that really gets me in a knot. Many of these so called leaders stand firm on the statement "I'm a US congressman" like its something special and revered.

Well Mr. US Congressman -- I am a US citizen and I pay your salary. You work for me. And btw you are fired...

zephyp wrote:[ Well Mr. US Congressman -- I am a US citizen and I pay your salary. You work for me. And btw you are fired...

It was like this a long time ago,now the congressperson works for the special interest group that supplies the most perks.The people are regulated into obscurity, and held in reserve until one or more politicians needs their vote for re-election.

GS78 wrote:

zephyp wrote:[ Well Mr. US Congressman -- I am a US citizen and I pay your salary. You work for me. And btw you are fired...

It was like this a long time ago,now the congressperson works for the special interest group that supplies the most perks.The people are regulated into obscurity, and held in reserve until one or more politicians needs their vote for re-election.

Indeed. And soon they (the dems) will also get 12 million spanish speaking voters on their side...