By Anchors aweigh……
A panel of three flag officers Friday announced their recommendation that Capt. Holly Graf leave the Navy with a general discharge.
Graf showed little emotion as she listened to the findings of the board of inquiry at the Washington Navy Yard: By a vote of 2-1, the board found she had committed misconduct; by unanimous vote, it found she had committed conduct unbecoming of an officer for the maltreatment and cruelty toward her crew as commanding officer of the Yokosuka, Japan-based cruiser Cowpens.
The panel unanimously voted to recommend she be separated from the Navy with a general discharge and be allowed to retire as a captain for completing honorable service “for a period of no less than six months” at that rank.
Adm. Mark Buzby read the findings after the board had deliberated most of the morning and into the afternoon. The findings will be forwarded to Navy Personnel Command; they will not be final unless signed by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.
The findings followed three days of testimony that painted Graf as a complicated commanding officer who was at once a competent, proven wartime commander and one who consistently alienated, belittled and berated those under her command.- Navy Times
Graf’s sister Robin is a Navy Admiral. She could be pulling strings to save her sister’s career. I wouldn’t get too excited by this panel’s decision yet.
12:34 am on December 5th, 2010 1
"Holly Graf should get general discharge"
I doubt she could even get a petty officer third class discharge. I mean it's lonely out there at sea and all… but… honestly, she just isn't that hot.
12:40 am on December 5th, 2010 2
I love these men hating dyke nutjobs, lotz of these crazies in the military.
1:28 am on December 5th, 2010 3
Was that a woman? I thought it was a guy.
Sigh… you guys are so unfortunate…
4:21 am on December 5th, 2010 4
I hope she gets a urethral discharge.
4:48 am on December 5th, 2010 5
Agree with TOM. Which explains alot about my situation and why I travel.
10:13 am on December 5th, 2010 6
It's sad to lose a "competent, proven wartime commander".
11:16 am on December 5th, 2010 7
Glans,
Take the time to read the milbogs under "Bubbleheads" by navy guys more informed about the situation than us.
Graf was a typical incompetent nincompoop of Military blood who should have never been in service.
12:52 pm on December 5th, 2010 8
The Navy because of this commander probably lost a lot of good sailors who didn't re-enlist because of her & probably some civilians never enlisted in the first place because sailors put out the word about her. Chickenhead #1, You said that 'she just isn't that hot'. In my opinion she isn't hot at ALL, I wouldn't f her with your Richard. She has the sex appeal of bread mold if you ask me. I'd rather do a porcupine doggy style than to do her. She's probably a snotty dyke b!+(h.
4:18 pm on December 5th, 2010 9
"who was at once a competent, proven wartime commander"
How many US naval engagements did she participate in? I thought the last one was in the mid-80s in the Gulf.
4:24 pm on December 5th, 2010 10
No big chicken dinner? Come on!
8:43 pm on December 5th, 2010 11
Tom Langley 8, are you sure you wouldn't f her with ChickenHead's Richard? The thought did cross your mind.
12:11 am on December 6th, 2010 12
You all talk like guys who have never given some rancid biitch a good hatefunk.
Try it.
Just as I'm about to fire the cannon, I like to corkscrew two fingers in her butt, pull 'em out, wipe them across her upper lip and yell, "Still think yer shiat don't stink?"
Bang, zip up and wipe my fingers along the sofa and on the curtains on my way out… and don't even close the door behind me.
That is all this one needed.
4:09 am on December 6th, 2010 13
Glans #11, I must have been having an acid flashback, lol. Chickenhead aka the master #12. I laughed so hard when I read your comment I almost fell out of the f'ing chair.
6:26 am on December 6th, 2010 14
I had a calculus professor that looked EXACTLY like her.
She was around 40 and single and more asexual rather than dyke. I never saw signs of man-hating.
She was really sharp but and was something sexy about her… maybe in an unachievable way… or the whole bookwork/nerdette thing.
I crashed a house party with an older, richer crowd and somehow she showed up there by herself… appeared out of nowhere and handed me a Jack and Coke. Maybe she crashed it, too. There was a live band and, after a couple of drinks, I asked her to dance. She just smiled. We hung out for an hour or so and then drifted away for whatever reason. She probably recognized that I was hunting. I took a fixed-up plump girl home but only got to 2nd base.
After that, I chatted with her in her office every now and then… the teenage fantasy in me kinda thought it might go somewhere but it never did. There was never any inappropriate talk but, looking back, I think she might have been toying with me a little… giving subtle signals of tone and body language and watching my reaction.
UPDATE: I just looked her up… she has a girlfriend, no kids. So that's that. I also remember why she was attractive. SHE SMILED. I checked out an old and current picture of her and she pretty much looks the same.
Anyway, all yapping aside, my point here is…
I find beauty in a lot of women… even when they don't see it… or, more likely than not, they refuse to see it… mostly because they are too proud to develop that beauty because it makes them not same/equal to a man. Irritating.
Holly Graf, apart from an attitude change, just needs some sexy clothes, a layer of makeup and a sincere smile… and she could be kinda hot.
To back up this rather extraordinary claim, I leave you with Pink… who looks a bit like a heavier Holly Graf… makeup and no makeup.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/indepth/pin…
http://www.celebmo.com/2009/08/pink-without-makeu…
7:30 am on December 6th, 2010 15
Chickenhead #14, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. When you said that she just needed a layer of makeup is like saying that all a bombed out building in Iraq needs is a coat of paint. Somebody might say that they would do her if they were wearing 'beer goggles'. Hell, I think I would need a beer Hubble telescope. You might have a point though after looking at your links about Pink whom I've never heard of. Assuming she's famous I guess I'm just out of touch. Anyway I'd bet that Holly Graf is a dyke, I'd hate to see what her butch buddy looks like.
8:03 am on December 6th, 2010 16
TL #15, I bet she would look ok if she were gaged and bent over a table. I'm just saying…that would likely be her good side.
8:40 am on December 6th, 2010 17
Good old Retired GI, you'd f*ck anything that breathes and crawls on its four legs.
9:19 am on December 6th, 2010 18
Retired GI #16, Yeah bend her over, gag her, pull down my pants & 'down periscope'. I'd need to drink a fifth of Jack or a combat bottle of soju first. With that image in my mind I guess I can rule out having sex tonight.
10:29 am on December 6th, 2010 19
"Was that a woman? I thought it was a guy.
Sigh… you guys are so unfortunate…
"
For once I'll agree with Tom…Woof!
"Aha, aha, lady looks like a du-ude" (sung to the air of that Aerosmith song)
10:32 am on December 6th, 2010 20
#14,
I'm dedicating this song to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_nNNIYTy9g
1:51 pm on December 6th, 2010 21
Sam Kinison had a great skit ( for the ladies ) about how to understand their men. It was funny because it was true.
2:31 pm on December 6th, 2010 22
#21,
Talk about being a mastering an art from. Purely genius. That guy knew how to work a crowd like nobody but a disillusioned preacher ever could.
"Do you want to get married? Do you want to settle down and raise a family?…Will you do me a favor? Remember this face: HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! REMEMBER THAT FACE! THAT WILL BE YOU IF YOU EVER GET MARRIED! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
And Jesus didn't have a wife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwG9Tojg9I&fe…
But my favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNoJ2BzSRU
"You know, it just occurred to us that there wouldn't be world hunger if you lived WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! DO YOU GET IT? NOTHING GROWS THERE!"
2:37 pm on December 6th, 2010 23
"Talk about being a mastering an art from."
Damn, and I wasn't even drunk.
2:41 pm on December 6th, 2010 24
…"You see this, you see this? This is sand. Yeah, it's sand. Do you know what it's going to be a hundred years from now? IT'S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN THE DESERT! WE'RE GONNA TAKE YOU WERE THE FOOD IS!"
11:15 pm on December 6th, 2010 25
Hah! It just hit me; now I remember! CAPT Graf looks just like Gary Busey.
12:41 am on December 7th, 2010 26
Merry Christmas Teadrinker—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkRAMEdmEY&fe…
4:34 am on December 7th, 2010 27
Conway East #25, You hit the nail right on the head. The way this 'commander' behaved it seems to me that should could have had a serious head injury, just like Gary Busey.
8:26 am on December 7th, 2010 28
ChickenHead 14, Pink without makeup looks like a Homo sapiens.
10:33 am on December 7th, 2010 29
"Merry Christmas Teadrinker—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkRAMEdmEY&fe…
Thanks, I hadn't seen that one in years.
Merry Christmas to you too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXC8_A7L2rI
11:05 am on December 7th, 2010 30
Add some Jim Beam, wait till dusk and we have a party.
3:44 pm on December 7th, 2010 31
Man, do I miss shooting (my favorite ever has to be what you guys call the M240 in the US. There's something cathartic about holding it tight against your shoulder and repeating, "Sonovabitch, sonovabitch, sonovabitch" as you let out 3 round bursts).
There used to be a skeet shooting club nearby, but it's closed now. Boy did I luck out when some of my friends invited me for a game of airsoft recently. It's not the same, but it's pleasant nonetheless. They were impressed with my marksmanship, asked me if I had played before…"Dude, I've owned a rifle since I was 8".
4:42 pm on December 7th, 2010 32
Teadrinker,
”Dude, I’ve owned a rifle since I was 8″
I don't know if I should mark you as A-OK in my book…
…or put you down as yet another typical liberal, foreign and domestic, who never fails to condemn "all those gun in America" yet sees no problem owning one themselves.
Despite your Canadian and leftist handicaps, I think more highly of you than it may seem…
…but this needs a little clarification before I turn on the Attaboy Gnerator or put a new fuel rod in the Ridiculifier.
2:32 am on December 8th, 2010 33
ChickenHead > TeaBagger
7:05 am on December 8th, 2010 34
“I don’t know if I should mark you as A-OK in my book…
…or put you down as yet another typical liberal, foreign and domestic, who never fails to condemn “all those gun in America” yet sees no problem owning one themselves.”
Well, my father once told me, “If you ever aim a gun at someone who isn’t trying to kill you first, I will wring your neck.” You see, in Canada guns are mostly for hunting and target practice. We don’t see much of a need for them for self-defense. Your problem isn’t the number of guns (we like guns too), it’s your culture of fear and violence. I first realized that when we got American channels on cable TV. Watching American news is depressing.
9:13 am on December 8th, 2010 35
Teadrinker,
“If you ever aim a gun at someone who isn’t trying to kill you first, I will wring your neck.”
Your father had the right idea about what to do. He also had some good ideas about guns.
That’s a joke.
“You see, in Canada guns are mostly for hunting and target practice.”
As they are in America… despite the Hollywood image that stupid foreigners buy into, people aren’t running around with machine guns killing cops on a daily basis. That is mostly in the movies.
“We don’t see much of a need for them for self-defense.”
In reality, most Americans won’t either. The biggest reason for a well-armed population is to protect the citizens from an expanding, arbitrary and intrusive government… although that theory doesn’t seem to be working these days.
“Your problem isn’t the number of guns (we like guns too), it’s your culture of fear and violence.”
That is more a matter of perception than reality.
America has a population ten times larger than Canada. Crazy shyt that happen once a month in Canada should happen every couple of days in America… and that’s pretty much the way it is.
Further, Canada’s population density is much less… meaning a lot of crazy baastards have to go farther to find trouble.
Also, much of the violent crime is centered in certain areas. One can blame culture, race, income inequity, etc… but the reality is that much of America is very safe.
And, strangely to foreigners, the better armed the average citizens are in an area, the less crime there is.
And, before you rush off to quote 2nd hand statistics, don’t believe ANYTHING you read. Looking at the raw numbers that the FBI publishes, around 90% of gun deaths are suicides. It has been this way for several decades… and it stops that whole line of anti-gun argument when the less-informed whiners start yapping.
So, that’s that.
I’ll mark you down in the Good Book, though.
9:23 pm on December 8th, 2010 36
The 2nd amendment was crafted not to allow US citizens to protect themselves from some foreign entity or to shoot food. It was crafted to ensure citizens could form militias and fight off the US Government should it ever turn into a dictatorship or tyranny. Understand that our founding fathers didn't trust governments and designed the entire system to prevent a single group of people from holding power for very long. The entire purpose of the two party system was that each party keeps the other one off balance and prevents a single entity from dominating the legislative / executive and judicial branches of government. The purpose of two separate entities for law making was to ensure both big and small states had equal representation and that neither group could dominate the law making process.
Its work out pretty well so far, we haven't had a president yet attempt to make himself dictator for life like Chavez or have executive powers transferred to his future non-elected permanent position like Putin. We haven't had a single political party wipe out all competition then make laws to ensure their eternal monopoly of power like the CCP. In general its a pretty damn amazing system all things considering.
Our gun toting liberal-bashing a$$holes are part of that system. They serve to keep the left side in check and prevent them from getting any radical ideas like deciding the right to vote should apply to liberals only, or that the right to free speech should only apply to left approved speech. Same as the latte sipping eco-nut liberals serve to prevent the rights from turning our country into a giant government dictatorship, they also serve to prevent the corporations from turning the country into a giant oligarchy although lately they've been slipping in this role.
12:31 am on December 9th, 2010 37
Conway East,
"ChickenHead > TeaBagger"
ChickenHead greater than TeaBagger
Some truths are self-evident.
someotherguy,
Well said.
Sadly, as of late, every conservative, every liberal, every Republican, every Democrat, every check and every balance have become reliant on large corporations to obtain and maintain their position.
The goals of the corporations don't always fit with the goals of the ordinary citizens who rely upon the government to protect their interests.
This can be seen in everything from a corporate push for over-regulation (to stifle competition) to tax-eating corporate welfare programs (to prop up failing-but-connected companies) to wasteful government spending on unnecessary and overpriced goods and services (to pay back companies with generous lobbiests or politicians who serve on their board of directors)… the list goes on.
A few hundred years ago, there was a transfer of power from the church to the state. In the past decade, and the next few, there will be a rapid transfer of power from the state to the corporations.
This may be the next step in social evolution… or it may be a terrible, terrible thing.
The Second Amendment was designed to insure that average citizens can force the ruling minority to protect their interests.
At this time, Americans have the firearms… they just don't have the motivation… yet. Hopefully, once they find it, it won't be too late.
12:33 am on December 9th, 2010 38
4:03 am on December 9th, 2010 39
Gun confiscation after Katrina. Not that you would have heard about this from the MSM.
http://www.givethemback.com/
11:04 am on December 9th, 2010 40
ChickenHead 34 says:
"The biggest reason for a well-armed population is to protect the citizens from an expanding, arbitrary and intrusive government… "
So, the aggrieved citzens are going to wage asymmetric war against the Feds? That's the one thing that would make me support the Feds against the aggrieved citizens.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to have a well-regulated militia. In 1789, what was the most pressing need for a well-regulated militia? To deter servile insurrections.
11:47 am on December 9th, 2010 41
Glans…
I thought you were only a student of pop science. It seems you are a fan of pop history, too.
Do you suppose the founding fathers wrote nothing else explaining their. thinking and motivations?
11:52 am on December 9th, 2010 42
Well, honestly, if we want to keep freedoms in our countries, its not the Pollies that need to be shot, its just about every CEO and CFO in the land. … and most of the lawyers.
12:46 pm on December 9th, 2010 43
ChickenHead 41, please provide links to the founding fathers' thinking about the Second Amendment. At the time it was proposed, debated, and approved. Not decades later. What were they really thinking? Show me, I'm eager to learn.
2:31 pm on December 9th, 2010 44
#42…. you do realize that at least 90% of our politicians are attorneys don't you? Your statement is contradictory. Most CEOs and CFO are good and honest people that work for small/medium sized companies that employ 80% of Americans. The problems in our country were created by attorneys turned politicians, banksters and the unions. Are you really so dense that you believe every CEO/CFO in American (or just about every) is corrupt? You've obviously never lived/worked in the real world.
3:49 pm on December 9th, 2010 45
43, anyone can "look-it-up".
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This version was distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation.
Adopted on December 15th 1791, along with the Bill of Rights.
See also: http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
4:46 pm on December 9th, 2010 46
@44
Nice to know we'll be getting 2-for-1s with the Lawyers then.
4:56 pm on December 9th, 2010 47
And I'm sure they're not all corrupt. I don't mind the small-to-medium enterprises (work with a lot of people on this range and they're usually good people) but damn I'd like to see some of the larger puppies get their collective heads mounted on the Brooklyn Bridge.
And former lawyers are still lawyers
5:24 pm on December 9th, 2010 48
Retired GI 45, then you agree with me, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not to resist the federal government's authority, but to support a well-regulated militia. See, ChickenHead 41, that's not so hard.
Now hear's the hard part: the main function of a well-regulated militia in 1789 was to prevent servile insurrections, not to resist federal officials.
10:00 pm on December 9th, 2010 49
Glans…
You wish to see the history and meaning of the Second Amendment as you see so many other things… as a highly-condensed, dumbed-down soundbite that allows you to form a frantically-held opinion without any work or full understanding on your part.
To fully grasp any logical step-by-step explanation, you would have to understand the relationship between America and Britian… and, later the federal government, the states and the citizens.
You would have to understand what a militia was, how it related to the population, the amount of firepower held by the citizens in relationship to the standing army, the transformation of various aspects of the militia over time and many other important factors that are currently fashionable to minimize the importance of.
You would have to understand the Founding Fathers' views on corruption and tyranny… and their belief that the best of intentions quickly became corrupt and tyrannical without checks on power… and balances on those checks.
You would have to read and understand the important points in the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists when the Constitution was being hammered out and the Bill of Rights was being considered.
You have to understand why the Supreme Court, case after case, upholds the right of private firearms ownership with no relation to a militia… the latest being District of Columbia v. Heller which, according to the syllabus prepared by the US Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." This was broadened and reinforced soon after with McDonald v. Chicago.
You would have to read pages of text from a variety of authors to understand the deep thinking of the time which a simple quote or two will not convey.
But you are lazy and easily driven by emotion… so you just want a couple of easy quotes.
Fine.
The problem isn't finding them… the problem is selecting the best out of the HUNDREDS of statements written and spoken which make it very clear one of the reason for personal firearm ownership was to keep a government from becoming corrupt or tyrannical.
I can't quote them off the top of my head so I spent about 30 seconds to look these up… as can you.
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
- John Adams
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster
So, Glans… what can I say? Suck it?
2:16 am on December 10th, 2010 50
Glans #48, unless the Federal authority goes rogue and does not follow the Constitution.
Then it is every Americans responsibility to follow the 2nd amendment and resist the Federal Authority.
Sorry Glans.
I took an oath to defend the "Constitution" from enemys, "both foreign and domestic".
As did every man and woman that does or ever has worn a military uniform.
Not this Socilist Congress or ANY President/Ruler.
The right of the PEOPLE to own weapons, shall not be infringed.
As Obama has stated, the Constitution is a set of Negative rules. Designed to limit the Federal Powers…and his.
Who said it? A little revolution from time to time is a good thing.
There was another one that I remember: Something about the tree of freedom is watered by the blood of Patriots.
America was founded by pissed off men that had no wish to be taken care of or ruled by those that thought themselves to be better than they. Thus, the 2nd amendment. Which makes the 1st amendment possible.
Bottom line: The Feds go too far and the military will have a problem.
Do they side with those writing their checks and declare war on the American people or side with the people? Either way, blood would flow. I don't like to think about it. But at least I "can" think about it.
But don't worry, I'm not makng plans. Unless you call stocking up on ammo and MREs to be "plans". I still have "hope" that the vote will be the weapon of choice.
But after watching law abiding citizens being disarmed after Katrina, my hope did fade.
The 2nd amendment was and is designed so the "People" will be able to defend themselves from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.
Simple enough for you?
As ChickenHead said: "Suck it"
7:17 am on December 10th, 2010 51
ChickenHead 49, Retired GI 50, show me that the founders said, in connection with the debate over the second amendment, that its purpose was to enable citizens to resist the federal government.
11:01 am on December 10th, 2010 52
Glans, you have been shown. But you couldn't see. It was right there.
12:43 pm on December 10th, 2010 53
Retired GI 52, you didn't show me anything. ChickenHead 49 at least gave some quotes, but no clue as to when those statements were made. So y'all haven't shown me evidence that the second amendment was intended for anything but a well-regulated militia under the authority of the government. You haven't shown me that it was intended for armed opposition to the federal government.
12:55 pm on December 10th, 2010 54
Glans: It's obvious you're just arguing for the sake of argument.
Furthermore, the only government that regulates militias are state governments. It was designed that way as a hedge against Federal intrusion.
If you want to argue your POV, then why don't you offer up some evidence that counters the assertions made instead of asking them to do all the work for you? They've done a pretty good job of providing supporting evidence backing their assertions on what the founders intended.
1:12 pm on December 10th, 2010 55
Retired GI,
Don't even bother. He is just trolling.
There is no discussion, no counter-argument, no alternate explanation…
…just a lazy attempt to see if he can get a further response.
Keep in mind, this reflects itself in Glan's core values… and likely gives us an indication how he mismanages his life in general.
From his almost child-like support of Ling and Lee to his blind faith in global warming, he likes to make unsupported, and perhaps even outrageous, statements based on the most shallow and blatantly shaded sources.
When asked to support his statements, he is quiet. When shown information or well-founded opinion contrary to his position, he is again quiet. When shown evidence that he is completely wrong, he simply ignores it and restates his position as if nothing was said.
You can't have a meaningful discussion with someone like this… you cannot expand their thinking or better yourself by expanding yours based on their superior knowledge or analysis.
You can only make fun of them.
As I stated before, Glans is looking for a dumbed-down spoon-fed soundbite… which, based on his comments here, is how he best forms his opinions.
I gave it to him… but I guess I didn't dumb it down enough… as it didn't seem to take.
For those of you who are interested, the Library of Congress has the the original letter where Thomas Jefferson said, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc10…
It's hard to read… but there it is in sephia and yellow.
1:24 pm on December 10th, 2010 56
Glans, if you read the history of the second amendment you will see that the states would not have ratified the US Constitution without a right of private individuals to own arms. The rights in the bill of rights ARE individual rights & are limitations on the powers of government. The 'militia' has always been historically defined as the whole populace. It doesn't make any sense that the government would pass a constitutional right that IT would have the right to own arms, the congress has the power of the purse, they can just buy guns if they want to. If you don't see the obvious inferences in the quotes that Chickenhead posted it's because you don't want to see them. There are numerous examples in the Federalist papers & also in English common law which was where many of our constitutional principles came from. If they ever come to take my guns they better have more than 30 people (a full magazine). The Declaration of Independence states that we have certain unalienable rights that come from our CREATOR. If our rights come from government then government can take them away. Since they come from God then NO government can take them away & if any government tries to take them away then the people have a right, and a duty to resist. We as a nation were founded as a free people resisting tyranny & this was of course foremost in the minds of the founding fathers as we had just won our independence. From my cold dead hands…
2:23 pm on December 10th, 2010 57
Thomas Lee 54, the very text of the amendment says it's for a well-regulated militia. Tom Langley 56, thanks for joining the discussion. Please show me where the founders, urging approval of the second amendment, said that its purpose was for aggrieved citizens to defend themselves against the new federal government.
2:38 pm on December 10th, 2010 58
ChickenHead 55, thank you. That quote comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Stephens Smith, dated November 13, 1787. But Congress proposed the Bill of Rights to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789. So your quote, while historically significant, doesn't show Jefferson explaining that the purpose of the second amendment is for aggrieved citizens to defend themselves against the federal government.
I appreciate your effort, looking up the actual words of the founders. I always learn from my exchanges with you.
3:04 pm on December 10th, 2010 59
A regulated Militia regulated by the STATES and NOT the FEDS.
3:47 pm on December 10th, 2010 60
Maybe this is simple enough.
http://concealed.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/second-…
3:52 pm on December 10th, 2010 61
Or perhaps this will be helpful.
http://guncite.com/journals/kmich.html
Look under: Personal atitudes of the Founders
Somehow, I just don't believe you will understand. ChickenHead is usually right about people.
4:05 pm on December 10th, 2010 62
OK…
So… Thomas Jefferson clearly stated in 1787 that he believed people could only preserve their liberties by taking up arms against their rulers from time to time.
Further, he wrote to James Madison on January 30, 1787, "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
His writings influenced his close friend James Madison… also known as the Father of the Bill of Rights.
But, of course, casual correspondence between those directly involved won't convince you of the thinking of the times.
Fine.
Let's look at some more substantial documents which reflect agreed upon ideas of larger groups.
The Declaration of Independence…
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"
Not only did it advocate armed resistance to tyrannical government, it acted upon it. It did not say British… it said "Governments".
The State Constitutions of New Hampshire, Kentucky, Maryland and Texas…
The "Right of Revolution" is an established philosophical concept (well known by the Founding Fathers) which allows for the subjects of a nation to overthrow a government which acts against their common interests.
It is stated in the New Hampshire constitution as…
"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
From statements of the Founding Fathers to official documents adopted with the consent of large groups of leaders, it is a clear and established concept that American citizens have the right (and, perhaps, duty) to resist tyranny by their government.
This right means nothing without the power to enforce it. For this reason, the right of firearm ownership was placed second only to the right of free speech.
All of this is not spelled out in dumbed-down soundbites because its intents and purposes are blindingly self-evident.
To continue playing, Glans, you must now quote people or documents which contain statements that the citizens did not have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government or did not have the right to possess the means to do so.
I'll even help you… although, as that faction lost out, it won't do you any good in trying to disprove a motivating factor for the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens from their government.
Just as now, where liberal and conservatives disagree, there was disagreement at that time… some were worried about a mob rule mentality if an armed population rose up against the government.
In the end, most agreed to have faith in the newly formed government and established rules of law… but, once again, the Second Amendment was added, against the wishes of some, to insure that newly formed government didn't become corrupted.
And that's about all I have to say about that.
Already I have this feeling like I'm trying to teach a fish to ride a bicycle.
4:42 pm on December 10th, 2010 63
Don't like guns? Fine. Don't own one.
Stay the hell away from mine, silly liberal fa&&ots.
5:56 pm on December 10th, 2010 64
Vince 63, I love guns; that's my natural right. I also pay taxes so my police and soldiers can have guns. My country is the best-armed in the history of the world.
ChickenHead 62, here's the most pertinent document:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There you have it. The purpose of the second amendment is a well regulated militia. And the purpose of the militia is state security. Nobody proposing that amendment or advocating it ever said it was to help aggrieved citizens resist the new federal government. If even one founding father had said, "Vote for this amendment. It gives you the wherewithal to resist the new United States government," you would have linked to it. That was not the purpose at all. The constitution does not authorize its own violent overthrow!
8:33 pm on December 10th, 2010 65
Would that be state security in terms of united States, or in terms of the United States?
9:20 pm on December 10th, 2010 66
Vince 65, I don't see the second amendment drawing that distinction. Do you?
10:53 pm on December 10th, 2010 67
Something about a "free state", and "the right of the people…."
Nothing about a central government protecting itself…
11:00 pm on December 10th, 2010 68
..from an oppressed citizenry.
12:35 am on December 11th, 2010 69
Glans, who frequently champions some of the worst intrusive liberal points of view here, sees the wording of the Second Amendment as a nominative absolute grammatical construction.
This "collective rights" model has been the preferred interpretation of the liberal elite, gun control advocates and fist-level thinking idealists who insist they know what is best for everyone.
Fortunately, the courts interpret the Second Amendment by the "individual rights" model as containing a prefatory clause followed by an operative clause… hence rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller where it was specifically stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia".
This is in keeping with other amendments which state "the right of the people" in individual rather than collective terms.
So, Glans' first point that the Second Amendment is all about the militia is shown to be false… not by me, but by the Supreme Court of the United States.
"Nobody proposing that amendment or advocating it ever said it was to help aggrieved citizens resist the new federal government.
Once again, Glans shows himself to be a shallow thinker… parroting modern leftist revisionist interpretations of history. Yet this history is very, very clear if one cares to look at it… but it has to be looked at from a larger perspective based on the thinking, current events and political situation of the time… not the type of task a suckling of leftist pop history is up for.
There is no easy soundbite that modern liberals rely on to form opinions and support their ideology… but, as many posts above have demonstrated, there are clear indications of the thinking of the influential Founding Fathers based on their statements. There are records of the concerns of the Federalists (fear of mob rule) and Anti-federalists (fear of federal tyranny over an unarmed population). And there are very establish government documents (cited above) WHICH CLEARLY STATE THAT CITIZENS HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF REVOLUTION.
This is all lost upon Glans, perhaps intentionally… but I continue posting on this topic for the benefit of others who might find the memory of this knowledge useful in some future debate… which does its part to keep the important Second Amendment strong in the minds of Americans.
So, Glans' second point is shown to be false… as, even with a clear and undisputed chain of facts in front of him, he states the opposite to be true.
"If even one founding father had said, “Vote for this amendment. It gives you the wherewithal to resist the new United States government,” you would have linked to it. That was not the purpose at all."
And, Glans, is wrong yet again.
I EXACTLY quoted (and linked to an original document) where a Founding Father made it very clear the importance of being able to resist a federal government… or any tyrannical government.
"The constitution does not authorize its own violent overthrow!"
Wrong again.
Glans is intentionally, or ignorantly, introducing a false statement. There was no thought of a violent overthrow of the newly created constitution… which, for the most part, was believed to be just and sound.
The Second Amendment was included as a check on GOVERNMENT power. The Constitution was not the issue… the GOVERNMENT was the issue and the Second Amendment insured "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."
…and the very existence of the Second Amendment acts as the deterrent it was intended to be.
As usual, Glans is full of popular yet generally false statements, silly first-level thinking points of view and leftist-championed ideals.
…and it is very easy to shred that nonsense up at about the speed at which I can type.
10:20 am on December 11th, 2010 70
Several people have argued that the founders believed weapons in the citizens' hands were necessary for the defense of liberty. I never disputed that. I'm just telling you, read the second amendment. It supports a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state. You can twist it, the supremes can twist it, but the second amendment, as proposed by congress and approved by the states, doesn't enshrine the revolutionary right of citizens to overthrow an oppressive government.
Here's your reasoning:
principle A is right, and principle B is right, and law X supports principle A.
Therefore law X supports principle B.
And your evidence supporting this reasoning is, "The guy that disagrees with me is a dork."
1:40 pm on December 11th, 2010 71
Hi dork
Your failure to understand that the weapons owned by the People are to defend the People is simply amazing. To defend from any threat. Be it the home invader or an out of control Federal Government that has forgotten it works for the people, to do the peoples will.
Perhaps it is just to simple for you to understand. That, or you are a member of the gun hating Loony Left Liberal Party that hates freedom and bows to Obama each night.
Either way, I'm glad that you have the freedom to put voice to your misguided thoughts.
You have a fine Liberal day there Buddy.
See you at the next elections.
2:32 pm on December 11th, 2010 72
Retired GI 71, I (Glans 70) just told you that I don't dispute that the founders believed weapons in the citizens’ hands were necessary for the defense of liberty. To rise to Chickenhead's level, you'll have to improve your reading skills.
And, by the way, Obama's North Korea policy is the best we've seen in decades. Don't believe me; ask GI Korea.
3:35 pm on December 11th, 2010 73
I could never rise to ChickenHeads level Glans. But I do feel quite impressed with myself that you would think to compare this simple soldier to him. THANKS
Let me guess: Obama's policy on the DPRK is to … Bow deeply at the waste and apologize for kicking their behind for three years? Go back to doomed "Talks"?
When he bombs the DMC, let me know. THEN, I will be impressed.
As for GI Korea, if I remember right, he is an Officer. I have respect for only a handfull of Officers. They pretty much have to buy me a drink before I'll even consider it. He hasn't even offered
But I have "hope" that will "change". 
4:47 pm on December 11th, 2010 74
Retired GI 73, Obama's policy is no reward for intransigence, and that's better than what came before.
5:23 pm on December 11th, 2010 75
So he didn't Bow? He didn't apologogize?
He is going to TALK, right. What about?
They are going to talk about what they want from him. He will say there is a breakthru. They will say they will be nice … IF.
He will give them what they want. They will do what they always do.
Obama is too stupid to understand that.
Guess we know what to think about you for believing it.
6:40 pm on December 11th, 2010 76
Retired GI 75, who was the last US president to have a better North Korea policy than Obama?
3:03 am on December 12th, 2010 77
Better question: who was the last POTUS to HAVE a policy on the DPRK. Or to alter the policy from the prior POTUS.
I wrote much more before this short post, but it didn't submit successfully. As you are obviously one of the Obama Zombies, you wouldn't have understood it anyway.
Another question: Who was the last POTUS to turn over a presser to a former POTUS so he could go to a party?
None of the country leaders respect Obama. He is weak. Now that his number one Puppet Master is dethroned, he will be less dangerous and more amusing.
Now lets see if I can successfully submit this one….
7:56 pm on October 14th, 2011 78